Talk:Scribe scroll/Tables

This discussion originally started in User talk:The Krit, hence the antecedent-free reference to "you" in some places.

Initial planning
I"ve noticed you have considered converting the 2da information related to crafting magic items (that mysticjester posted in the WoG forum) into Wiki format. Since I've extracted this same information myself I could potentially process a form suitable for the Wiki.  Unfortunately, my formatting expertise is in HTML rather than the mark-up form used by Wiki and requires some experimenting to process a list this large.

Displaying a single table (approximately 10cols x 400rows) seems too large for easy access, but you are a better judge than I in regards to what makes the most sense. Although the columns are very narrow, there are substantial rows of numbers.

I'd suggest an index page to parse the comprehensive list into smaller spell name-alphabetized groups and provide linking to the individual data pages (links like A-D, E-H, etc.) Another way to index might be according to spell level, I suppose. But rather than expend duplicate conversion effort, I would like to know what is already in process by others towards this project. Also, I would like your opinion of the maximum table size (columns, rows) to display on a single, efficiently-managed page. Thank you for your attention. --Iconclast 21:15, March 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't started the conversion yet, so if you want to do this, go for it. As for the table size, you have one row per spell and the ten columns are spell name and three columns (gp, xp, caster level) for each of brew, craft, and scribe? I think I'd split that into three tables -- one for brewing, one for wand crafting, and one for scribing -- that can go in the associated articles. The number of rows does seem like a lot for one table, but it might work out OK if the tables are put at the end of the articles. Might as well see what it looks like before assuming it's too much. (Besides, it's the compiling of the information into a wiki format that's the big step. Refinements of the format can be done later in smaller steps.)
 * Have you figured out the wiki codes for tables? The basic format is
 * Have you figured out the wiki codes for tables? The basic format is


 * Different from HTML, but should not be too hard to handle. (The class is something defined in this wiki to give tables similar formatting. The "compacttable" class is probably best for these tables, but "centertable" is another possibility.) Hope it works out. Those tables have been missing (and missed) for a while now. --The Krit 00:18, March 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * do y'all really want this on the wiki? can you just add a link to the web page i did?  the interactive stuff really makes it easier imo.  incidentally, if you absolutely do want this on the wiki, i can do the tables.  i wrote a script that auto-generate wiki tables based on excel data.  should be a lot easier than hand coding.  Mysticjester 01:29, March 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it would be good to have the information directly in NWNWiki. Of course, that doesn't mean we couldn't also have a link to an interactive web page. --The Krit 02:14, March 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * good enough. how do you want it organized?  alphabetical?  by level?  by class?  alternately, do you just want to add the information on a spell by spell basis to each of the spell pages? that would probably be more annoying to do but it would integrate the information to the existing spell descriptions.    Mysticjester 03:09, March 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think alphabetical would be best, so people can more easily find a particular spell in the table. Adding the info to each spell page seems like a big project without much in the way of additional benefits (and even if we went that route, a table under each of the crafting feats would still probably be a good idea). --The Krit 04:36, March 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * good enough. we can always later decide to add the info to each spell.  i take it you want the tables on the specific feat page which works.  how do you want to split the division of labor?  Mysticjester 16:55, March 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * If you already have a formatting script, that would be cool. I had intended to export the Excel data as delimited text into a handy editor and do several global substitutions to insert the table formatting... a bit tedious, but it works (I find Excel annoying for pure text editing.).  One thing I did add to your original WoG data was two additional columns.  One contains the spell level (0-9) and the other the spell type, whether arcane ("A"), divine ("D") or both ("A/D").  Seems helpful for crafting wands, especially under the standard level constraints.


 * Personally, I would love the link to the web page that has this information already on it. However, I find one of the best features of this Wiki is having all the information in one place without needing to surf externally.--Iconclast 04:05, March 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * icon: have you seen the interactive web page version i did of the base table?  that required me to add columns for spell level & caster type (bard, cleric, druid, mage, paladin, ranger).  i'm almost done with the cleric domain spells as well (though i forget if vanilla nwn/sou/hotu allows those to be crafted.  tk?).  i'll post the output to my script either later today or tomorrow & we'll see if that works.  i expect that some hand coding will be required regardless.  appreciate your enthusiasm on this, btw, & i think that this is a great idea.  :-)  Mysticjester 16:55, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Proposals
something like this work?

a feat specific one would look like this (for craft wand):

not sure about listing the full class name as that messes up the table for spells that have multiple classes. alternately could use letters i.e. C=cleric. also, should it be organized by spell level? or do we want to organize it by both spell level and class? that would get rid of the caster class column but would add more duplication. also, i'm working under the assumption that the craft wand table for example would only include spells that could be crafted into wands & not comprehensively list all spells with dashes for the ones that can't be crafted onto wands. that make sense?

