Skip to content

What are the major differences between 2nd AD&D (BG) and 3rd D&D (IWD2)?

VikingRVikingR Member Posts: 88
edited October 2012 in Archive (General Discussion)
Hello folks,

let me state this beforehand, I haven't yet had the chance to play IWD2. However I'm quite familiar with the Baldur's Gate games and the first part of IWD.

Now, I've seen a lot of discussions about IWD2 being based on 3rd edition D&D rules for the first time. Just out of interest, could someone point out the main changes that came with this new introduction.

I've seen a lot of negative feedback on how the ruleset loses its depth and complexity.
I'm planning on playing the game soonish.

Thanks!

«13

Comments

  • reedmilfamreedmilfam Member Posts: 2,808
    I found 3E made a lot of sense, actually, although I didn't know a lot of the nuances when I played IWD/IWD2. Since I was more familiar with 2E, BG felt more natural for me.
  • DJKajuruDJKajuru Member Posts: 3,300
    Something tells me that mages are a bit weaker in 3rd edition - NWN and IW2's enemies have more hit points and usually reach higher levels , so a regular 5d6 fireball doesn't kill that much these days...

  • DragonspearDragonspear Member Posts: 1,838
    @DJKajuru

    Honestly casters still end up being the most powerful classes in 3e. One of the things I like about 3e, especially early going for mages, is that with enough Int you can actually increase the amount of mage spells you can cast per day (if I remember correctly).

    Other than that, your primary stat increases the chance that your opponent will fail their save, plus they also have other feats to make saving throws more difficult.
  • DJKajuruDJKajuru Member Posts: 3,300
    Dragonspear said:


    Honestly casters still end up being the most powerful classes in 3e. One of the things I like about 3e, especially early going for mages, is that with enough Int you can actually increase the amount of mage spells you can cast per day (if I remember correctly).

    Other than that, your primary stat increases the chance that your opponent will fail their save, plus they also have other feats to make saving throws more difficult.

    They do... but in these 3rd edition games I feel that mages have basically an area damage/disabling enemies part. In BG2 I felt that mages and spells were more deadly, that you could try more strategies and adapt to different situations.



  • DragonspearDragonspear Member Posts: 1,838
    Eh I dunno. They still packed a punch, and along with clerics and sorcs function as the only people capable of soloing the game by themselves.

    But honestly this is something requiring me to do yet another playthrough of IWD2 for. I also admit I never managed to beat the game (Forgot what caused me to delete my chapter 5 save) and thus have never done HoW mode.
  • TanthalasTanthalas Member Posts: 6,738
    Demivrgvs said:

    Short story: as a roleplayer most racial class restrictions doesn't even seem a limitation for me (e.g. I really never felt the urge to create a dwarf sorcerer). And how many restrictions are there? It's not like every race has tons of forbidden combinations.

    I never played PnP so I can't comment on that aspect, but the only reason that every race doesn't have "tons" of forbidden combinations is because there aren't "tons" of combinations in BG in the first place.

    But the worse offenders are Dwarves, Haflings and Half-Orcs that are excluded from more than half of the existing classes, with Gnomes being almost just as bad since the only additional class they have access to is the Illusionist specialist mage.

    Sure, the problem isn't that bad for Humans (no restrictions) and Half-elves and Elves, but the other races have pretty severe limitations. And in the end, it simply doesn't make sense for most of the limitations to exist. Paladins and Monks restricted to only Humans? Druids and Bards limited to Humans and Half-elves? Half-orcs, Halflings and Dwarves can never be an arcane caster (Dwarves create magical equipment for Pete's sake).
  • Fighting_FerretFighting_Ferret Member Posts: 229
    Another biggie is that armor type restricts your dexterity bonuses and it is quite possible to get a huge number of around 72 AC in HoW which is quite ridiculous when you are rolling 20 sided dice for to hit rolls. I'm not really a fan of the epic levels... I prefer levels 3 - 9. Soloing the 9 hells by yourself and singlehandedly getting rid of all the demons in the lower planes isn't much fun...
  • DemivrgvsDemivrgvs Member Posts: 315
    Tanthalas said:

    ...it simply doesn't make sense for most of the limitations to exist. Paladins and Monks restricted to only Humans? Druids and Bards limited to Humans and Half-elves? Half-orcs, Halflings and Dwarves can never be an arcane caster (Dwarves create magical equipment for Pete's sake).

