I think there is a difference between touch and range 0. Some spells required you to succesfully roll an attack, those are touch. Others that you cast on yourself would be range 0.
What about cure light wounds or slow poison? Those require you to be right next to the target (and are currently called touch) but obviously no attack is involved (I'd hope not lol)
Edit: Correction. They need you to be next to the target when the casting starts.
Range 0 with an AoE of "creature touched". The attack roll portion is waived for beneficial spells because, by and large, creatures like being healed and won't try to dodge it.
My point is that a Range: Touch and AoE: Creature Touched is redundant. Range isn't there to tell you who's affected; it's there to tell you how far away your target can be.
The AD&D Player's Handbook uses "Range: Touch", "Area of Effect: 1 creature" for touch spells, so that's what @Jalily and I have been using in the game's text. FYI :-)
Everything in this game in moddable. Sow if we want to inprove the manual, we could do it. @Aosaw the only thing we need is the font, color and background We have the modding tools already :P
@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).
It sounds like its not going to happen, unfortunately, but personally I'd *love* to have an official, authoritative (and correct) list of *all* tables and charts for Baldur's Gate, even the trivial ones (e.g. how Constitution affects exhaustion).
I appreciate that re-doing the existing manuals to incorporate these might be a pain, but they could be done as a separate supplement, if the will was there. Given that we're *not* talking about producing (expensive) printed paper manuals, just electronic ones, does it really matter if they run to many pages, apart, obviously, from the time taken to collate and check everything (which the community here could help with, to save time/effort)?
I'm perhaps being naïve, and under-estimating the work involved and/or the complexities involved with getting approval from WotC, but IMHO the greatest cRPG deserves the best documentation to support it. This isn't just any old game, it's Baldur's Gate!
The new layout is nice, but it's not as important as content. And unfortunately, it seems many of the previous manuals mistake are still there.
I've seen a lot of copy/paste for spells descriptions. It's worrying because many spells in BG2 had undocumented features or didn't work as described.
It's a good idea to provide more in depth description of kits. But sometimes it lacks coherence. Example: Archer Called Shot effects are described but Druid shapeshifts forms are not. So, though more detailed, descriptions are still not detailed enough in some cases. Another example where the pasted description should have been amended/improved: Berserkers become winded after rage but the manual doesn't say how much time (30s if nothing's changed).
Tables really miss. It would be coherent for a manual which uses dozens of pages to describe spells to display a few more tables. The mistake in that matter is not so much to add more but not to add. You can always flip a few pages if the information doesn't interest you. But if you need it and it's not there, you're forced to use other means or stay ignorant.
The excuse of WoTC taking time to give approval is not relevant. If changes can be made and be approved even 6 months from now, it's better than never.
So, though more appealing than the previous ones, this manual isn't what it should have been: an extended, comprehensive and enhanced manual.
On a somewhat related issue, would you say it would be safe to use the in-game text for all spell and item descriptions, to hypothetically update the manual?
@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).
It sounds like its not going to happen, unfortunately, but personally I'd *love* to have an official, authoritative (and correct) list of *all* tables and charts for Baldur's Gate, even the trivial ones (e.g. how Constitution affects exhaustion).
I appreciate that re-doing the existing manuals to incorporate these might be a pain, but they could be done as a separate supplement, if the will was there. Given that we're *not* talking about producing (expensive) printed paper manuals, just electronic ones, does it really matter if they run to many pages, apart, obviously, from the time taken to collate and check everything (which the community here could help with, to save time/effort)?
I'm perhaps being naïve, and under-estimating the work involved and/or the complexities involved with getting approval from WotC, but IMHO the greatest cRPG deserves the best documentation to support it. This isn't just any old game, it's Baldur's Gate!
BTW, despite what I've said, I do think, however, that the priority should be to correct errors and inconsistencies in the current manual, but I do stand by my comments regarding the need for an authoritative source for *all* tables and charts in the long run.
On a somewhat related issue, would you say it would be safe to use the in-game text for all spell and item descriptions, to hypothetically update the manual?
In terms of mechanics, yes. The game text has updated mechanics and it keeps being fixed on a regular basis by our wonderful @Jalily.
The fluffy text, however, is sometimes atrocious in the game. We tried to fix some but we've always refrained from heavy-handed changes to the original text. The manual might have a few less clunky flavor texts for some spells.
@bigdogchris Yes, that would be safe. The game's text was updated after the manual was finished, so its text is going to be more "current". I can't promise it's going to happen, mainly because of the amount of duplicated work involved; when in doubt, read the description in the game (honestly, that should be a given for any game, not just this one).
