FANDOM


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)
  • I'll have to think about it some more, but my first thought is that if that package contains some material changes that are not bug fixes, then maybe the references to it should be removed from NWNWiki. (Or maybe the non-fixes could be split off into a separate Vault entry, but that's not something we have control over.) There are other spell packages out there that do not get special mention because they did not stop at just fixing bugs in the scripts, but went on to "fix" the design of the spells. I don't see why this one should be treated differently if it does the same thing. --The Krit 19:14, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
  • I can separate it from the entry, but see no reason to do that. Who decide whats fix and whats not? Maybe this is more like balance change, but since the spell is completely made up, and since similar spells were in past changed the same way because of spell mantles, I think this "fix" has its place in that package. Surely some peoples who likes the breaking spell mantle feature (myself included) won't want this, but this not means its bad. How many peoples prefer 1.69 version of Evard's Tentacles over the new "fixed" 1.69 one which is useless? I would say its 10% of peoples, it might be we three, but globally peoples won't argue, it was in patch so what. Same there. Also those who not wish to get this "fix" can just remove this particular fix from their module - all they have to do is know the spell script name - which they find out here. ShaDoOoW 01:42, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • In reference to "Who decide whats fix and whats not?": The authority on this matter is BioWare, so if a change makes a spell behave more according to its description, then it is a fix. If a change affects things not covered by an in-game description, then it is not a fix, but a modification. (Also if a change makes a spell behave contrary to an in-game description, then it is not a fix.) There might be a few exceptions where something is obviously bugged without contradicting in-game text, but (other than contradictory in-game text) I cannot think of any off the top of my head (and people tend to abuse the term "obvious").
People can view the in-game descriptions as broken, and they can consider BioWare's design choices to be flawed, but "fixing" these things are a matter of personal preference. I would not call such things "fixes" in this wiki; they are modifications. --The Krit 16:29, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • And I would still call it a fix. So I won't remove it from the spellfix package. For wiki, do what you want, this is your playground ;) - ShaDoOoW 20:05, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • Very few people consider their modifications to be other than improvements, and a good number of people equate "fix" with "improve". (I would say mistakenly equate them, but there is a grey area.) There's no reason you should alter your package if you don't want to. --The Krit 19:30, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
  • Nope, it can't be improvement, because it act as nerf :D that why the most proper word is fix. Anyway, we are done here. ShaDoOoW 23:57, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
  • Nerfs can be improvements. Improving a spell does not mean "more powerful" but "more fun", so if a spell is overpowered then you would in fact need to nerf it to improve it. You can improve the spell, but you cannot fix it because it is working as designed (i.e. the implementation is not broken) and you cannot fix what is not broken.
(The grey area involves being able to declare the spell design to be broken. That would mean the design could be fixed, with a corresponding change to the spell script. However, there is no objective way to decide which designs are broken without turning to BioWare for an answer. Hence me not wanting to call them "fixes" in this wiki.) --The Krit 19:19, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 
Addendum: There are other contexts in which "improve" would mean "more powerful", but the current context is not one of them. --The Krit 19:51, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • Going back to the original question: is this intentional? There is another reason to think it is intentional. The reason for changing the missile storms to a single check was the way they could eat through spell mantles, which is only one factor affecting the spell resistance check. Against actual spell resistance, having multiple checks tends to work out nicer for those involved. A low level caster has a realistic chance of landing an arrow or two before running out of spells, while a high level caster will not have a casting completely negated by a single bad die roll. On the receiving end, it is usually better to have damage spread out (allows more time for healing and/or victory), so, for example, being hit by a quarter of the arrows from each of four castings of flame arrow is likely a better option than having all that damage come in one round (and the other three castings fully resisted). There are exceptions, of course, but as a general rule of thumb, the more die rolls involved, the better one can plan for an encounter. I would guess that this is close to the reason BioWare implemented the check-per-arrow, and I can see it being more significant than the side-effect of a level 40 flame arrow being able to rip through 30 levels of spell mantle. (The missile storms are different in that their effect on mantles is an order of magnitude higher -- the lesser one starts by being able to rip through 28 mantle levels.) Just some food for thought. --The Krit 02:18, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Type of damage, resistance & immunity

Is the damage from flame arrow "fire", purely "physical" or does it contain both components?

Actually, I need an answer to the first question before this next one has any relevance but I will ask it as a contingent inquiry...

If the target has both a mantle in place and also resistance to fire or immunity to fire, will the flame arrows still have the same effect (eroding 3 spell levels per arrow) on the spell mantle even though the actual damage is either reduced or negated entirely?

If it is only physical, will damage reduction alter the same effects as described for the fire damage above? --Iconclast 01:02, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

  • Flame arrow is purely fire (no physical) and respects fire immunity and resistance normally. If you had a mantle up it would be the first thing to be stripped, after this comes spell immunity to flame arrow, followed by the SR check, followed by the reflex save (evasion allowed) followed by damage immunity and lastly, damage resistance. WhiZard 01:16, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes the mantle is stripped first no matter of what which was my main issue. So in my unofficial patch I changed this behavior so immunity to spell (globe of invulnerability) is applied before and that applies for any spell not just Flame Arrow. --ShaDoOoW 10:55, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
  • Does your patch check for specific immunity granting spells and item properties (like globes, and the polymorph pixie skin) or does it somehow circumvent the hard-coded ResistSpell() command? WhiZard 15:27, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately my currect solution checks only spell effect of (minor/shadow) globe of invulnerability. So Spell Resistance is checked still as last and if creature has natural immunity like demilich/rakshasa this solution dont work and any spell hit first spell mantle if present on such creature. It is possible to add even this kind of functionality, I just considered it too tricky and difficult to implement. Maybe in new version (if I finish current and the project will continue). --ShaDoOoW 15:52, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
  • So is the sequence you described the default vanilla check process for all spells or only certain ones, like FA? If I have interpreted the erosion effect correctly, any spell may have the same affect on the mantle, just not to the degree that FA does. (Apparently, as ShaDoOoW explains, the sequence is sometimes customized to re-balance the effects to a degree.)--Iconclast 16:20, August 3, 2011 (UTC)
  • Usually. The order within the spell resistance check (mantles, then spell immunity, then spell resistance) is the same across all spells. The saving throw (if any) should always come after that, but there might be rogue scripts out there that get that order wrong. The damage immunity and resistance (in that order) always come last as those aspects are intrinsic to the application of damage -- spells do not check for damage immunity/resistance; they simply apply damage and let the game engine take care of the rest. So basically, spell scripts can contain explicit calls to 1) check spell resistance, 2) roll a saving throw, and 3) apply damage. The order of these calls can vary (although it would be odd to invoke spell resistance after applying damage), but the order of checks within each of these steps is fixed. --The Krit 17:16, August 3, 2011 (UTC)
  • The community patch's new sequence applies for all spells as long as there is any globe of invulnerability spell effect. --ShaDoOoW 20:43, August 3, 2011 (UTC)
  • This is not about your pet project, ShaDoOoW. --The Krit 21:07, August 3, 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry im kind a confused by new? "reply" syntax. I meant that answer for Iconclast, just badly formated it so it looked like reply to you... --ShaDoOoW 21:15, August 3, 2011 (UTC)
  • Iconclast wasn't asking about your pet project either. --The Krit 16:11, August 4, 2011 (UTC)

Saving Throw

Do you make one save for this spell or one save per arrow?

  • One save per each arrow. Also each arrow consumes spell mantle or is subject to spell imunity/resistance. --ShaDoOoW 17:29, December 7, 2011 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.