anyways, what do y'all think?Mysticjester 17:15, March 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * I was thinking the same thing. The Craft Wand list would be the shortest of the three.--Iconclast 22:16, March 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd change "Spell level" to "Innate level" and move the class listing to the rightmost column. Sort of as if the class listing is a footnote, and to separate the classes from the innate level (because the innate level is not always the spell level for each class that can cast the spell). Abbreviating the class names would fit the idea that this column is a footnote, and should work as long as each class is linked (since hovering your mouse over a link gives the name of the linked page as a tooltip). As for the sorting, one thing that could be done is to enter the table sorted by spell name, then add the class "sortable" to it, giving something like:
 * And the domain spells are not craftable scribable by default but they can be brewed or crafted if they meet the other requirements for those feats . --The Krit 19:03, March 6, 2010 (UTC) Corrected. --The Krit 09:30, March 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ahhh! So they treat domains like metamagic then. I was wondering about that.


 * I feel any of the visual examples above are quite informative and allow easy access (I'm really not hedging, just have considered all these formats and others, all of which seem adequate.) Swinging the associated class designations to the RH border makes sense to me now that I've seen it displayed (my local XL table will be suitably modified *g*). Krit has examined so many tables on the Wiki I can't help but defer to his judgment when it comes to presentation effectiveness.


 * So the spell level explained in Craft Wand (re: The spellcaster can create a wand of any spell of 4th level or lower that he knows.) is actually referring to the innate level of the spell rather than the spell level for the class? Hmmm.  That's is a good way to resolve the class-level differences then and makes the table easier to configure.


 * When I assessed the challenge of compiling this, the massive length of a single list display was a concern and hence the option to use an index seemed one viable remedy. Designer types that are used to staring at 2da's are probably not intimidated by vast tables, but plain jane players can be...  just one factor to consider is all.


 * p.s. MJ... if your table is on the WoG pages I'm sure I can hunt it down but otherwise a preliminary link (before adding to the wiki pages) would be most helpful. Thanks guys for staying on top of this. This should be a wonderful addition! --Iconclast 22:16, March 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * tk: that works.  & very sweet on the sorting.  i didn't realize that wikia had that set up.  oh, question:  any particular reason that the gold & xp columns right aligned?Mysticjester 02:19, March 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm only guessing, but TK probably made it that way on purpose. Unless an entire column contains values with the same number of digits, it should always be right-justified.  Centering variable length numbers in the same column makes it difficult to compare the rows visually.  It would be handy to be able to widen the padding between the rightmost digit and table border, but that possibly will make the coding more complicated than it needs to be.--Iconclast 03:08, March 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Basically what Iconclast said. Something else we could do is create a template for the rows, and do the formatting of columns there. That way, if we decide to change the format, we can make one change and affect all the tables. The source for that would be something like:


 * (I checked, and this currently produces the same table as before.) Is it just as easy to produce wiki code like this? If you're wondering about the switch from setting "sorcerer" and "wizard" to mage: either way works with the template's current definition, so use whichever is more convenient. --The Krit 03:50, March 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * definitely doable. lemme tinker with the code & see what i can come up with.  Mysticjester 05:48, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

k. new version is up on my user page. btw, tk, feel free to edit comments for formatting. i'm starting to get lost. *lol* Mysticjester 06:26, March 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * I moved and edited the comments. Hopefully they're a bit easier to follow now that they are on their own page. --The Krit 21:53, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

brew potion is up on my user page using the new table format. Mysticjester 06:49, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

Different levels?
One question I had was why there are multiple rows for some spells? Are there delineation points depending on class level to determine which category of spell potency will get created?--Iconclast 04:05, March 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * The multiple rows are because WoG has enhanced crafting. The default crafting system would be described by removing the extra rows for each spell, but I forget which rows would be kept. (I could always look it up. I think I kept a record of those.) Often, but not always, it's the lowest caster level that the default system produces. --The Krit 04:30, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

craft wand table on my user page. lemme know what you think. one problem: the data i had was with your better craft magic casting levels. DOH. will need to figure out a simple way to id which casting levels your script added. *lol* Mysticjester 04:40, March 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * I can trim the extra rows out later. It is far easier to cut rows than to add them, and as long as I (or some other enterprising fool) get to it quickly enough, the extra rows should not cause too much confusion. I hope. --The Krit 03:50, March 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * figured that it would be easier if i just did it for the base list since this way we'll have to trim three separate lists as well as all the associated coding. but eh, good enough.  :-)  Mysticjester 05:48, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

Sanitization of craft wand data
I have started with the Craft Wand list MJ loaded to his wiki page and marked up an MSWord doc in color fonts to make the changes more noticeable. I used a primary ascending sort of the Innate level followed by an ascending sort of the spell names. Every modification reflects an actual in-game result using a pristine (no haks, utilities, overrides, CEP, etc.) v1.69 NWN-SoU-HotU installation. There was a bit of information which could not be verified in-game and remarks to that effect have been furnished in the mark-up file. So when you guys get a chance, check it out and confirm the information contained therein. K?--Iconclast 17:23, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

