2nd. With a very tiny bit of 3rd mixed in.

Actually its more 1st than 2nd but yea... it has some 3rd mixed into it... think of it like 1.5 + elements of 3rd. (I've been playing D&D since I was 10)

Originally posted by DEW21689:

Actually its more 1st than 2nd but yea... it has some 3rd mixed into it... think of it like 1.5 + elements of 3rd. (I've been playing D&D since I was 10)

Where exactly are you seeing 1E in this? It doesn't have Rangers casting magic-user spells. It has Wizards instead of Magic-Users. It has Bard as a core class instead of requiring levels in Fighter and Thief, and they cast Wizard spells instead of Druid. It doesn't have reduced STR for female PCs. It doesn't have ridiculously low level limits for demi-humans. It has kits. It has two-weapon fighting. Rangers have favored enemies. Thief skills aren't set by level.

Seriously, 1E is my all time favorite edition of AD&D, and I'm not seeing much of anything resembling it in this.

Originally posted by robomagon:

Originally posted by DEW21689:

Actually its more 1st than 2nd but yea... it has some 3rd mixed into it... think of it like 1.5 + elements of 3rd. (I've been playing D&D since I was 10)

Where exactly are you seeing 1E in this? It doesn't have Rangers casting magic-user spells. It has Wizards instead of Magic-Users. It has Bard as a core class instead of requiring levels in Fighter and Thief, and they cast Wizard spells instead of Druid. It doesn't have reduced STR for female PCs. It doesn't have ridiculously low level limits for demi-humans. It has kits. It has two-weapon fighting. Rangers have favored enemies. Thief skills aren't set by level.

Seriously, 1E is my all time favorite edition of AD&D, and I'm not seeing much of anything resembling it in this.

The clunky and blatantly sexist prototype is your favourite edition?

-
Anyway, Icewind Dale is based on a modified version of 2nd Edition.
(As robomagon mentioned, it has some elements of 3rd blended in.)
Think of it as "2.5E".

2nd editon rules as Baldur's gate used them. They brought all the kits and spells from that game over.

The only real bits from 3rd edition is a game option to turn 2nd edition backstabbing into 3rd edition Sneak Attacks/Crippling strikes. And Paladin's being immune to fear.

Originally posted by Susurrus:

Originally posted by robomagon:

Where exactly are you seeing 1E in this? It doesn't have Rangers casting magic-user spells. It has Wizards instead of Magic-Users. It has Bard as a core class instead of requiring levels in Fighter and Thief, and they cast Wizard spells instead of Druid. It doesn't have reduced STR for female PCs. It doesn't have ridiculously low level limits for demi-humans. It has kits. It has two-weapon fighting. Rangers have favored enemies. Thief skills aren't set by level.

Seriously, 1E is my all time favorite edition of AD&D, and I'm not seeing much of anything resembling it in this.

The clunky and blatantly sexist prototype is your favourite edition?

-
Anyway, Icewind Dale is based on a modified version of 2nd Edition.
(As robomagon mentioned, it has some elements of 3rd blended in.)
Think of it as "2.5E".

D&D has always been clunky. You get used to it.
DISCLAIMER: I have not played 4E or 5E

Also, what's sexist about it? Women are not as physically strong as men. They represented that fact in the rules. IIRC That table was actually reversed for Drow, because their men weren't as physically strong as their women.

Originally posted by Cutlass Jack:

2nd editon rules as Baldur's gate used them. They brought all the kits and spells from that game over.

The only real bits from 3rd edition is a game option to turn 2nd edition backstabbing into 3rd edition Sneak Attacks/Crippling strikes. And Paladin's being immune to fear.

And the Sorcerer, Monk, and Barbarian. And now with EE, the Dragon Disciple and Shadowdancer. Also Half-Orcs.

Originally posted by robomagon:

And the Sorcerer, Monk, and Barbarian. And now with EE, the Dragon Disciple and Shadowdancer. Also Half-Orcs.

Thats all Baldur's gate stuff.

Originally posted by Cutlass Jack:

Originally posted by robomagon:

And the Sorcerer, Monk, and Barbarian. And now with EE, the Dragon Disciple and Shadowdancer. Also Half-Orcs.

Thats all Baldur's gate stuff.

And now it's all in this since they converted it to the BG2 engine.

Originally posted by robomagon:

And now it's all in this since they converted it to the BG2 engine.

I know. That's what I lead with in my original post. :P

Originally posted by Cutlass Jack:

Originally posted by robomagon:

And now it's all in this since they converted it to the BG2 engine.

I know. That's what I lead with in my original post. :P

I'm getting confused now. All that stuff I mentioned from BG2 is 3E content that Bioware converted as best they could to work in their 2E game.

who cares?

Originally posted by MasacruAlex:

who cares?

Just us nerds.

Originally posted by robomagon:

Originally posted by Susurrus:

The clunky and blatantly sexist prototype is your favourite edition?

-
Anyway, Icewind Dale is based on a modified version of 2nd Edition.
(As robomagon mentioned, it has some elements of 3rd blended in.)
Think of it as "2.5E".

D&D has always been clunky. You get used to it.
DISCLAIMER: I have not played 4E or 5E

Also, what's sexist about it? Women are not as physically strong as men. They represented that fact in the rules. IIRC That table was actually reversed for Drow, because their men weren't as physically strong as their women.

You could argue women on average aren't as strong as men, but if you compare a male and a female, it doesn't mean that the male will necessarily be stronger. Statistics are not a good representation of the individual.

Either way, adding in that penalty just discourages female characters from rolling as physical classes, which is a pretty lame restriction to make your players deal with.

Originally posted by Dr. Horrible:

Originally posted by robomagon:

D&D has always been clunky. You get used to it.
DISCLAIMER: I have not played 4E or 5E

Also, what's sexist about it? Women are not as physically strong as men. They represented that fact in the rules. IIRC That table was actually reversed for Drow, because their men weren't as physically strong as their women.

You could argue women on average aren't as strong as men, but if you compare a male and a female, it doesn't mean that the male will necessarily be stronger. Statistics are not a good representation of the individual.

Either way, adding in that penalty just discourages female characters from rolling as physical classes, which is a pretty lame restriction to make your players deal with.

It's true on average. And it's also true at the upper limits. A PC with 18/00 STR (highest possible for a male human) is far from average. IRL such a person would be able to comfortably carry around 335 pounds of dead weight and could lift 480 pounds above their head. While at 18/50 (highest possible for a female human) the limits were 135 carry capacity without encumbrance and being able to lift 280 pounds over her head. While some mild googling seems to indicate that these numbers (at least for lifting) are only about half of what the strongest men and women in the world can do, they do seem to be within (fantasy) reason for heroic characters who could still be fit to run around adventuring and still having enough mobility in their arms to wipe themselves after going to the bathroom.

One of the goals of AD&D 2E was encourage roleplaying rather than powergaming. I think they dropped the ball on this one for the sake of political correctness. Imposing limitations on your PCs based on their backrounds usually helps with roleplaying.

As for lame restrictions: I'm sure players would love to be able to do all sorts of crazy stuff to make their fantasy lives easier. Doesn't mean any DM worth the title should let them unless they can come up with a good in game reason for their character to have said ability.