    Let's see...

    Fighter: any race.

    Paladin: I can imagine quite a few more races having paladins in PnP, such as dwarves and elves, but within SoA you are forced to became a member of the Order of the Radiant Heart, which is a human-only order. So, in our setting the Paladin is better left as a human-only class imo.

    Ranger: I do think half-orcs should be able to pick this class. I have mixed feelings for dwarves being rangers, they could be seen as a "cavern-type" ranger, but they already have their Racial Enemies anyway, they don't fit the stealthy DEX based role of the classic ranger, nor they strike me as "animal-lovers". I don't know what to think about halflings, maybe they could fit the role, maybe not, while gnomes surely don't.

    Cleric: any race.

    Druid: why the hell elves cannot be druids?!? o_O I'm not sure about half-orcs, and even less about halflings, but surely dwarves and gnomes don't fit this class.

    Mage: dwarves craft magical armors and weapons with yes, but they do so with magical runes, and they have no tradition of practicing arcane spellcasting, nor they have schools of magic in their cities. Half-orcs living amongst orcs could become shamans, but surely not archmages. If they live in human societies they would probably not be accepted well in schools (we are in the 2012, and there's still racism out there, just imagine half orcs going to school along with human kids, in a supposedly medieval society).

    Thief: any race.

    Bard: bards need to be humans or half-elves because they need to be as charming and charismatic as possible when dealing with anyone, of any other race. I can imagine a halfling bard per se, but it would surely be disadvantaged compared to a human bard in a world where humans are clearly the dominant race (in terms of population) and occupy most of the position powers. Elves would never bow to enthral other species (they consider themselves superior), still I can imagine elven bards. Dwarves taking the bard career doesn't make much sense imo, and even less half-orcs.

    Monk: I think it all comes down to something similar to what I said for mages. Monks train themselves in monasteries, and monasteries are pretty much human-only, because other races don't share such type of culture. Within the dwarven society you are not sent to monasteries, they train you to use and craft weapons and armors, half-orcs may like to fight with bare-hands but they would still grow as barbarian-like monks, not like your typical ascetic monk.

    I agree certain limitations are too harh, but most of them do have a reason to exist imo. I probably cannot convince you, but the trick is to look at those "class restrictions" as something integral of those races, not as a limitation. The question is, why would you feel the necessity of playing a dwarf mage over a human mage?

    Short story: @Tanthalas which are the race-class combinations currently blocked that you really think deserve to be allowed?
  • TanthalasTanthalas Member Posts: 6,738
    @Demivrgvs
    BG uses 2E, so I don't think any combination should be unblocked.

    I just like the freedom that 3E offers. If I want to make a Dwarf that is interested in Arcane spellcasting I'm free to pursue it.

    I'd just add some minor notes about your arguments. As pointed out in another discussion Dove Falconhand is a Ranger that runs around in plate armor, not all Rangers are the stealthy type, there are also those that are mainly trackers.

    In one of the Sellswords novels by RA Salvatore there was a half-orc Bard and a half-orc Mage. His Cleric's Quintet novels also had a Druid Dwarf. It all just depends on the backstory of your characters.
  • Awong124Awong124 Member Posts: 2,643
    In general, dwarves shouldn't be rangers, since they cut down trees and harvest resources for their crafting. But I don't see the problem of an occasional dwarf going against the traditional norms of his race to become a ranger.
  • sandmanCCLsandmanCCL Member Posts: 1,389
    Says who? I think a logger would be a ranger, actually. I don't see them acting as a DRUID, perhaps, but Rangers always struck me purely as the rugged outdoorsy type, setting up camp and hunting out on his own. In fact, I believe the 3e Player's Handbook makes note of an example of a dwarven ranger, who explores underground caves and takes hated enemy types accordingly. Always kind of liked that concept.

    I think I'm with @Tanthalas on this one. 3e has a lot of good going for it, but AD&D is still great for different reasons.