[[Media:Wand_Craft_Markup.doc]] is the mark-up document.--Iconclast 17:23, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

One issue that became exposed was the spells used to craft wands granted by clerical domains. I had no problem creating fully-functional wands from the domain spells... wands that could be used by any class having divine casting abilities or an adequate UMD simulation. Perhaps this is conflict with the intent of the designers but that is the way it works. Also, other custom modifications (like CEP) may have adjusted the wand crafting to prohibit domain spell usage. I can't comment on that since I have not installed any of the custom haks, just custom modules that work with my current configuration. The method to integrate domain-granted crafting into the table is problematic and I have suggested one way to keep the link to cleric class but trail with a note reference. We should discuss this issue further I believe. --Iconclast 17:23, March 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... maybe it was just scribe scroll that was blocked for domain spells? I'll take a look at that. --The Krit 21:53, March 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably was the scribe data you remembered, TK. Inserted below is a compilation from the vanilla installation which should be accurate barring typos.  The scroll craft column may surprise you.


 * [[Media:Domain_Craft2.doc]] is a comprehensive list of the scribing, brewing and wand crafting for all the cleric domains.--Iconclast 22:54, March 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Why would the scroll craft column surprise me? --The Krit 09:28, March 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * Because there are several domain-granted spells that can scribe scrolls. Then again, maybe I didn't understand what you meant by the term "by default" mentioned earlier in our original discussion about what the crafting tables should contain and how they should formatted .--Iconclast 15:14, March 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, I had overlooked the fact that the methodology for brew and craft is different than that used for scribe. Brewing and crafting domain spells is no problem; it's just scribing (non-divine) domain spells that is problematic. --The Krit 09:28, March 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * That non-divine vs. divine relationship was the key to explain the logic used with scrolls. Thanks for picking that out, TK!--Iconclast 15:14, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Another issue was one of actual in-game Innate Level. There are two instances (Identify & Protestion from Elements) that I have proposed (via the associated talk page) to change pending suitable confirmation of course. The third instance, Owl's Insight, seems to have incorrect Innate level reported in-game. However, the crafting failure seems to infer what value for the innate field is actually being used by the game so no problem except for inconsistency. No more patches means tough luck, right?--Iconclast 17:23, March 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * nice work. :-)  tk, can you verify?  incidentally, once we know which spells work with the vanilla nwn/sou/hotu, i should be able to generate new tables so row by row table editing isn't necessary.  Mysticjester 19:17, March 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at this later, too. I've picked up a small backlog of things to do this past weekend, but I should get to this later today or tomorrow. --The Krit 21:53, March 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * I've had my first inspection of the spell.2da and it is a much bigger spreadsheet than I had anticipated. I had checked some of the other spell-type 2das but none of them are as vast as this one.  Still haven't found the 2da that cross-indexes the target and range descriptions for each spell. The only values in spell.2da are some alphanumeric codes that mean nothing to me. I would need to access the file that translates the codes into in-game text if it is done that way. --Iconclast 22:54, March 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * The target and range fields are explained in the spells.2da article. --The Krit 09:33, March 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * That's handy. Thanks for the link.--Iconclast 15:14, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

In a few cases, I've found a conflict between what is reported in the item screen (like the innate level of Identify, Owl's Insight, Protection from Elements) and what the game is actually using (the 2da). I suppose that means that the only totally-reliable information that can be gathered in-game is via the log. In any case, when an anomaly has been identified, it would be helpful (for players, at least) for the Wiki page for that spell to notate the difference.--Iconclast 15:14, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comparisons with WoG
Mj... you may have some use for the domain data (see link above) in the WoG pages you are constructing. Unless, of course, they have overridden the vanilla domain structure for their own content. Anyway, it's valid for the plain version.--Iconclast 22:54, March 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * nice work icon. i'll take a look at it as soon as i get some time.  if we can't get a 2da that lists the information, then we'll have to go with the ingame testing.  incidentally, i did this initially for wog which is why my list is specific to that server.  i basically had a character in game do what you did except obviously on the server.  probably looking at reinstalling nwn on my system to make sure everything is clean & running through the process though obviously it'll be easier in single player as i won't have to deal with running out of gold & xp.  *lol*  will download or set up a test module for testing & essentially duplicate what you're doing i.e. in game brewing/crafting/scribing of all spells & then cross reference the data with what you're coming up with to verify everything.  i think 2 people verifying all the information should provide good enough accuracy & if we run into conflicts, we can retest specific areas.  Mysticjester 03:01, March 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is the trainer I am using, Mj. There is a full inventory of boosting items available to add all the slots you need to keep testing without resting often. After leveling enough to craft, just add enough XP with the console to cover the costs and away you go. Still hunting through the 2das but giant spreadsheets like these are hard on my eyes so have to take a lot of refocus breaks. Excuses, excuses, excuses *lol*--Iconclast 03:36, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Listing and finding info
incidentally, i think that it would be a good idea to have a comprehensive list of all spells & note which spells can't be brewed, crafted, or scribed. for brew potion & craft wand, we can make a blanket note that spells over level x can't be brewed or crafted. but this i think will allow wiki users to specifically find the spell & know for sure that it's been considered. what say you? Mysticjester 03:07, March 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * This list you would basically be the article for, so sure I could get that done. I'll just have to remember to make the table with the file contents sortable. --The Krit 09:28, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

