Score vs. modifier Edit

This seems to be discussing what an ability score is as much as it is talking about the modifier. Would it be a good idea to split these 2 concepts out as there currently isn't an article for ability score at all. Enigmatic 19:00, 2 Oct 2005 (PDT)

Casting at 10 Edit

In the Spell part of the table, shouldn't a score of 10-11 also say "Can't cast spells tied to this ability" as well? Because you can't cast any spells with a score of 10 or 11, it seems. -- 19:11, 13 July 2006 (PDT)

You can cast 0-level spells with a 10 and first level with an 11. You don't receive any bonus spells though. -- Alec Usticke 21:01, 13 July 2006 (PDT)

Capped? Edit

Is this capped at 50? Meaning if someone had 52 ( 18 + 10 levels + 2 rdd + great cha X ) they'd recieve no more bonus spells than had they left it at 50? 09:32, 24 July 2006 (PDT)

I don't think so. I believe ability scores can go to 127. -- Alec Usticke 12:19, 24 July 2006 (PDT)
Well I meant moreso, if I had 127 in the charisma score, would I get more bonus spells than someone who only had a 50. As in, does this chart scale up past 51? 12:54, 24 July 2006 (PDT)
Oh. Don't know the answer to that one. -- Alec Usticke 13:49, 24 July 2006 (PDT)

Base vs. modified Edit

Are bonus spells based on natural ability scores or modified (spells/equipment) ability scores? What's the highest natural ability score a character could get? Blacknight 13:04, 24 July 2006 (PDT)

It's based on modified scores. However, since you need to rest to get bonus spells, some temporary bonuses don't do much good. -- Alec Usticke 13:49, 24 July 2006 (PDT)

Explaining: why 52 Edit

In an unmodified game, the highest ability in a mental stat (for spell casters) one can get with a normal character is 52: start with 18 add 10 from ability increases at level up, 10 from Greater WIS/INT/CHA and 12 from magic enhancements. Also +2 from RDD INT or CHA. For a total of 18+10+10+12+2=52 --SevenMass 10:41, 29 September 2007 (PDT)

Table formatting Edit

Since I touched the table, I thought I would mention that me not changing something does not mean I like it. (In this case, I'm still questioning the color choice and the value of listing 10-19 as individual rows -- instead of pairing them up, when the pairs are the same as far as the modifier goes. In the context of this article, the inability to cast spells is a technicality, not a consequence.) --The Krit (talk) 16:46, October 19, 2013 (UTC)

