I'm not too worried about most of the other missing tables (Weapon types, Aromor types, though Armor vs. Weapon type would be kind of nice to have) as I still have my books for the game, but that one seems rather too improtant to neglect putting in, especially for new players.
Hell, they even put in the Hit Dice Progression table, which seems rather low priority to me, especially comparied to the Theif Skills Race/Dexterity modifer table.
A better addition would be lines in the race entries themselves describing what each race gets for its thieving skills (though that would be a bit more complicated to implement).
@Aosaw I respectfully disagree with you about the spell progression chart. Well, you are half right, it is really not important for a mage since you can delete/add spell later, or the clerics/druids, since you have a fix arsenal of spells, but it is really important for sorcerers! Once you pick a spell, you are stuck with it and you have a limited number each level. So it is important for them to be able to plan ahead which spells to pick.
Or at least say it in the class decription that "Even the most experienced/strongest sorcerers in Faerun don't know more than 4 or 5 spells from each level".
OFF: Are you changing your profile picture on a daily bassis now?
It's a problem of convention, mostly. If you show the spell progression chart for sorcerers, you have to also show it for mages, clerics, druids, paladins, bards, and rangers (and you also have to show a table for weapon proficiencies, THAC0, saving throws, and any other class-related abilities for the classes that don't cast spells). A warning to sorcerers about the limits of their knowledge might be a good idea, but I stand by my decision to not include seven (or more) full tables for spell progression just to satisfy one class.
Do other RPG's generally even include that kind of information in their manuals? (its been too long I can't think of a recent example of an RPG which did).
@Aosaw Personally I think its really good to have a single location with comprehensive and correct information. Since the manual is a huge step towards that direction I'd say include the progression tables (and all other missing tables).
Under Stealth/backstab section the following can be read:
"Note that in order to backstab someone, the thief must be standing behind the target."
I was under the impression that BG didn't have any way to actually know this, and thus you can backstab someone in the face. I believe this was a topic in bugs section before.
IIRC, non-player-controlled characters are allowed backstab people in the face because the A.I. can't position them properly.
Under Stealth/backstab section the following can be read:
"Note that in order to backstab someone, the thief must be standing behind the target."
I was under the impression that BG didn't have any way to actually know this, and thus you can backstab someone in the face. I believe this was a topic in bugs section before.
IIRC, non-player-controlled characters are allowed backstab people in the face because the A.I. can't position them properly.
I'm not even sure how you'd go about testing that in game. Stand around at the end of Irenicus's dungeon waiting for someone to stab you in the front?
I can't remember which IE game it is, I think BG2, but there is part where you are underground, where thieves are hiding and back-stab the hell out of you. I always remembered it being from behind.
When you are back-stabbed or immune to back-stab, the characters should automatically turn around. If you are not paying attention it may look like you were back-stabbed form the front.
So Invokers apparently are only supposed to have only one opposing school of magic now. Does anyone know which of the two it is? (enchantment vs conjuration)
I'm assuming its enchantment since that would make a lot of logical sense.
I know with the spells since the in-game descriptions have been fixed up (I'm assuming for the most part) but even still I'm looking at the description of call lightning. Since when did you not initially choose the target for your spell? (I may be used to vanilla BG call lightning where you did choose the initial target which could be part of the problem here).
After the initial target had been hit then the spell hit enemy targets indiscriminately (at least from my recollection of it).
I only ask because the description of the spell says you don't choose a target, and it gives a range of 0 which seems to confirm this.
In the BGManual2 on page 37 it is stated that a paladin can only achieve Specialisation (two slots) in any fighting style. That seems to be incorrect, because in BG 2 the paladin could put three slots in Two-Weapon Style (though no one ever did).
In the BGManual2 on page 37 it is stated that a paladin can only achieve Specialisation (two slots) in any fighting style. That seems to be incorrect, because in BG 2 the paladin could put three slots in Two-Weapon Style (though no one ever did).
I just confirmed this.
I'm in the process of adding a few more things to the list. I'll add yours though I will point out that technically it is still correct to state that they can specialise in two weapon fighting...its just that they can just do even better as well!
In keeping with my incredibly picky posts that no one playing the game will actually stop and think about ...