tk: is there a file that lists casting levels for vanilla nwn/sou/hotu? that's actually what i need. i did a cursory look through the des craft 2da file & the spell entries seem to match what i have in my file. the main issue is that some of these spells have multiple entries based on casting level. what i'm wondering is if there is a 2da file that lists the base casting level of each spell in vanilla nwn/sou/hotu. or will we need to do in game testing to determine that? Mysticjester 01:47, March 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no direct listing of the caster levels. To get the caster level for potions and wands, use the "IPRP_SpellIndex" column of  as the row number in   and look up the "CasterLvl" column in that file. For scrolls, it's messier. The file   basically contains a list of ResRefs of standard scrolls. Whatever caster level that scroll has is what you get. A quick way to trim down the scroll list is to go into the Toolset and see how many scrolls are defined for that spell. To be careful, you should make sure the ResRef matches what's in , but if there's only one standard scroll for that spell, it should be the right one to look at. That's how I planned to do a first pass at trimming down the scroll info, at least. --The Krit 03:23, March 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * What I have noticed is that there seems to be a standard algorithm between the caster level reported on the in-game item screen (which Krit has pointed out, is extracted from the tlk file) and the cost values reported on the log. I am still trying to generate a single master index worksheet that contains all these fields using the 2da's but it's a challenge getting common labels to align (there are so many rows unrelated to class-specific spell casting).  I am hoping that once completed it should be able link all the 2da information regarding crafting together.  Am taking Mj's suggestion and retaining the full library of spells whether they can be used in crafting or not.  However, the multiple levels that can occur on items not associated with the player crafting aspect of the vanilla version will not be included. Sry Mj :(--Iconclast 15:38, March 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * I had a bump guys. In the   I can find no row(s) for Ultravision. Are they substituting the information from the Darkvision rows for the Ultravision spell?--Iconclast 15:01, March 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * The labels in .2da's often retain old names for things since these labels are not seen in the game (in fact are ignored by the game) if a StringRef is available, usually in the Name column. Moreover, ultravision is spell 365; any row in  that has "365" in its SpellIndex column is an item property for ultravision, despite labels and names. --The Krit 02:52, March 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * One other concern I have... I've DL'd the latest 2dasource zip file from the Bioware site. All the common 2da's have the same version number labeled inside.  Must I run a diff to check to see if anything was changed in the corresponding 2da's of the new download or can I assume they are exactly the same?  I want to be sure I'm using the version used by v1.69 and assumed they would have updated the version number if they changed anything.--Iconclast 15:01, March 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about the "V2.0" in the first line? That's the version of the file format, not the version of the file data. All NWN .2da's use 2DA V2.0 as their format. You can get more info about the format, if you'd like to, from the For Developers portion of BioWare's NWN website. --The Krit 02:57, March 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * craft wand & brew potion tables on my user page updated. some notes:
 * casting levels verified by icon's in game testing as well as through the 2da files as outlined by tk above. the only 2 spells that didn't match up were bestow curse & protection from alignment.  will need to retest in game.
 * costs at this point are via a table i compiled a while ago. i will reset this to use the standard formula for determining brewing & crafting costs.  this should get rid of any typos & what not.  in the meantime, i've updated my tables with the info provided by icon through in game testing.
 * paladin & ranger links for whatever reason are coming up out of order on a consistent basis. this is not due to the table coding my script generated (as looking at the underlying table coding should demonstrate).  no clue as to why this is occurring.
 * i was able to generate caster levels for upper level spells per the method tk outlined above. i take it by your comments above tk that this may not necessarily be accurate?  Mysticjester 07:17, March 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * The order of paladin and ranger looks fine to me. *whistles innocently* --The Krit 07:55, March 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll leave it to the more anal inspectors to ruminate over the order. I wouldn't sweat the cosmetics, Mj. *notices a slight ringing in the left ear*--Iconclast 15:38, March 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you look at the tables again? ;) Not sweating the cosmetics is good advice. The template allows the format to be separated from the data generation. --The Krit 21:28, March 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Scrolls are generated in a different manner so the caster levels are not guaranteed to coincide. It's possible they coincide -- the same group of people was involved after all -- but it's not a sure thing. --The Krit 07:55, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Costs
icon indicated that there were some issues with the costs i listed on my table. tested in game & i'm getting some odd results. using find traps & continual flame since these are spells where the spell level is different for mages & clerics. but i'm getting the same costs regardless of the caster. this seems to indicate that the innate level is being used. except that the results i'm getting don't correspond to the innate level but to the mage level (even when the caster was a cleric). results: can someone verify this data? it is kinda weird. not sure why the game engine would go off of the mage level for determining costs, at least for spells that mages can cast. the nice thing though is that we don't have multiple costs for the same spell. the sucky thing is that more than likely we'll need to test each spell in game to verify costs. Mysticjester 19:12, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * find traps. caster level 3.  mage 3.  cleric 2.  gp cost:  6750 (cl3 * sl3 *750).  xp cost:  270 (cl3 * sl3 * 30).
 * continual flame. caster level 7.  mage 2.  cleric 3.  gp cost:  10500 (cl7 * sl2 * 750).  xp cost:  420 (cl7 * sl2 * 30).