@agris Unfortunately, the Word documents are going to remain private. Partly that's to protect my work on it, and partly it's to protect Overhaul's investment. I would support a fan-operated venture to create some kind of online wiki or "unofficial" pdf, however.
More generally: This thread is useful for keeping track of discrepancies found in the manual, but the extraneous discussion of "impressions" aren't as helpful. If people have opinions about the manual's layout or sections that people would like to see added (I make no promises), there's a thread in the general forum for just that kind of thing Here. If we could keep this thread limited to discrepancies (i.e. things that are inaccurate between the manual and the game, not missing tables or general impressions about layout), that will help me a lot in the long run.
That's not to say that I don't value the input--I do, and I read both threads--but keeping the information organized is important. Missing tables is not a "bug"; Archers being able to put two slots into melee weapons is.
The fluffy text, however, is sometimes atrocious in the game. We tried to fix some but we've always refrained from heavy-handed changes to the original text. The manual might have a few less clunky flavor texts for some spells.
Could you define "fluffy text" for me? I'm not sure what you mean.
Okay, a few things: @agris Unfortunately, the Word documents are going to remain private. Partly that's to protect my work on it, and partly it's to protect Overhaul's investment. I would support a fan-operated venture to create some kind of online wiki or "unofficial" pdf, however.
For a comprehensive set of tables and charts, this could indeed be something the fan community could create and maintain, though would ideally require some input from the Devs to ensure things are correct, as its not always obvious how things have been implemented in BG/BGEE, as it's not the same as PnP AD&D in all cases.
More generally: This thread is useful for keeping track of discrepancies found in the manual, but the extraneous discussion of "impressions" aren't as helpful. If people have opinions about the manual's layout or sections that people would like to see added (I make no promises), there's a thread in the general forum for just that kind of thing Here. If we could keep this thread limited to discrepancies (i.e. things that are inaccurate between the manual and the game, not missing tables or general impressions about layout), that will help me a lot in the long run.
Okay, I appreciate what you're saying, and I can see how this thread is important to fix issues with the existing manual content, so I'll stop banging here on about the "missing" tables etc. :-)
That's not to say that I don't value the input--I do, and I read both threads--but keeping the information organized is important. Missing tables is not a "bug"; Archers being able to put two slots into melee weapons is.
BTW @Aosaw, I do really appreciate the effort that has gone into the new manuals, BG is a huge and complex game and what has been produced is still a great and fun-to-read resource to help one to make sense of the game.
Charm Person supposed to have a saving throw with +3. Is it buffed or is it a mistake? Also I can't really get it from the description, does the remove fear effect of the spell Emotion: Hopelessness work only on caster or on allies as well? It used to be an aoe remove fear, right?
Also, in many cases I have noticed that in the spell description the "all enemies in the area of effect" text have been changed to "those in the area of effect" (Glitterdust for example). So are those spells going to hurt party members from now on?
Manual 2 page 117 Defensive Harmony has a typo I think - The description text says "This lasts for 10 rounds or until successfully dispelled." Should probably say "6 rounds". Cheers.
I'm echoing @Oxford_Guy 's comments. I won't keep banging on the drum, and I do appreciate your willingness to update a manual, something rarely (ever?) seen.
Manual 2 page 117 Defensive Harmony has a typo I think - The description text says "This lasts for 10 rounds or until successfully dispelled." Should probably say "6 rounds". Cheers.
Yea I don't have a precise means of testing it in game, but from what I was able to test along with the BG2 manual saying it I think you are right.
What do you guys think of how the original BG manual handled tables. Should they be in text where appropriate, or should they all be at the back of the book?
I agree, to a certain extent. I think some tables make more sense in-text (the reputation tables, for instance), because it's clear where they should go if you're looking quickly.
The experience charts, on the other hand, are less clear, which is why they're in the back like appendices.
Yea so for some of the charts it makes some sense to keep them in the back. The strength/dexterity/constitution and intelligence/wisdom/charisma charts (which are already in the manual I know) and any other chart of similar dimensions should but put in the back just because it would kind of disrupt the flow of the manual if you had them in the middle or near where the class lists are. Its just a thought.
Like Jalily says keeping charts in general in the back is good because it then they are easier to find and you don't have to resort to going to the table of contents necessarily.
I agree, to a certain extent. I think some tables make more sense in-text (the reputation tables, for instance), because it's clear where they should go if you're looking quickly.
The experience charts, on the other hand, are less clear, which is why they're in the back like appendices.
