FANDOM


Cut-scene? Edit

http://nwn.bioware.com/underdark/character_exaltedsorceress.html

this mentions a "cut-scene" effect that is unique to bigby's crushing hand. does this prevent PCs with freedom from casting dispel or MD on themselves? does it prevent PCs from reading a dispel or MD scroll?

what exactly does he mean by "cut-scene" effect? -- User:216.183.185.137 October 2007

  • It's the same cutscene immobility used by Bigby's grasping hand. All it does is prevent a creature from moving, but it bypasses all immunities. --The Krit 22:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Empowered spell Edit

Why is there a note about empowering this spell? It's level 9, so it can't be empowered. 65.175.185.183 03:29, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

  • Someone can want to move this spell on lower level. :P Michalwadas (Talk!) 14:11, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • The note is there presumably because the script allows for empowerment (and maximization, for that matter). I would not object to removing the note on the basis of the inability to actually empower this spell. --The Krit 19:29, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and removed the note. --The Krit 17:41, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Damage type Edit

Hi, what kind of enchantment has this damage? +0,+1,...? --37.188.238.21 18:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

  • If there was an enchantment, it would be mentioned. Any type of damage reduction will reduce the damage. --The Krit (talk) 00:37, July 25, 2013 (UTC)

Dispelling Edit

I don't know why someone thinks it's noteworthy to mention that spells can be dispelled, but it's certainly not new in the Enhanced Edition. (I certainly wouldn't mind removing the note completely, but keeping it is better than an edit war.) --The Krit (talk) 21:10, December 14, 2019 (UTC)

  • Perhaps I should add that the mention of "special ways" to remove immobilization in an earlier note means ways that target the immobilization specifically. Of course the effects can be dispelled; if that was not the case, there would be a note to that effect. You can dispel the immobilization of this spell, the paralysis of this spell, and even the effects of most other spells. The Enhanced Edition did not introduce that. --The Krit (talk) 21:23, December 14, 2019 (UTC)
  •  (There are no special ways to remove immobilization, though.) Please explain why this is included if there IS in fact a way to remove it. This is why the dispel edit is there, otherwise remove this line because it is incorrect. --66.38.112.230 21:31, 14 December 2019‎ (UTC)
  • The note containing that quote is there because there are special ways to remove paralysis, with "special" meaning that it cannot remove the effects of most spells. Paralysis and immobilization are closely related in this spell in that a target will get one or the other. So a note about paralysis seems like it should at least mention immobilization, even if that mention says that there is nothing to say regarding special methods of removal. --The Krit (talk) 21:43, December 14, 2019 (UTC)
  • Dispelling it to remove it is no more or less special than casting something that removes paralysis. If mentioning that spells that remove paralysis can remove a spell that literally tells you you're paralyzed in the buff/debuff bar, then why would dispel not be worth mentioning also. --66.38.112.230 22:31, 14 December 2019‎ (UTC)
  • I've already explained why removing a spell with dispel magic is less special than removing a spell with remove paralysis – any spell can be removed with dispel magic, but remove paralysis can remove only some spells. Adding a note about dispelling here suggests we add one to every non-instant spell, which seems like overkill. (I am not opposed to removing the list of spells that remove paralysis, by the way. That was someone else's idea. I see it as reasonable but unnecessary.) --The Krit (talk) 23:11, December 14, 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, it only removes some spells, spells that paralyze you, that is not "special" that is literally normal and common sense gameplay. This is a wiki, and when notes have wording like "There are no special ways to remove immobilization", people who aren't as familiar with the spell and game mechanics are going to see that and assume nothing can get rid of it. Wording is important, and that wording is bad. Even in the note above it regarding Mind-Affecting spells reads "This allows the target to perform actions while held stationary, but makes it harder to remove this spell." When in fact it is not harder to remove the spell, in fact it makes it easier if you are playing in a single player game as if you are paralyzed you cannot cast or do anything at all to remove the spell. No, it's not suggesting to add it to every non-instant spell, because not every non-instant spell has notes like this that can give the wrong impression. --66.38.112.230 00:46 December 14, 2019 (UTC)
  • You have a different understanding of the English language than I. I accept "distinguished by an unusual quality" as a meaning for "special". Only affecting a few spells is what makes remove paralysis an unusual way to remove a spell's effects. That is special. Furthermore, when I see "no special ways" I infer that there are probably not-special ways, which is rather opposite to your reading. Otherwise, why choose to qualify "ways"? --The Krit (talk) 01:56, December 15, 2019 (UTC)
  • My understanding of english is quite on point, actually. Who woulda thought a spell called "Remove Paralysis" would remove a spell that paralyzes you and even puts a debuff on the bar called paralyze, totally unusual! It is clearly worded badly and the dispel line clears that up, quit being difficult for the sake of being difficult. --66.38.112.230 03:39, December 15, 2019 (UTC)
  • Straw man arguments are unconvincing. I wrote "to remove a spell's effects", without qualification of the spell. --The Krit (talk) 03:37, December 17, 2019 (UTC)
  • Speaking of straws, you're grasping at them quite hard here. You CLEARLY linked "Distinguished by an unusual quality". A spell called "Remove Paralysis" removing "Paraylze" is in no way unusual. The dispel line belongs, quit while you're behind. --66.38.112.230 11:11pm, December 16, 2019 (CST)
  • You are moving into the realm of personal attacks. Discussions are supposed to be civil and in good faith. Do you need a time-out to think about how to get along with others? --The Krit (talk) 01:35, December 18, 2019 (UTC)
  • So because you're losing the debate you now accuse me of personal attacks because I say you're grasping at straws and to quit while you're behind? Stop, Krit, you're embarassing yourself. --66.38.112.230 9:24pm, December 17, 2019 (CST)
  • I'll take that as a "yes". --The Krit (talk) 03:40, December 18, 2019 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.