 * Find traps:
 * (CL = Casting level, XP = Experience Cost, GP = Gold Cost)


 * Continual flame:


 * Cost seems to be related to the final casting level produced but there is another mysterious (to me anyway!) factor that modifies it. Sometimes the costs are really strange numbers like the scroll costs I'm getting for Bigby's Grasping Hand (XP cost 119) and Finger of Death et al. (XP cost 91).


 * For all item types, the crafting costs APPEAR (not completely finished testing yet) the same regardless of class. The only caveat is that if wands are crafted by divine classes they can only be used by divine practitioners (and the same deal with wands crafted by arcanists).  Potions can be used by all classes regardless of which class brewed it.  Scrolls of common spells made by divine scribers will stack with those scribed by arcanists.  Naturally, sufficient UMD can bypass all the restrictiveness completely.


 * No sweat on the testing, Mj (incidentally, although I've used the 2das to format a working template, all my data is from in-game testing although I am searching vainly for the algorithm that is calculating these values). Am just finishing up testing on scrolls (just druid & ranger left now) and will furnish a file within the next day or 2 for evaluation. I noticed that Excel files can be uploaded to wiki (didn't realize this before!) so you should be able to run your wiki conversion on the Excel data (or however you process it) if it's easier than making changes to your current table.--Iconclast 21:47, March 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * appreciate that, icon. that means i can get back to coding.  :-)  unfortunately, though, i will have to modify the existing xlsx file as that has additional information on it i.e. spell levels for each class, domain spell domain names & spell level, whether a spell or a spell at a particular casting level is base nwn/sou/hotu or if it's only available via tk's a better craft magic script & so forth.  but melding the information isn't a biggie.  what i was hoping for though was a formula to work with rather than a list of costs.  but either way works.  incidentally, there is a thread on the wog forums where greyling & i posted the initial costs from our in game testing of all spells.  obviously that was not vanilla nwn but that's what my current data set is based on.  Mysticjester 22:01, March 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * also, it is entirely possible that the game engine doesn't calculate costs using an equation but instead uses a table. if that's the case, then the values you listed for bigby's & so forth might be typos or some such on the table.  tk should be able to shed some light on this.  Mysticjester 22:05, March 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ahhh... it's the dang 7's! Multiples of 7 are hard for me to pick up. I think I've found the algorithm although I'm only doing scrolls right now. Should have picked this up faster but I'm doing this when I'm pretty tired.


 * Then,
 * Note: the constant probably changes depending on whether it's a scroll (constant=25), wand or potion being crafted. Should be easy to figure out now. 8)  Krit is probably sitting back comfortably, reading all this and thinking "Christ, it took them a long time to figure this out!" and grinning.
 * Note: the constant probably changes depending on whether it's a scroll (constant=25), wand or potion being crafted. Should be easy to figure out now. 8)  Krit is probably sitting back comfortably, reading all this and thinking "Christ, it took them a long time to figure this out!" and grinning.


 * Even with uncovering the algorithm, it still needs to be tested because some spells can't be cast on scrolls and others fail. Like you mentioned, this could just be errors in the database, but I'd still like to identify all of them so others like myself don't begin to suspect the game installation or patching didn't go perfectly.--Iconclast 23:18, March 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * icon: i put in the equations on the brew potion & the craft magic page this morning.  sry, thought you'd seen them.




 * what i noticed though that it's not going off of the innate level. as i noted above, the innate level for find traps is 2.  the cleric level is 3.  & the sorc/wiz level is 2.  if it was going off the innate level, the gold cost would be:
 * but as you verified, that's not the case. but if we go off the sorc/wiz level for the spell level, then we get:
 * which is weird because you get that even if a cleric casts the spell.
 * which is weird because you get that even if a cleric casts the spell.
 * which is weird because you get that even if a cleric casts the spell.


