pathfinder = D&D 3.5 = stack every modifier under the sun to get a +1+1+1+2+4+2+1 attack bonus so you can kill monsters. multiclass seven different classes to get those bonuses.
baldur's gate 3 = D&D 5e = i dunno be a single class and prebuff i guess
the latter has fewer idiosyncracies and i'm way more comfortable recommending it to normal people.
Pathfinder: WotR is perfectly approachable with the single class and buff your party approach, and you can make a power-gamer multiclass character in Baldur's Gate 3.
The key difference between a 3E style game and a later version is that the floor became higher and the ceiling somewhat lower. 3E comes with ways to cripple one's character, or to challenge oneself with a substandard build. They aren't presented as such because the idea of trap choices and learning about the game to the point where you avoid them was an actual design direction in 3E. Third edition also had way too many ways to power game. Selling broken powers via new subclasses with new supplements was the whole business model. And Pathfinder is nothing if not a refined, modernized version of 3.5, which means that it inherits all of that while adding idiosyncracies of its own. 5E by contrast has much more straightforward character building.
Wrath comes with it's own set of incentives for min maxxing in the form of Mythic Paths, each of which synergize with certain character roles better than others. Sometimes that synergy is in spite of character fantasy too. Furthermore, Owlcat's balance is harder overall than the tabletop games'. So of course, while the game is much more chill on Normal and below, if you play on Core you really do want to read up on the builds that people came up with. Hell, I tell people who want to start off with Core to pick their Mythic Path first and then pick a class that works well with them. It just saves on a lot of frustration overall.
Like, it's not so much that WotR is fine if you just use a single class and buff. Sometimes that's optimal and prebuffing in every way you can is a requirement, not a win more. Incidentally, multiclassing caster is a bad idea more often than not. Baldur's Gate 3 just lacks a lot of the 3E chaff and is a better game to start with if someone's never played D&D before. 2E was even more straightforward when it came to character building, it was just somewhat weird, opaque, and quaint in a few ways that make it a strange starter as well.
This is a very concise way of putting it, thanks. The 5e system cuts out most of the (bad/filler) character choices, and let's the players focus on the character.
Fwiw, the Pathfinder games are very creative and interesting as well. If you're into the fantasy of becoming an angel or conquering your own kingdom in an RPG, I'd give them a go.
pathfinder = D&D 3.5 = stack every modifier under the sun to get a +1+1+1+2+4+2+1 attack bonus so you can kill monsters. multiclass seven different classes to get those bonuses.
baldur's gate 3 = D&D 5e = i dunno be a single class and prebuff i guess
the latter has fewer idiosyncracies and i'm way more comfortable recommending it to normal people.
Pathfinder: WotR is perfectly approachable with the single class and buff your party approach, and you can make a power-gamer multiclass character in Baldur's Gate 3.
Well, that all depends.
The key difference between a 3E style game and a later version is that the floor became higher and the ceiling somewhat lower. 3E comes with ways to cripple one's character, or to challenge oneself with a substandard build. They aren't presented as such because the idea of trap choices and learning about the game to the point where you avoid them was an actual design direction in 3E. Third edition also had way too many ways to power game. Selling broken powers via new subclasses with new supplements was the whole business model. And Pathfinder is nothing if not a refined, modernized version of 3.5, which means that it inherits all of that while adding idiosyncracies of its own. 5E by contrast has much more straightforward character building.
Wrath comes with it's own set of incentives for min maxxing in the form of Mythic Paths, each of which synergize with certain character roles better than others. Sometimes that synergy is in spite of character fantasy too. Furthermore, Owlcat's balance is harder overall than the tabletop games'. So of course, while the game is much more chill on Normal and below, if you play on Core you really do want to read up on the builds that people came up with. Hell, I tell people who want to start off with Core to pick their Mythic Path first and then pick a class that works well with them. It just saves on a lot of frustration overall.
Like, it's not so much that WotR is fine if you just use a single class and buff. Sometimes that's optimal and prebuffing in every way you can is a requirement, not a win more. Incidentally, multiclassing caster is a bad idea more often than not. Baldur's Gate 3 just lacks a lot of the 3E chaff and is a better game to start with if someone's never played D&D before. 2E was even more straightforward when it came to character building, it was just somewhat weird, opaque, and quaint in a few ways that make it a strange starter as well.
This is a very concise way of putting it, thanks. The 5e system cuts out most of the (bad/filler) character choices, and let's the players focus on the character.
Fwiw, the Pathfinder games are very creative and interesting as well. If you're into the fantasy of becoming an angel or conquering your own kingdom in an RPG, I'd give them a go.
Goblins in Pathfinder are their own special experience, too.