  • For what it's worth, the table in its current form seems a bit misleading to me with the color scheme. First, the "cannot cast spells tied to this ability" statement for ability score 10 applies only to ranger and paladin. A note could be added to clarify this minor point, if needed. Second, I would leave the score 11 on a row by itself (with the class codependency of score 10 existing as it does) and resume the pairing from 12-13 on, just as you (TK) suggest (at least that's what I am interpreting?), but re-inserting the dashes/hyphens that previously were displayed in each column (IIRC). Next, I would reword the column heading to read "Bonus spells per day at spell level" and insert a column for cantrips (spell level 0) which contains dashes/hyphens from row/score 10 to the end, thereby indicating that no bonus spells can be accrued for them. I would use only a number rather than 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. as subordinate column headings. Finally, in the rows from 12-13 through 50-51 and 52 it would be clear that no bonus spells will be accessible for those spell levels and be consistent. IMO combining the columns listing the spell levels on a row is not only unnecessary but less intuitive.
Primarily, the table is supposed to be relating the consequence(s) of ability scores on a creature's performance, with spell casting (levels) being just one of the characteristics subject to an affect. Just another opinion registered as far as the formatting goes. --Iconclast (talk) 19:54, October 19, 2013 (UTC)
  • The score 10 row does not state "cannot cast spells tied to this ability". (There is a line in the middle of the red.) I'm not sure what you mean by "no bonus spells will be accessible for those spell levels", but I might just be to hungry to think at the moment. --The Krit (talk) 22:44, October 19, 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I see the line, TK. But the color coding seems to indicate that the inability to cast spells continues somehow down to score 18 which isn't true. You'll still be able to cast spells, you just won't get any bonus slots in that cell. That entire colored section of cells after the line falls under the same category as the other "no bonus spells for this spell level" cells with hyphen notations. For score of 10 for ranger & paladin "cannot cast spells tied to this ability" is true. It's false for all other caster classes.
"no bonus spells will be accessible for those spell levels" means "for that score and that spell level, no bonus spell slots will (or "can") be added".
I guess what it comes down to is: What (if anything) is the different color of the cells supposed to be telling me? I have no clue. --Iconclast (talk) 01:13, October 20, 2013 (UTC)
  • The marks indicating inability to cast spells were probably first taken from the NWN manual as it had a chart with those marks as well as indicating the bonus spells from ability modifier. The indicator for inability to cast spells is derived from two factors: the unmodified ability score (base ability score) and the modified ability score. In order to cast a spell from a spell book both of these values must be greater than the spell level slot used in the spell book. The first can cause issues for whether the ability modifier can be used for more spell slots. For example, if I had a level 3 wizard with 11 intelligence I would be unable to learn any second level spells from a scroll. If I leveled up to the point that I could learn a second level spell by a scroll and then de-leveled by experience point loss back to wizard level 3, I would still know the spells I learned from a scroll but would be unable to cast them even with a ring of intelligence +3 (enough to normally trigger a bonus slot) as my base score is not high enough to cast the spell. I could also use the in game console commands to lower the base score after any class learns a spell to prevent them from casting it even if their modified ability score is sufficient. (Technically classes that do not have to select spells on level up (e.g. cleric) already know the spells for that class level even if their base casting ability score is not high enough when they took that class level and as such would be able to cast these higher level spells once the base ability score is raised even if they do not level up further in that class).
When the base score is sufficient and the modified score is not sufficient, then the ability modifier already indicates no extra spells, so the indication of inability to cast spells is superfluous in that context (the lowered modified score will, however, block extra spell slots by item property as well as natural spell slots from the class level). Given that two different ability scores are considered (base and modified) whenever there is a conflict between extra spells by modifier and inability to cast spells by ability score, it might not be of the best interest to combine this data into a single chart, as the NWN manual did.WhiZard (talk) 02:20, October 20, 2013 (UTC) modified by 02:47, October 20, 2013 (UTC)
  • If I am reading the above correctly, you are seeing this table as defining when spells cannot be cast. I see it differently: acknowledging that spells cannot be cast, making the question of bonus spells moot. Explanatory, not defining. --The Krit (talk) 03:41, November 18, 2013 (UTC)
  • No, I am seeing the game manual's table (which this table is based off of) as doing that. If the game manual table did not exist, there likely wouldn't be any red regions in this table. WhiZard (talk) 16:21, November 18, 2013 (UTC)
  • *shrug* I also see the game manual's table as acknowledging when spells cannot be cast, particularly since it does not go into the 10+spell level criterion. (Although, at the moment I don't see that criterion anywhere in the manual, so maybe I'm overlooking it.) Don't know which view is more prevalent. --The Krit (talk) 01:42, November 19, 2013 (UTC)
  • The different color is indicating spell levels that cannot be cast. Which kind of makes moot the question of getting bonus spell slots for those spell levels (but to be thorough, there are none). It's really an auxiliary piece of information in this context, since it is based on ability score, rather than ability modifier.
    Personally, I would not mention paladins and rangers in this article. As a general game mechanic, they are allowed to cast level 0 spells with a 10 wisdom. It's just that those classes lack level 0 spells. (They also lack higher level spells -- does the table need a footnote accounting for that? I don't think so.) Going into that level of detail in a general game mechanic article seems like it would be more distracting than illustrative. --The Krit (talk) 04:42, October 20, 2013 (UTC)
  • Did the suggestions that most looked like solid improvements: added an explanation for the colored region for rows 10+, and reworded the column heading. The rest I'm not sure about or wanted to think about more. --The Krit (talk) 23:21, October 20, 2013 (UTC)
  • Changed the ordinals to cardinals and recombined the rows. I also played with the formatting of the spell levels that cannot be cast just to see what it would look like. --The Krit (talk) 03:42, November 18, 2013 (UTC)
  • For our mutual edification, TK... it's the clearest representation I've seen anywhere. The different shading seems to have done the trick. Thanks for your thoughts and efforts. ;) --Iconclast (talk) 12:55, November 18, 2013 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.