 * i tested this with continual flame & got the same results. innate level is 3.  cleric level is three.  sorc/wiz level is 2.  if it were going off the innate level, we'd get:
 * which, again, as you verified, is not the case. instead we get:
 * this works for xp as well.
 * this works for xp as well.
 * this works for xp as well.


 * so it seems like it's going off of the sorc/wiz level at least for spells that are shared. will have to see if that works for any other spells that are on multiple spell lists.  sorry if i wasn't clear in my previous post.  Mysticjester 01:03, March 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry. It looks like someone decided to start asking these questions right after I got called away for a bit. The crafting gold piece cost is
 * The caster level is that of the item property used for potions and wands. The innate level is pulled from  so could potentially differ from the actual innate level used everywhere else in the game. The modifier is 25 for scrolls, 50 for potions, and 750 for wands. If you want to look this up for yourself, start with the function   in the script.
 * Did I miss anything? And sorry about re-arranging the comments at the beginning of this section -- I was finding it harder to follow with them interspersed like they were. (That's often a good idea, but it was not working here.) --The Krit 03:57, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * The caster level is that of the item property used for potions and wands. The innate level is pulled from  so could potentially differ from the actual innate level used everywhere else in the game. The modifier is 25 for scrolls, 50 for potions, and 750 for wands. If you want to look this up for yourself, start with the function   in the script.
 * Did I miss anything? And sorry about re-arranging the comments at the beginning of this section -- I was finding it harder to follow with them interspersed like they were. (That's often a good idea, but it was not working here.) --The Krit 03:57, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Did I miss anything? And sorry about re-arranging the comments at the beginning of this section -- I was finding it harder to follow with them interspersed like they were. (That's often a good idea, but it was not working here.) --The Krit 03:57, March 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * no, i think you're good. :-)  thanks for the help.  that makes life a whole lot easier.  also, no worries about the comments.  a lot easier to follow now.  d'you think that raine would allow us to set up a forum to discuss wiki stuff on her board?  *lol*  incidentally, once we're done with this project, i don't mind these conversations being deleted.  any real content should go in the articles anyways.  question though:  if the innate level is based on the 2da file & the innate level in game is wrong on at least the two spells i was using as examples, then uh we should probably update the wiki spell articles at some point to reflect the actual innate level.  Mysticjester 04:51, March 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the wiki should be updated eventually. The question is whether the discrepancy should be noted in each spell article or just in the brew/craft/scribe articles. My inclination is that if there are only a few discrepancies, they should be noted in the spells, but if there are a lot, just have the brew/craft/scribe articles mention that their "spell level" is often not innate level. How many of the scribing levels are not innate level?
 * As for deleting this discussion, that is not art of the plan. I figured I'd just change this to an archive page when it's done. --The Krit 15:19, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Scribe scroll feat
First, a few caveats.

I used both  and   to compile a starting template for testing. I could have used just the  file but there were inconsistencies for class vs. spell so I needed to cross-check to get the correct designations per spell. There were lots and lots of other rows not related to using the scribe scroll feat that I needed to filter out and in a few cases my filter eliminated viable spells so an in-depth sanity check of the data should be done to maximize the accuracy of the list. You guys have been elected because of the apparent abundance of sanity displayed heretofore :P

There are two sheets in the workbook. The first contains only the spells that can be used in the game. The second includes all the additional rows for spells (and spell casting levels) that don't activate when using the scribe scroll feat. The second sheet includes comments related to the failure or inability to generate a scroll with the feat.

In about 75% of the usable spells (sheet 1), the algorithm I reported to figure XP from IL x CL works. However, in the other cases, there is an additional modifier (Experience Factor, my own term :) ) that adjusts an "unusual" CL. A separate reference column was added to record the value.  So far, I haven't found any 2da that contained spell data with these values so it's here just for the record. Thanks TK for furnishing the modifier for the 3 different crafting forms!

In an attempt to make conversions easier I used labels from the NWN wiki links (labels from the 2da's sorted differently and would probaly need to be replaced before posting anyway.) If I made Mj's effort less tedious I achieved one goal.