    @Demivrgvs: I don't think any race needs to be locked out of any class. As Tanthalas pointed out, one of the main characters in Salvatore's "Cleric Quintet" novels was a dwarven druid with a green beard and affinity for nature. Just because it's atypical for the race doesn't mean it's not a fun character concept and impossible to imagine. That's one thing that's always bothered me about AD&D. There are social constructs around which races can be which classes, which is why only humans can be paladins (you must belong to a paladin order and they are all racist scumbags) and why there aren't any halfling wizards. It's also why druids can't go beyond level 14, because doing so would break druidic order in an area because the highest level druid is automatically arch-druid for a region. I find things like that counter-productive to a class-based RPG environment. What if my character is a druid because he reveres nature, but is a social recluse who loathes all humanoid contact and doesn't belong to a druidic order? There's no room for that with AD&D rules.

    The way my brother always put it, D&D is "make-believe with rules." The less restrictive the rules, the more fun it is.
  • Awong124Awong124 Member Posts: 2,643
    I think rangers are about protecting nature, not clearcutting a forest. You could argue that a ranger is a woodsman, and they chop wood to heat their stoves or whatnot. But I think dwarves do it to a much larger scale that makes them go against the ranger ethos. Also I don't think the typical dwarf cares about the environmental ramifications of cutting down trees. Then again, like I said, it shouldn't be a problem to have an exception every now and then, at least the rules should be made to accommodate that.
  • sandmanCCLsandmanCCL Member Posts: 1,389
    3rd edition changed a lot of that. AD&D rangers are definitely about protecting nature (hence being forced into Good alignment), but 3e makes a shift toward an outdoorsman, possibly because of opening up racial restrictions completely. They actually opened up alignment restrictions completely, too.

    Like I was saying, I recall a description (and I'm pretty sure it was in the handbook) about a dwarf ranger. Rather than being a woodsman, he was an accomplished spelunker and explorer of caverns. It still strikes me as a ranger, even though no trees are involved.
  • MoomintrollMoomintroll Member Posts: 1,498
    Rangers are at home in wilderness and guide those who are lost in it. You can manage a landscape without damaging it, felling trees etc.
  • beerflavourbeerflavour Member Posts: 117
    edited October 2012
    3rd edition is quite a different beast than 2nd edition D&D. Overall stats get more important.

    1) Every caster has a primary ability score which affects the maximum spell grade which that character can use (e.g. 11 for 1st grade spells, 12 for 2nd grade spells, etc.). The bonus value from the ability score (e.g. a 12 will grant a +1 bonus, a 14 will grant a +2 bonus, etc.) affects how difficult it will be to withstand that character's spells. The spell's target will have a harder time to make a successful saving throw. The bonus from value the ability score increases the available spell slots.

    2) A strength of 12 will grant a +1 bonus to the attack bonus and damage. A 14 strength will give a +2 bonus. Strength based skills will receive an equal bonus.

    3) Similar with dexterity. A 12 dexterity will improve the AC by 1. A 14 dexterity will increase it by +2. Dexterity based skills will receive an equal bonus.

    4) A constitution of 12 will grant a +1 bonus to hit points. A constitution of 14 will increase the hit points by +2. Constitution based skills will receive an equal bonus. There is no cap to the constitution bonus. Unlike 2nd edition non-fighters can as well aim for a high constitution score and profit from it.

    5) Hitpoints will not cap at 9th or 10th level. Hitpoints are rolled even beyond that point. In 2nd edition you only got a flat hitpoint increase beyond that point. Characters and opponents/monsters will thus have higher hitpoint pools.

    6) Every four levels a character will be able to increase one ability score by one point.

    7) Every three levels a character will be able to train a new feat (e.g. a weapon proficiency, armor proficiency, meta magic proficiency, skill training, etc.). Some classes get additional points to allocate on feats (e.g. fighter can train an additional feat at every even level).

    8) XP advancement is different. The required XP to reach the next level is determined by character level.

    9) Multiclassing works differently. When leveling up you can decide whether or not the character will improve in his former class or if he starts to advance in another class. As example: you start at level 1 fighter. You earn enough experience to become level 2. You can either train to become a level 2 fighter or start training in another class, e.g. fighter/wizard 1/1. In the first case the character has a so called "character level" of 2 and happens to be a 2nd level fighter. In the second case the character will as well have a "character level" of two but is a level 1 fighter and a level 1 wizard. When training in several classes the level difference between the different classes should not be greater than 1, else the character incurs an xp penalty (e.g. +20% xp required to level up I guess). Additionally every race has a favourite class and this favourite class is ignored when it comes to determine if a multi-class build has incurred an xp penalty.