Absolutely, I do not think there is a certain rule or necessarily right way to do it.
Comments
I think there is a difference between touch and range 0. Some spells required you to succesfully roll an attack, those are touch. Others that you cast on yourself would be range 0.
It's semantics, though, and it's not a rule that I followed when I was writing everything up.
Edit: Correction. They need you to be next to the target when the casting starts.
My point is that a Range: Touch and AoE: Creature Touched is redundant. Range isn't there to tell you who's affected; it's there to tell you how far away your target can be.
I appreciate that re-doing the existing manuals to incorporate these might be a pain, but they could be done as a separate supplement, if the will was there. Given that we're *not* talking about producing (expensive) printed paper manuals, just electronic ones, does it really matter if they run to many pages, apart, obviously, from the time taken to collate and check everything (which the community here could help with, to save time/effort)?
I'm perhaps being naïve, and under-estimating the work involved and/or the complexities involved with getting approval from WotC, but IMHO the greatest cRPG deserves the best documentation to support it. This isn't just any old game, it's Baldur's Gate!
I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this. And i didn't find anything with a quick search.
I was reading through the Mastering melee & magic manual and i saw this:
Invoker: A wizard who specializes in the manipulation of raw and elemental energies. Opposed School: Enchantment/Charm, Conjuration/Summoning
Is that really both enchantments and conjurations? Or just a mistake?
I've seen a lot of copy/paste for spells descriptions. It's worrying because many spells in BG2 had undocumented features or didn't work as described.
It's a good idea to provide more in depth description of kits. But sometimes it lacks coherence. Example: Archer Called Shot effects are described but Druid shapeshifts forms are not. So, though more detailed, descriptions are still not detailed enough in some cases. Another example where the pasted description should have been amended/improved: Berserkers become winded after rage but the manual doesn't say how much time (30s if nothing's changed).
Tables really miss. It would be coherent for a manual which uses dozens of pages to describe spells to display a few more tables. The mistake in that matter is not so much to add more but not to add. You can always flip a few pages if the information doesn't interest you. But if you need it and it's not there, you're forced to use other means or stay ignorant.
The excuse of WoTC taking time to give approval is not relevant. If changes can be made and be approved even 6 months from now, it's better than never.
So, though more appealing than the previous ones, this manual isn't what it should have been: an extended, comprehensive and enhanced manual.
Thank you for clearing up the range issue.
On a somewhat related issue, would you say it would be safe to use the in-game text for all spell and item descriptions, to hypothetically update the manual?
The fluffy text, however, is sometimes atrocious in the game. We tried to fix some but we've always refrained from heavy-handed changes to the original text. The manual might have a few less clunky flavor texts for some spells.
@bigdogchris
Yes, that would be safe. The game's text was updated after the manual was finished, so its text is going to be more "current". I can't promise it's going to happen, mainly because of the amount of duplicated work involved; when in doubt, read the description in the game (honestly, that should be a given for any game, not just this one).
@agris
Unfortunately, the Word documents are going to remain private. Partly that's to protect my work on it, and partly it's to protect Overhaul's investment. I would support a fan-operated venture to create some kind of online wiki or "unofficial" pdf, however.
More generally: This thread is useful for keeping track of discrepancies found in the manual, but the extraneous discussion of "impressions" aren't as helpful. If people have opinions about the manual's layout or sections that people would like to see added (I make no promises), there's a thread in the general forum for just that kind of thing Here. If we could keep this thread limited to discrepancies (i.e. things that are inaccurate between the manual and the game, not missing tables or general impressions about layout), that will help me a lot in the long run.
That's not to say that I don't value the input--I do, and I read both threads--but keeping the information organized is important. Missing tables is not a "bug"; Archers being able to put two slots into melee weapons is.
Also I can't really get it from the description, does the remove fear effect of the spell Emotion: Hopelessness work only on caster or on allies as well? It used to be an aoe remove fear, right?
I'm echoing @Oxford_Guy 's comments. I won't keep banging on the drum, and I do appreciate your willingness to update a manual, something rarely (ever?) seen.
In the description of Drizzt in the Sword Coast Survival Guide, shouldn't the part "Drizzt wears Mithril..." be a new paragraph?
@bigdogchris I think so. It would certainly be more readable!
@elminster I looked it up in the game; it's 6 rounds.
The experience charts, on the other hand, are less clear, which is why they're in the back like appendices.
Like Jalily says keeping charts in general in the back is good because it then they are easier to find and you don't have to resort to going to the table of contents necessarily.