My suggestion is that we thoroughly sanitize the scribe scroll feat list first since the other two feats are merely subsets of the scribe scroll feat. In so doing, avoid the possibilities of needing to make parallel changes. Please post any missing or incorrect information you notice so I can update my master list accordingly, k?  And now finally...

 is saved in the old legacy Excel 97-2002 format in case you aren't running the latest MS Office. --Iconclast 19:14, March 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * nice. will take a peak when i get a chance. i am running office 2007 if that makes your life easier.  :-)  Mysticjester 11:39, March 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * looks like the main issue for most of these is that the caster level is off. i've got barkskin at caster level 15.  that's based on your craft wands word file as well as the method that tk specified for finding craft/brew levels.  verified that for a couple of spells.  bull's str & cat's grace should be at caster level 15.  will go through in more detail once i get some sleep.  *lol*  Mysticjester 11:52, March 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * That's been the real mystery for me. I believe there were changes to some CLs from the version of   that was furnished with my 1.66 Diamond vs. the version from the Bioware download.  At any rate, I've done a diff between the two versions and my eyeballs found the discrepancies, hopefully all.  It's the "WHY? have they selected a particular CL of the multi-group for crafting an item" that is not clear and seems so random to me.  Maybe TK knows their rationale.


 * It's important not to dream of 2das to get your proper rest, Mj! --Iconclast 22:54, March 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Barkskin should be calculated as caster level 12, not 15. This holds for brewing, crafting, and scribing, even though scribing uses a different method for creating the item that in this case produces a scroll with caster level 3. Bit of a gyp for the scriber (paid for caster level 12; got caster level 3) but that's how BioWare set this up.
 * An easy way to see the caster level you get from scribing a particular spell is to look up the scroll in the Toolset. With four exceptions (cat's grace, greater sanctuary, magic circle against alignment, and protection from alignment), each spell has only one standard scroll, so that standard scroll is what you get from scribing that spell. That's how scribing is different than brewing and crafting -- scribing produces a standard item, while the other methods generate custom items. The costs are still calculated as if a custom item would be created, though. I just added... no wait, I lost that edit somewhere. OK, next up will be to add this info to the scribe scroll article. --The Krit 10:16, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * An easy way to see the caster level you get from scribing a particular spell is to look up the scroll in the Toolset. With four exceptions (cat's grace, greater sanctuary, magic circle against alignment, and protection from alignment), each spell has only one standard scroll, so that standard scroll is what you get from scribing that spell. That's how scribing is different than brewing and crafting -- scribing produces a standard item, while the other methods generate custom items. The costs are still calculated as if a custom item would be created, though. I just added... no wait, I lost that edit somewhere. OK, next up will be to add this info to the scribe scroll article. --The Krit 10:16, March 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find a field with the caster level in the item properties. Is it the number between the parenthesis in the assigned properties list to which you are referring?  Like here...
 * Scroll_Props.png
 * --Iconclast 21:45, March 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * Correct, the number in parentheses is the caster level. (You can double check with the caster level article if you'd like. ;) I'm about to change the order of some sentences there, but not add info.) --The Krit 15:10, March 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Drat. The in-game data for CL on my spreadsheet came from the item screen which, IIRC, comes from the tlk file and not necessarily representative of what really gets used in the game. Since it is easy to pick out all the rows that don't seem to fit the cost formula, only those scrolls would need to be checked via the Toolset.  A potentially even easier method I've considered is just using the observed (game log) final cost values of the spreadsheet, the innate levels per the current spells.2da and the respective formula (for XP & GP) to calculate the CL by setting it as the unknown.  I'll calculate it for a few and cross-check with the toolset to see if this is reliable.--Iconclast 15:18, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Craft wand feat
Figuring a table rather than another file upload might be more efficient sometimes, here are some test results that seem to affirm that the level restriction reported by the game should be clarified somewhere in the Craft Wand wiki notes. Listed below are all the situations (for spells that can be used for crating wands) that can occur where the Innate level is less than the Class Spell level.

The statement "The spellcaster can create a wand of any spell of 4th level or lower that he knows." can be somewhat misleading if a player doesn't understand that it's actually the Innate level rather than the level in the Spell Book that effects crafting. Wudya think?
 * Notes:
 * 1. This wand uses "Cure_Critical_Wounds_Others", CL=7 per

.... just some data that got exposed while testing. ;) --Iconclast 22:54, March 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Some clarifications made to craft wand. --The Krit 10:18, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Brew potion feat
A similar table to the one above but associated with the Brew Potion feat. These are all the situations (for spells that can be used for brewing potions) that can occur where the Innate level is less than the Class Spell level. (Only those classes that use a higher class Spell level vs. Innate level are designated and only one representative has been tested.)

