Baldur's Gate as an introduction to 2E

adamc · Jan 26, 2014

I'm replaying Baldur's Gate (EE version) -- never finished it in the day, as the pathing in Firewine was just too infuriating. Anyhow, I've never played 2E, which I understand BG is based on, but... how accurate to 2E was it?

I really like the spells in that they are varied, evocative, and interesting. But I hate them because (coming from 4e) the balance is a joke. In general, balance seems iffy. Level 1 mages suck, whereas later they are gods. And some spells (e.g., Hold Person) are waaaaaaaaaay too effective. But maybe that's just the video game?

Obviously there are going to be thing (e.g., spells) that are hard to portray in a video game, but I'm finding it an interesting experience, since I now have experience with 4e to compare it to.

kingius · Jan 27, 2014

Some spells are more effective than others. This is by design in earlier editions. It marks an expert player from a beginner, the learning of which parts of the system are important for surviving difficult encounters.

In early editions, spells like charm person are extremely effective and the duration can be very high (weeks in some cases). Later editions have really attacked these non-combat spells and the disease of balance has really infected them to the point that interesting options have been made weak (or dropped altogether). Baldurs gate is a fair representation of 2e rules. Hold person is a terrific spell, balanced by it only working on /people/, not undead or monsters.

The_Silversword · Jan 27, 2014

I cant speak for Baldur's Gate, but the old Pool of Radiance stayed pretty true to 2e, although there was a fighter ability called sweep that gave him more attacks as he went up in level which I dont remember at all in the books, I dont remember anything like that till 3rd edition. I may have to go dig those old books out.

Jan van Leyden · Jan 27, 2014

The_Silversword said:
There was a fighter ability called sweep that gave him more attacks as he went up in level which I dont remember at all in the books, I dont remember anything like that till 3rd edition. I may have to go dig those old books out.

Fighters did get additional attack, starting at - if I recall correctly - at level 6. Furthermore 2e let fighters, and fighters only, specialize in a weapon, gaining them a damage bonus plus more attacks as well.

And don't forget that fighters cann attack once per level against foes with less than 1 HD.

kingius · Jan 27, 2014

Pool of radiance (another awesome game!) actually uses 1e rules rather than 2e rules. For many years I also thought that it was 2e, too. I agree that the Sweep attack is awesome.

Adventures Dark and Deep, an attempt to make a 2e from Gary Gygax's old articles, features a similar thing in its players hand book and in a Curious Volume of Forgotten Lore. There fighter types get as many attacks as their level against enemies that uses d4 and d6's as hit dice ... even against enemy mages and thieves.

The_Silversword · Jan 28, 2014

Yeah, I coulda sworn that Pool of Radiance was 2e, my reasoning was that the Forgotten Realms came out at the tail end of 1e so a video game based off of the Realms woulda came out later, during the 2e era. They musta cracked that game out pretty quickly after the release of the Realms. But too be honest 1e and 2e were pretty much the same thing, the only differences that I can recall off the top of my head was that Rangers got 2 weapon fighting and 1d10 hit dice instead of 2d8 at first level, I think they changed up currency some too going from 2,000 cp = 1gp to 1,000cp=1gp, I think.

But yeah that was a great game, thats what got me into the Forgotten Realms, and Dungeons & Dragons.

kingius · Jan 28, 2014

A lot of the flavour was lost from 1e to 2e in the unifying of the system though this isn't reflected in the computer games. For example, the illusionist was removed in 2e and his spells made available to the mage. The specialists wizards they created in 2e do not have the real flavour of a dedicated class, they simply get more spells of their chosen school than a general mage. As you say, the ranger lost his status as a Rambo-type Giant killer and became a general woodsman who could cast some nature spells. The monk was gone, too, removing an option for expert level players who like fighters. So too were the many esoteric charts that Gary Gygax put into 1e and gave the system some real character. I like 2e but David Zeb Cook was no Gary Gygax (in my opinion). Just read some of his columns from Dragon magazine for further proof.

The_Silversword · Jan 28, 2014

Thats right, I kinda forgot about the Illusionists, they also got rid of the Assassin, I guess this makes some kinda sense as they could just be lumped in with Wizards and Theives, though I agree it just wasnt the same as a dedicated class, but getting rid of the Monk was a bad idea I think cause it was pretty unique class and couldnt really be labeled under one of the other classes. They also axed Bards in 2e didnt they?

Olgar Shiverstone · Jan 28, 2014

The_Silversword said:
They also axed Bards in 2e didnt they?

Bards became a full base class in 2E, where they had become a difficult-to-achieve fighter/thief/druid "prestige" class buried in an appendix of the PHB in 1E.