Empowering
does empower increase the number of arrows?
it should be noted that a caster level of 32 is needed to reliably shred a greater spell mantle or an empowered spell mantle
max spells absorbed from greater spell mantle or empowered spell mantle = 22
vs.
effective number of spells from casting at lvl 28 = 21
effective number of spells from casting at lvl 32 = 24 --User:216.183.185.137 October 2007
- From empower spell: "All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by 50%." (This is the same phrasing that is used for maximize spell.) The number of arrows is not a variable effect since it is set to caster level / 4. (It might vary from caster to caster, but not from casting to casting.) So no, empower does not increase the number of arrows. --The Krit 22:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Multiple spell resistance checks
Is the separate application of spell resistance intentional? From the code, it would seem so. (And it almost appears, from the positioning of the comments, as though the check might have been outside the loop at some point and then deliberately moved inside.)
//Apply a single damage hit for each missile instead of as a single mass
//Make SR Check
for (nCnt = 1; nCnt <= nMissiles; nCnt++)
{
if(!MyResistSpell(OBJECT_SELF, oTarget, fDelay))
{
//Roll damage
int nDam = d6(4) + 1;
etc...
Obviously, this is in some ways a very powerful 3rd level spell, both because of the impact on spell mantles, but also because it increases the likelihood of at least some arrows getting past magic resistance. Of course, this may be balanced by the weakness of smaller chunks of fire damage, so that modest fire resistance may prevent all damage.
The reason I ask is that ILikeAndKillYou's very common pack of spell code bug fixes (NWN Vault page, and linked in several pages here in the NWNWiki, e.g. Black Blade of Disaster, Aid, etc.) "fixes" this spell such that it does a single check against spell resistance. Whether or not the original coding or the revised coding reflects the proper implementation of the spell (either is very different from the PHB version), it may be worth adding a note that this common set of spell fixes effectively nerfs Flame Arrow MrZork 21:00, August 26, 2010 (UTC).
- Yes, I believe it is intentional. The same thing was tried with the missile storms, and that was only changed because playtesting revealed that the missile storms were eating through mantles too quickly. (See the comments in
x0_i0_spells.) The same conclusion was not drawn for flame arrow, and that spell resistance check was not moved outside the loop.
- The way I read the comments you refer to, I see not a SR check that was moved inside the loop, but a loop that was added around the SR check (with the person doing this managing to insert the loop between the SR comment and the SR check).
- Since this behavior is quite possibly intentional, I am inclined to remove the reference to the spell fixes. It is not a fix for this spell as flame arrow is working as intended, and listing every modification that someone has ever made to a spell would likely send us into a morass of information overload. (The place to mention that the set of fixes nerfs flame arrow would be in that set's Vault page.) --The Krit 01:51, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
- My impression is also that the spell intent was to apply the spell resistance checks for each arrow and, that ILAKY's 'fix' isn't really a fix in this case. I would also certainly agree that mentioning every alteration to any of the standard spells would be both a distraction to the wiki reader and an impossible task. However, the wiki (very helpfully) mentions this set of fixes in reference to several bugged spells, and I thought it might be appropriate to add the caveat here that the changes one has applied to fix those issues might well result in behavior for this spell that players might not expect or desire. I know that if Flame Arrow seemed a little off, I would probably check here first to see if it was a known issue, or if I misunderstood the spell, etc.
I will send a PM on the bioware boards to ShAdDoOoW, the current maintainer of that set of spell code fixes and see what his take is. If he is amenable to making that change optional (a separate Flame Arrow erf for override use, maybe), then there would be no reason to mention it here. As it stands, I almost plopped in the alterations to deal with BBoD without noticing that Flame Arrow was changed, and I think many might do something like that and then be surprised at the (lack of) in-game effect on spell mantles and so on. -- MrZork 05:52, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
- My impression is also that the spell intent was to apply the spell resistance checks for each arrow and, that ILAKY's 'fix' isn't really a fix in this case. I would also certainly agree that mentioning every alteration to any of the standard spells would be both a distraction to the wiki reader and an impossible task. However, the wiki (very helpfully) mentions this set of fixes in reference to several bugged spells, and I thought it might be appropriate to add the caveat here that the changes one has applied to fix those issues might well result in behavior for this spell that players might not expect or desire. I know that if Flame Arrow seemed a little off, I would probably check here first to see if it was a known issue, or if I misunderstood the spell, etc.