The statement "The character can create a potion of any spell of 3rd level or lower that the character knows and that targets a single creature.." would be more helpful if it referred to Innate level.
 * Notes:
 * 1. Can not be used with Brew Potion feat. (Targeting failure)

--Iconclast 23:23, March 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Some clarifications made to brew potion. --The Krit 10:18, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * An especially helpful correction to that page. It even answered my consequent question as to why spells like Bestow Curse, Charm Monster & Contagion which seem to meet the targeting and level restrictions won't brew. Tx.--Iconclast 14:46, March 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * thanks for the edits, tk. looks good.  & thanks for the data work, icon. Mysticjester 15:49, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Finalization?
thanks for the data work, icon. i should *fingers crossed* have time to follow up this weekend. incidentally, what exactly do we have left to do at this point? i was planning on essentially taking the data you've uploaded & adding it to my xlsx file, & then converting them to wiki table format. we can always make edits to individual spells later. is there anything i'm missing? Mysticjester 15:49, March 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I am concerned, all should be good to go. I ran a cross-check of caster level with the tool set (per TK's suggestion) and found no differences for scrolls between that in the spreadsheet and that in the item properties.  Essentially, there is about 25% of the scribing that doesn't coincide with the formula but that's just the way it is.  Scribing those spells on scrolls costs more (sometimes a lot more) for the resultant casting level.  It will be easy enough to cross-check for accuracy with the sorting mechanism you plan to install.  All the wand and potion formulas seem to work fine so I have complete confidence that the data collected is very accurate and ready for conversion.


 * There is an issue that occurred to me that maybe should be revisited... what columns to list . Since the Innate level is really specified (and maintained) on the page for each individual spell, is it really prudent to include those values on a separate and distinct page? What I am referring to is change control.  Assuming corrections to the innate level are needed in the future appropriate corrections made to the spell page, someone would need to remember that Innate Levels for each spell were also contained in these tables to maintain consistency.  I realize that in order to carry out the verification calculation the Innate level is needed and together with the CL provided a means to check in-game results, but do we really need/desire to furnish that on these tables?


 * All that is really needed by a player intending to craft these items is 1) which spells can be used, 2) the class limitations (which classes work) and 3) the associated costs. Even the casting level is superfluous (with respect to determining casting viability) since it doesn't affect whether a spell can be crafted or if the requirements have been met to do so.  I am also concerned that the actual source of both Innate and Caster levels may be established within the applicable 2da tables which are posted on the Wiki.  This could potentially pose a consistency headache with the values on the tables we have been compiling.


 * I'll be interested to know your view(s) regarding the change control aspects.--Iconclast 22:41, March 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * the basic dichotomy seems to be between player's convenience & editors making an effort to keep both of these updated. i tend to favor the player's side simply because it makes life easier to see the innate level & all that on one chart.  but i'll bow to tk since he spends a lot more time editing the wiki.  i should be able to generate the new tables this weekend.  apologies that i didn't have time this past week.  Mysticjester 16:10, March 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the caster level is relevant to the crafting tables, as it tells the player about the power of the resulting item. This could be useful, for a simplified example, if a player has resources to craft one wand, and has to decide which spell to craft and which spells to continue to prepare daily. (With all else being equal, craft the spell that yields caster level 15 instead of the one that yields caster level 3.) Having the innate level there can be helpful for those who want to verify the formula for themselves, and for those who have the spells sorted by level in their heads, so to speak. Sure, there is a little extra coordination in the wiki if those are in error, but I think the benefits are worth it. In addition, the innate level used in crafting is stored in a different location in the game data than a spell's "real" innate level, so in a sense we're just mirroring the game's data organization, along with the potential discrepencies. --The Krit 19:50, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are pretty much the same aspects I had debated with myself, TK, and it is good to see them echoed in print. My personal exposure to engineering document systems in the military, IBM, AT&T etc. forced me to call out the potential consequences to your attention (if you hadn't considered it already, of course).  Since you guys will be faced with the overhead of maintaining consistency, you should make the decision (as Mj has already implied).


 * If that is the preferred case, then there may need to be an additional column (which I was trying to avoid somehow) inserted in the Scribe Scroll table which identifies spells which do not coincide with the standard formula (per my latest count, 73 out of 271 spells cannot be calculated with the formula). All innate and casting levels have now been verified as correct and I believe they are all labeled in the spreadsheet. The term I arbitrarily assigned was "XP factor" and all those where the value is not 1.00 are the anomalies.  It's probably better to label these clearly per row so others trying to interpret the data are not forced to try to resolve the inconsistencies themselves.  The Craft Wand and Brew Potion formulas hold true 100% so would not benefit from an extra column.


 * When the tables have been officially posted, I'll make one final check against my records to assure they coincide. Thanks for getting this all together, guys! :) --Iconclast 16:37, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

caster levels
some spells have different caster levels when brewed/crafted as opposed to scribed.
 * bull's strength. cl=15 for brew/craft.  cl=3 for scribe.  cost based on lvl 15.
 * cat's grace. cl=15 for brew/craft.  cl=3 for scribe.  cost based on lvl 15.
 * eagle's splendor. cl=15 for brew/craft.  cl=3 for scribe.  cost based on lvl 15.
 * flame weapon. cl=3 for brew/craft.  cl=17 for scribe.  cost based on level 3.
 * fox's cunning. cl=15 for brew/craft.  cl=3 for scribe.  cost based on level 15.