    10) Multiclassing casters is in general a bad idea. If you liked playing a Fighter/Cleric/Mage, Cleric/Mage, Fighter/Cleric, etc. in 2nd edition then all xp was evenly divided among all classes. Evenly leveling a multi-class caster in 3rd edition will literally gimp the toon (as harsh as it sounds). To be clear, such a character won't be totally useless but not as effective as it could be. What one should keep in mind is that to overcome the spell resistance of a target the caster level is important.

    11) Multiclassing as is in 3rd edition is more of a powergamer's tool. Splashing in other classes (like 1 or 2 levels) lends itself for taking free feats/skill points. But you have to carefully choose your race to do so. A dwarven Fighter/Rogue/Ranger with a level split of 10/2/2 would be viable and not incur any xp penalties.

    12) There are no weapon restrictions for clerics as in 2nd edition.


    If you're unfamiliar with 3rd edition then it's a good idea to keep the majority of the party single class characters. Experimenting with 1 or 2 party members won't hurt, though.
  • immagikmanimmagikman Member Posts: 664
    edited October 2012
    Tanthalas said:

    Demivrgvs said:

    And in the end, it simply doesn't make sense for most of the limitations to exist. Paladins and Monks restricted to only Humans? Druids and Bards limited to Humans and Half-elves? Half-orcs, Halflings and Dwarves can never be an arcane caster (Dwarves create magical equipment for Pete's sake).

    You admit you never played PnP which makes this comment completely baseless. There were reasons for the restrictions, but you weren't aware of the history or background.. But as the years rolled on and the advent of the "power gamers" and CRPG's came along the documented rationale for things got left behind....the history of the world was forgotten and you had people plopping down in highly limited environments (CRPGS) who never learned why things worked the way they do.

    It brings to mind the scene in the Star Trek Movie where Kirk is lecturing Savik about the necessity of of learning about how and why things work the way they do, when he drops the Reliant's shields remotely.

    In the end though AD&D has been bastardized so often and revised at least 6 times now nothing makes sense because the history and flavor was lost long ago.
  • MoomintrollMoomintroll Member Posts: 1,498
    +5 for using Star Trek to illustrate your point.
  • TanthalasTanthalas Member Posts: 6,738
    @immagikman

    I don't need to jump into a well to know that I wouldn't like it.
  • salierisalieri Member Posts: 245
    The whole "dwarves don't have magical colleges or an arcane casting culture so shouldn't be wizards and they enjoy cutting down trees to build stuff so can't be rangers" argument doesn't ring true to me regardless of the rich histories that are written into the realms. Surely, if this is roleplay, a character should be able to follow whichever path he or she chooses, whether playing to racial stereotypes or diverging from them. The BG PC grew up in Candlekeep, how much more of an arcane background do you want?
  • sandmanCCLsandmanCCL Member Posts: 1,389
    Let's not forget that with Baldur's Gate specifically, it's set in Forgotten Realms. A lot of AD&D restrictions were for the default, de-facto AD&D world laid out in the Dungeonmaster's Guide, Player Handbook and Monster Manual. It was in that world the whole thing about arch-druids existed, restrictions on race/class combos mattered, etc.

    None of those apply to FR, even if we're talking AD&D. A lot of stuff got thrown out the window, which is perhaps one of the reasons the FR world is as popular as it is.

    R.A. Salvatore is one of the more famous authors that helped build the setting and all sorts of his characters broke AD&D rules. Him giving Drizzt a secondary weapon broke AD&D rules and started the entire D&D stereotype of rangers dual-wielding. Cadderly, a priest, used a crossbow frequently. Pikel Bouldershoulder is a druid dwarf and he originated in 1991. 3rd Edition rules didn't come about til 2000.

    If we're going to talk about stuff that breaks RP, CHARNAME shouldn't be able to be a cleric or druid, and should always be human (your mother is human no matter what race you are in ToB, I believe).

