Creature abilities[]
Arcane Defense Evocation Gives +2 vs many creature abilities. Including Illithid Psionic Blasts, petrification from Basilisks / Gorgons, and death saves from Bodak's. All creature abilities I tested actually with the exception beholder rays and creature abilities that are effectively copies of a spell, like Psionic Charm. --74.75.135.130 January 30, 2010
- Yes it appears user type 1 and 2 (not 3 and 4) allow the target the advantage of arcane defense (though with type 2 the immunity to spells by school doesn't help the target even when a spell resistance check is allowed). I was unable to reproduce your basilisk example. According to the script it functions as a delayed command which should dissociate itself from the spell ID (this result agrees with my playtesting). WhiZard 17:38, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
Arcane defense: abjuration[]
if arcane defense abjuration it taken, are your chances of being dispelled lower? --142.165.207.25 22:36, 4 February 2011
- When was the last time you made a saving throw to avoid being dispelled? --The Krit 00:20, February 5, 2011 (UTC)
Saves vs. spells[]
Is the failure to recognize saves vs. spells actually a bug? The only circumstance of this is with epic spells (hellball and greater ruin), and there the saving throw bonus might not be desired. WhiZard (talk) 03:51, July 20, 2013 (UTC)
- Is it just a failure to recognize saves "versus spells", or does explicitly specifying "versus spells" cause the bonus to not apply within a spell script? The wording suggests the latter, which could be a problem for custom spells. (I don't see why BioWare would stick in something like that, but that's what someone wrote.) --The Krit (talk) 14:23, July 20, 2013 (UTC)
- Hellball and greater ruin are the only ones to explicitly use SAVING_THROW_TYPE_SPELL as the type for the saving throw. Not using this saving throw type will allow arcane defense to work. But when this type is present it does not work. My question is whether this behavior should be noted as a bug or an implementation which allowed epic spells to ignore arcane defense. WhiZard (talk) 17:38, July 20, 2013 (UTC)
- I think the epic spell theory makes sense. And that note originated from someone who has a track record of poor judgment, so I see no reason to keep calling it a bug. --The Krit (talk) 01:06, July 21, 2013 (UTC)
- My reasons to call this a bug were these: 1) in paper version of DnD this would work against epic spells 2) this constant is present in vanilla nwn when there was no epic spell yet 3) name suggest usage in "outside-spellscript" situations where you want PC to retain vs spells bonuses. But I dont think it does even matter wheter epic spells using this constant on purpose to ignore spellsave bonuses or not. ContributorWithPoorJudgment77.92.213.119 18:10, July 26, 2013 (UTC)