The other thing I was going to ask concerns spell ranges. I was looking up sunfire in the in-game description in BG2 (and in the BGEE manual) and it says its range is "caster" but what makes it "caster" over say being a range of 0?
I assume sunfire should be changed to range 0 just for consistencies sake.
@elminster Yep--it would be Range: 0, Area of Effect: 15-foot radius centered on the caster.
I don't have a ton of time to devote to this, but I'm going through the thread slowly and making a list of things that need changing. Things I definitely won't be doing:
- New tables (i.e. spell progression, THAC0/Saving Throws, Thieving skills, etc.) - New quotes from Volo or Elminster (including quotes that were there before but were cut) - New chapters or sections of existing chapters beyond a few sentences here and there - Drastically changed content - Changed formatting or layout
The reason for that is that any of those changes would require further approval from Wizards of the Coast (and we all know how stunningly fast that tends to be).
If it helps at all I did just update everything (from what I can see). I did not include any requests for new charts in the update (though off the top of my head I did just strike at least one of those out just so that people could see that it had been asked).
Not to include it, but to make big changes like that to the manual. The manual has to be approved, and making big changes (like the ones I mentioned above) to it require that same process to repeated again.
And come to think of it, since the tables are actual AD&D values, Wizards would definitely need to approve them anyway to avoid violating copyright agreements. Not that they wouldn't approve them, but it would take a while.
It would be their intellectual property to do with as they please.
Of course, and it would be the contractual specifications that state specifically what needs to be approved. That is why I asked about tables, it seems odd that a few sentences here and there are ok but tables are singled out. There are some glaring omissions that would be best represented by inclusion of new tables.
@agris it's because tables mean formatting, and making sure the formatting is done correctly, and (at the very least) adding pages to the manual. All of that means that the manual that was approved has been changed in a noticeable way, which is something that has to be signed off on.
A few sentences here and there, on the other hand, is something that is minor enough that I can write it quickly, and if it doesn't get approved then that's no time wasted.
Comments
Hell, they even put in the Hit Dice Progression table, which seems rather low priority to me, especially comparied to the Theif Skills Race/Dexterity modifer table.
I don't know, I like that stuff. The BG2 manual felt as much like a Players Handbook as it did a computer game manual. I really liked that feel.
You were in charge of the manual and you created it in Office, right? What color theme was used, Trek?
Or at least say it in the class decription that "Even the most experienced/strongest sorcerers in Faerun don't know more than 4 or 5 spells from each level".
OFF: Are you changing your profile picture on a daily bassis now?
When you are back-stabbed or immune to back-stab, the characters should automatically turn around. If you are not paying attention it may look like you were back-stabbed form the front.
I'm assuming its enchantment since that would make a lot of logical sense.
After the initial target had been hit then the spell hit enemy targets indiscriminately (at least from my recollection of it).
I only ask because the description of the spell says you don't choose a target, and it gives a range of 0 which seems to confirm this.
I'm in the process of adding a few more things to the list. I'll add yours though I will point out that technically it is still correct to state that they can specialise in two weapon fighting...its just that they can just do even better as well!
The other thing I was going to ask concerns spell ranges. I was looking up sunfire in the in-game description in BG2 (and in the BGEE manual) and it says its range is "caster" but what makes it "caster" over say being a range of 0?
I assume sunfire should be changed to range 0 just for consistencies sake.
The "Area of Effect: Caster" is what makes it a self-targeting spell.
I don't have a ton of time to devote to this, but I'm going through the thread slowly and making a list of things that need changing. Things I definitely won't be doing:
- New tables (i.e. spell progression, THAC0/Saving Throws, Thieving skills, etc.)
- New quotes from Volo or Elminster (including quotes that were there before but were cut)
- New chapters or sections of existing chapters beyond a few sentences here and there
- Drastically changed content
- Changed formatting or layout
The reason for that is that any of those changes would require further approval from Wizards of the Coast (and we all know how stunningly fast that tends to be).
And come to think of it, since the tables are actual AD&D values, Wizards would definitely need to approve them anyway to avoid violating copyright agreements. Not that they wouldn't approve them, but it would take a while.
A few sentences here and there, on the other hand, is something that is minor enough that I can write it quickly, and if it doesn't get approved then that's no time wasted.