    If I wanna roll a elven druid, I should have that option. If I want to be a halfling illusionist, why not? If I want to be a half-orc sorcerer, hey welcome to the weirdo club. Still kosher in my mind. I hope there are tools included in BG:EE that allow free reign on character creation and if not, I hope some modders change that right quick.
  • Awong124Awong124 Member Posts: 2,643
    salieri said:

    The whole "dwarves don't have magical colleges or an arcane casting culture so shouldn't be wizards and they enjoy cutting down trees to build stuff so can't be rangers" argument doesn't ring true to me regardless of the rich histories that are written into the realms. Surely, if this is roleplay, a character should be able to follow whichever path he or she chooses, whether playing to racial stereotypes or diverging from them. The BG PC grew up in Candlekeep, how much more of an arcane background do you want?

    It's not that they can't, it's just the majority of dwarves wouldn't want to be those classes. If a PC wants to make a dwarven ranger, then the rules should accommodate it, why not? But since the majority of dwarves could care less about cutting down a forest to build their things, they wouldn't want to be rangers in the first place, but exceptions can exist.
  • triclops41triclops41 Member Posts: 207
    As someone who learned an important lesson in my youth from Hermes trip to the Island of Misfit Toys, I don't think any race should have class restrictions.
    If an elf wants to be a dentist, let him.
  • NoonNoon Member Posts: 202
    edited October 2012
    Demivrgvs said:


    Bard: bards need to be humans or half-elves because they need to be as charming and charismatic as possible when dealing with anyone, of any other race. I can imagine a halfling bard per se, but it would surely be disadvantaged compared to a human bard in a world where humans are clearly the dominant race (in terms of population) and occupy most of the position powers. Elves would never bow to enthral other species (they consider themselves superior), still I can imagine elven bards. Dwarves taking the bard career doesn't make much sense imo, and even less half-orcs.

    Even Kobolds can be Bards. Ask Deekin Scalesinger how famous he is.

  • NightfallRobNightfallRob Member Posts: 43
    Ok, first of all, here's a link to the 3rd edition rules: http://www.d20srd.org/
    The link has all of the little details.

    Secondly, the numbers work a little differently. A higher number is always better. There are no negative AC's, no saving throws that reduce, no lowering THAC0's, etc. Everything bumps up, and the higher it goes the better it is.

    That's really it. The link will go into the details, of which there are many including the introduction of feats, the new skills system, and how the new multiclassing works, but what's really most important imo is the change in the numbers mechanics.
  • DragonspearDragonspear Member Posts: 1,838
    In AD&D elves did have a type of bard, although it wasn't added until the Complete Book of Elves suppliment.

    The bladesinger, for all intents and purposes, is a fighter/mage that plays similar to a bard but without the song. That said, its rumored that those who fought using the Bladesong fighting style, could make music from the air rippling around their blades as they fought.

    And considering the constant threats to dwarven strongholds from above (Goblins, Orcs, Giants, etc) and below (Herm, almost every dwarven stronghold is connected to the Underdark where all sorts of dangers await). Having dwarves at the fringes, acting as lookouts, etc would make sense. Perhaps this dwarf is part of a special detachment in the Stronghold or clan, sent in light(er) armor, while the rest of the dwarven army mobilizes. Also in 3E is where the nickname for a Dwarven Ranger (Aka a "Caver") came up for the first time that I remember.

    I doubt there would be as many dwarven rangers, as Elves, half-elves or humans, but I definitely think the case can be made.

  • MillardkillmooreMillardkillmoore Member Posts: 150
    In 2E, spellcasters are broken at high levels. In 3E, Spellcasters are broken at all levels.
Sign In or Register to comment.

2024 Overhaul Games, a division of Beamdog. © 2024 Hasbro, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Baldur's Gate, Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, Forgotten Realms, Baldur's Gate, Wizards of the Coast and their logos are trademarks of Wizards of the Coast LLC in the U.S.A. and other countries, and are used with permission. Hasbro and its logo are trademarks of Hasbro, Inc. and are used with permission. © 1998 BioWare Corp. All Rights Reserved. BioWare, the BioWare Infinity Engine and the BioWare logo are trademarks of Bioware Corp. Black Isle Studios and the Black Isle Studios logo are trademarks of Interplay Entertainment Corp. Atari and the Atari logo are trademarks owned by Atari Interactive, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.