Meddle. Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 currently looks like this 2DA V1.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 16 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 17 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 18 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 19 3 2 1 2 0 0 0 20 3 3 1 3 0 0 0 21 3 3 2 3 1 0 0 22 3 3 2 4 2 0 0 23 3 3 2 4 4 0 0 24 3 3 2 4 4 2 0 25 3 3 2 4 4 3 1 should be something like 2DA V1.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 16 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 17 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 18 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 19 3 2 2 1 0 0 0 20 3 3 2 2 0 0 0 21 3 3 3 2 1 0 0 22 3 3 3 3 2 0 0 23 4 3 3 3 2 1 0 24 4 3 3 3 3 2 0 25 4 3 3 3 3 3 1 Link to comment
Roana Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 currently looks like this 2DA V1.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 16 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 17 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 18 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 19 3 2 1 2 0 0 0 20 3 3 1 3 0 0 0 21 3 3 2 3 1 0 0 22 3 3 2 4 2 0 0 23 3 3 2 4 4 0 0 24 3 3 2 4 4 2 0 25 3 3 2 4 4 3 1 should be something like 2DA V1.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 16 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 17 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 18 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 19 3 2 2 1 0 0 0 20 3 3 2 2 0 0 0 21 3 3 3 2 1 0 0 22 3 3 3 3 2 0 0 23 4 3 3 3 2 1 0 24 4 3 3 3 3 2 0 25 4 3 3 3 3 3 1 Hello, yes, the original has a few faults and no, what you mention is not what the AD&D rules says. The table should look like this: 2DA V1.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 16 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 17 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 18 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 19 3 2 1 2 0 0 0 20 3 3 1 3 0 0 0 21 3 3 2 3 1 0 0 22 3 3 2 4 2 0 0 23 4 3 2 4 2 1 0 24 3 3 2 4 3 2 0 25 3 3 2 4 3 4 1 to follow the rules exactly Regards Roana Link to comment
CamDawg Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 And joy of joys, neither of those match the manual. edit: Unless, of course, the table in the manual is cumulative--in which case it matches the current table exactly. Link to comment
Smoketest Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 What he mentions matches the 2E version of the Players Handbook, and yes those bonuses are cumulative with level which makes sense because a person with 18 Wisdom would also have the capabilities of those with 17 or less Wisdom. Bioware had it wrong, for whatever reason, ever since BG1 was first released. (They could have purposely done it for the sake of 'game balance.') Snippet from PHB showing Wisdom value and resulting bonus spells: 13 1st 14 1st 15 2nd 16 2nd 17 3rd 18 4th 19 1st, 3rd 20 2nd, 4th 21 3rd, 5th 22 4th, 5th 23 1st, 6th 24 5th, 6th 25 6th, 7th which results in: 2DA V1.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 16 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 17 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 18 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 19 3 2 2 1 0 0 0 20 3 3 2 2 0 0 0 21 3 3 3 2 1 0 0 22 3 3 3 3 2 0 0 23 4 3 3 3 2 1 0 24 4 3 3 3 3 2 0 25 4 3 3 3 3 3 1 Link to comment
Meddle. Posted November 25, 2006 Author Share Posted November 25, 2006 yeah, yeah. btw, it was fixed in dudleyville for bg, and fotd, i think. Link to comment
CamDawg Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 No, I meant the BG2 manual, which happens to be the only manual that's relevant here. The existing ingame table matches it perfectly, hence no changes. BG2 is not P&P. Link to comment
Nythrun Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 When the manual actually gets something correct I take that very seriously Link to comment
CamDawg Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 My first indication to check the manual was the aerial swine outside the window. Link to comment
devSin Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 When the manual actually gets something correct I take that very seriously Indeed. Never a more clarion call of intent than having the table deviate from pnp source material AND actually match the implementation. No bug. Link to comment
Roana Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 Hello , as nobody can read the thoughts of the folks by Bioware while programmong this game, I don't say, that things like these are a bug . But, as this is your usual way to argument, if somebody mentioned P&P rules, I would like to please you, to keep in mind, what Bioware itself has said in interviews about their motivation, to make a game like Baldur's Gate, after the surprising succsess of BG1 worldwide. I cannot repeat these words exactly, but as I am a fan of P&P myself, I have never forgotten the sense of their words: All the programmers at Bioware are fans of P&P and play AD&D theirself with much pleasure. They have missed a really good roleplaying game on the pc-games-market. So they have decided, to make one of their own, for their own pleasure, and tried to convert the rules of their favorite P&P game, AD&D, as exactly, as possible into a pc-game. Their pleasure in playing AD&D at home themselves was the reason to bought the license from Wizards Of The Swoard Coast, and not creating new own rules for a roleplaying pc-game, which would have been much easier for them. Some of the NPCs, you are playing with in BG1 and BG2, are converted P&P-characters from the Bioware programmers (maybe, you didn't know this ). They never have expected the succsess, they have had with the BG-games, but certainly were(are) very glad about this. The main goal for Bioware was: to convert their favorite P&P game as exactly as possible into a pc-game, and play this game theirself. To prove these words, you only would have to search the archives in the Bioware forums and on planetbaldursgate at gamespy. But I want now going on to play my current BG2 game. So you can just believe me or not, I will not going on searching Biowares exact words in these large archives for a few days . As Interplay and Black Isle are only publisher and supporter for the BG-games, and Bioware itself makes their main business in progamming other sorts of programs, as pc-games, I always try to respect these words of Bioware, if I am fixing this game. As I said, I will never insist on such faults in tables to be a bug, but if I see them, I correct them for myself. The 'bug' mentioned above, I haven't seen until I have read this post, and I have now corrected this in my game. So thanks for posting this at Meddle . Regards Roana Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.