FANDOM


Non-verbal creature spells Edit

If a spell with verbal component is assigned to a creature not normally capable of speech, like some aberrations for example, is it still cast with the verbal component or as metamagic (i.e. a silent spell)? --Iconclast 22:59, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

  • Its cast with verbal component. Spell engine don't check for appearance, only for silent effect. ShaDoOoW 10:59, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
  • All creatures are capable of speech in Neverwinter Nights. --The Krit 20:48, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Somatic note change Edit

I am not seeing the reason for changing "Somatic spells do not have a verbal component, and thus are not affected by magical silence, deafness, etc." to "The casting of spells with only a somatic component is not affected by magical silence, deafness, etc." Both appear correct, but the former is clearer about the rationale (i.e. it's not so much having the somatic component (only) that matters, but the lack of a verbal component. In addition, the latter strikes me as slightly more awkwardly worded, but it's close enough that I might change my mind about it tomorrow.

(I looked at the edit summary to try to try to see the reason for the change, but that is self-contradictory, saying that spells with just a somatic component both are and are not subject to silence, etc. Probably a typo of some sort, but still no help in seeing why the change was made.)

So what is the reason for the change? --The Krit 07:22, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

  • Sorry for the unclear history note on the edit (I noticed it after posting, but I don't know how to change a history note). The reason for the change is to clarify exactly what you mentioned: That it's not whether a spell has a somatic component that determines whether its casting is affected by silence, but whether it lacks a verbal component. The earlier wording of "Somatic spells do not have a verbal component, and thus are not affected by magical silence, deafness, etc." could leave the impression that by merely having a somatic component would allow the spell to be cast despite silence effects. It isn't necessarily clear to which case "somatic spells" refers - spells having a somatic component, or spells having only a somatic component. There may well be better wording, but my goal was to get around potential ambiguity with that term.
    (FWIW, I actually double-checked for examples of spells requiring neither component, thinking that the note could also have a link to those spells and that would further amplify the lack-of-verbal-component aspect. There aren't any such spells, though I assume they could be made. So, this is a case where the set of somatic-only spells in the link is exactly equivalent to the set of spells with no verbal component.)
    Anyway, please ignore the history note, as I think it was confusing. I will make another slight edit to the entry which I hope will avoid potential ambiguity about "somatic spells" without unnecessarily belaboring the point. -- MrZork 15:08, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • You can't change the history note — there are a couple of mine I would have changed if I could. ;) My point was that I did look at the note. As for knowing what "somatic spell" refers to, that is why it is linked, and why the original version specified "Somatic spells do not have a verbal component" rather than "Somatic spells that do not have a verbal component". If "somatic spell" is not the correct term for this type of spell, then more than this article needs to be changed. --The Krit 15:17, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • To bad about the uneditable history notes. I guess a record of these flubs adds to all the help I get in staying humble. :-)
    Perhaps linking to the somatic spells article is sufficient, though I think using the term excludively in that way invites some confusion. To me, the term "somatic spells" seems a little unclear because, to someone seeing it for the first time, the two meanings noted above are reasonable ("having a somatic component" and "having only a somatic component") and the earlier one may seem more sensible. Why? Because, if "somatic spells" refers to spells with only a somatic component, then the list of non-somatic spells includes spells with a somatic component that also have a verbal component. Maybe I'm having a hard time saying this, but there is something odd about the term "somatic spells" not including spells that do have a somatic component, just because they also have a verbal component.
    Maybe that is the official NWN or D&D definition (the NWN pdf manual that comes with the game doesn't say). If so, then perhaps this article would be a good place to note that the three terms are offcially defined to be non-overlapping such that 1) "somatic spells" have only a somatic component, 2) "verbal spells" have only a verbal component, and 3) "verbal-somatic spells" have both. Something to that effect could be the second sentence of the article... -- MrZork 18:23, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, that is the question — is "somatic spells" an official term or just something someone coined for NWNWiki? I asked about the name of that article before, and got no response. Maybe it's time to ask again. --The Krit 10:09, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • Nobody stated any objections, so I went ahead and renamed the articles. While I was at it, I gave this article an overhaul as several parts were copied from D&D material despite irrelevance to NWN. (For example, there are no gags in NWN.) --The Krit 21:31, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Nice work. I think the article is much clearer now. MrZork 06:20, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.