Difference between revisions of "Talk:Spellbook"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
MadDawg2552 (talk | contribs) |
("I think that spells should link to spellbooks as well as anything else that causes a similar effect." ...) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Should all spells link to the spellbooks? --[[User:MadDawg2552|MadDawg2552]] 01:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC) | Should all spells link to the spellbooks? --[[User:MadDawg2552|MadDawg2552]] 01:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| + | : I think that spells should link to spellbooks as well as anything else that causes a similar effect. For example, [[create monster]] links to [[spellbook of create monster]], but also the scroll and wand. In the [[source code]], many spells are implemented as variations on scroll or wand effects. I would create two pages even if the spellbook was the only source of the spell (as with [[command undead]] in [[SLASH'EM]]?), but others might do it differently. --[[User:Kernigh|Kernigh]] 02:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 02:20, 29 October 2006
what does blessing a spellbook do? i.e making it blessed not just uncursed does it improve the chances of learning the spell or the chances of casting the spell? -- PraetorFenix 04:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- It improves your chance of successfully reading it to 100%, regardless of intelligence, level, or anything else. Reading a difficult spellbook will still take time though. --Jayt 09:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Should all spells link to the spellbooks? --MadDawg2552 01:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think that spells should link to spellbooks as well as anything else that causes a similar effect. For example, create monster links to spellbook of create monster, but also the scroll and wand. In the source code, many spells are implemented as variations on scroll or wand effects. I would create two pages even if the spellbook was the only source of the spell (as with command undead in SLASH'EM?), but others might do it differently. --Kernigh 02:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
