FANDOM


Extending spells with fractional number of rounds per caster level Edit

To reply the The Krit's latest undo revision of Acid fog.

I wrote: "Extending this spell will not equal to 1round/level because the duration is first halved and rounded down and then multiplied by two again which results to the 1less round that it should be"

The Krit undone this note and replied: "Right, that is what "twice as long as normal" means."

Does it mean that we have some proof of how it should work (my note "less than it should be" is incorrect, I don't actually claim it should be like this) ? Because what we have are several spells with 1/2 levels and some of them are multiplying the result of CL/2 * 2 and some of them multiplying duration written in spell's description that is 2 rounds / 2 levels , shortened /2 = 1 round/level.

So I ask again, do we know what is correct behavior? Should the wiki decide what is correct or simply describe the current behavior?

A note into this article would be definitely appropriate, whether to note this in each spell with 1/2CL is questions, but if there are notes about cases where extended spell uses 1CL/1lv, why shouldn't there be a note that some spells doing this differently?

Each time its twice as long as normal, it only depends from what we are come out.

Also is the rounding down correct at all? Should the spell with 1/2CL cast by lvl 1 caster have duration of 0round or 0.5 round, or 1 round? Currently each spell has a sanity check to ensure the duration will be at least 1 round. Which maked discrepancy as the duration then is:
1:1
2:1
3:1
4:2
and so on. Do we have a proof this is intented and correct? Shouldn't it be rather 3sec 6sec 9sec 12 sec? 77.92.213.119 12:04, December 31, 2012 (UTC)

  • The slash stands for the word "per", not division. You cannot shorten "2 rounds per 2 levels" to "1 round per level". For example (as if you had not seen this before), if you have 17 levels, then you have eight "2 levels", which means 16 rounds going by "2 rounds per 2 levels". Yet "1 round per level" would give 17 rounds, which is not the same. --The Krit (talk) 17:50, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
  • Omg, extremely wrong math indeed. But no matter of that the point is still valid. If the duration is 1round/2levels twice can be still (and it is actually between various spells in NWN) calculated two ways, either divide and multiply again or by calculating 1round/level instead. 77.92.213.119 20:37, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
  • I talked about this with DnD manual a bit and came to conclusions on my questions.
  1. logically duration should be indeed /2*2
  2. half-round make no sense
Still the point lasts. Is it task of the wikipedia to determine whats right and whats wrong, or just to describe current behavior? We don't know what developers of this game intented, we might use references to DnD but you The Krit, refused to take DnD rules (which Bioware came out) into consideration in other cases. 77.92.213.119 13:22, January 4, 2013 (UTC)
  • Ignoring that your source is D&D instead of NWN, I would find conclusions resulting from reading a manual much more reliable than those resulting from a conversation with a book. In addition, if you want to know what the task of Wikipedia is, you should go ask them. Not that that is guaranteed to have any relevance here, as NWNWiki is not part of Wikipedia. (I'll retract both of those if you would for once come out and admit your command of the English language is rather poor. Or you can keep on making a fool of yourself with ludicrous statements. Up to you.) Still, I don't see what your point is. If a spell cast by a level 17 caster normally lasts 8 rounds (however that is calculated), then "twice as long as normal" is twice 8 rounds, which by no stretch of the imagination is 17 rounds. --The Krit (talk) 09:14, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
  • Meant NWNWiki, not wikipedia as a whole. 77.92.213.119 09:20, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
  • And I don't argue that twice 8rounds equals to 17 rounds. What Im trying to point out is that the extend calculation in Mass Charm, still follows the "twice as long as normal" rule. It only depends whether you are calculating from the result of 1 round / 2 levels or not. If this wouldn't be implemented in one of the bioware spells, I wouldn't touch it. Yet it is and we have two extending concepts. One that doubles the result of 1round/2levels and one that doubles the duration expression to the 1 round / level. Myself I would call this a bug with a references to the D&D rules which is NWN based off. But as far as I know, the NWNWiki usually stays neutral and simply describes the behavior. So unless you have proof it is bug - and since its you who usually argument with some nonexistant NWN rules that means that what developers written in scripts was their decision. Following this the extend calculation in Mass Charm is not a bug but a decision. Thus we should also note that the other 1 round / 2 CL spells behaves differently from Mass charm. 77.92.213.119 12:30, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
  • Okayyyy.... I will make sure the mass charm article has a note stating that when the spell is extended, it lasts marginally more than twice as long as normal. I anticipate adding such a note some time in February, 2008. --The Krit (talk) 20:19, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
  • You don't follow. I know there is such note for a mass charm, and because there is and because we have no proof this behavior is a bug rather than development decision I'm suggesting that we should make similar note for other 1R/2CL spells such as Acid Fog. Which is what I did, (except my note in that time was suggesting that this behavior is incorrect - which is not - now I know it) and you undone it - thats why we are discussing here. 77.92.213.119 21:01, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
  • So you are saying we should be adding notes saying that extend spell does exactly what extend spell claims to do? That would make as much sense as adding a note stating that acid fog does in fact calculate "4d6" for the initial damage, exactly as stated in the spell's description. No, that would just add useless information, making it harder for readers to find real notes. We do not need such fluff. --The Krit (talk) 21:31, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes thats what I'm saying. Your comparsion is off, there is no discrepancy between various damage calculations. Yet there is for extending spells. Until someone marks the extend calculation in mass charm as incorrect, there is a valid point to describe that the acid fog and other spells uses different extend calculation than mass charm. 77.92.213.119 08:22, January 29, 2013 (UTC)
  • But yes, it would be overkill to add these notes. So a single note in this article (similar to whats written in empower spell) would be enough. 77.92.213.119 05:40, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.