Morrowind talk:Spells/Archive 1

This is an archive of past Morrowind talk:Spells discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

Spell Success Formula

In the spellcasting success formula, it says "Sound magnitude" - is that supposed to be "Spell magnitude"? Also, in the Morrowind_talk:Spell Making page someone gives a slightly different formula. Addendum: I just checked against my displayed success values in-game at full rest, and the other equation seems to be correct - except with +10 instead of Willpower/4. So I believe the correct equation is: Chance of Success = 1.25 * ( 10 + [Luck / 8] + 2*Skill - Spell Cost ) * ( 0.6 + [0.4 * Current Fatigue / Max Fatigue] )

That formula is obviously wrong on more than one point. The second part ((Current fatigue + 3 * Maximum Fatigue / 2) / Maximum fatigue * 2) can be abbreviated to ((Current fatigue + 3) * 0.25), which means that maximum fatigue isn't a factor, and that just doesn't make sense. This formula may theoretically be accurate but the person who wrote it doesn't know math and there's no reason to trust it. More research on this please. I'm deleting the current formula. Skrofler 00:04, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

I suggest you re-read your maths textbooks. That simplification is completely wrong, so criticizing the original author for not knowing math is a major case of the pot calling the kettle black. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 00:58, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

Oops! You're right of course. I was reading (((CF + 3) * MF / 2) / MF * 2) which makes it quite different.

Nothing wrong with my math though, just my reading skills. I probably made that mistake because of the redundant (3*MF/2) -> (1.5*MF) and I simply assumed an extra parenthesis that would make the 3 useful, without even realising it.

I blame the late hour. Thanks for staying alert. Skrofler 01:58, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, my mistake, I'm the one who found it. I forgot to clean the formula once I figured things out, never got around fixing it, sorry. Icy Eagle 22:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I just did some experimenting and Willpower *is* a factor for me. My Willpower is 62 and I'm getting a factor of about 15, not 10. 66.215.156.194 22:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Would anybody be upset if I removed the coordinates column from this page? It seems unnecessary to me for the following reasons:

• The general location should be enough to find people in most cases. (If you know what cell they start in, NPCs can't leave the room, so they'll always be there. Only an small issue for the few that live outside.)
• Coordinates aren't even accurate, as many NPCs (particularly those who live outside) will wander from their starting point anyhow.
• Most players aren't looking at their coordinates while playing.
• None of the other service providers or other NPCs have their coordinates given.
• Doesn't seem as relevant or important as the other info on the page.
• Looks ugly, wastes space.
• More work for me to keep looking it up every time I add things. (Yeah, yeah, lazy.)

--TheRealLurlock ^Talk 00:18, 21 December 2006 (EST)

split

Would anyone mind if I split this into different spaces like putting all alteration spells in one section, and all conjuration spells in another ect.

respond in a week from June 16 voting for, against, or neutral. The max replies of for or against will possibly sway me, to help sway me, you might want to add a comment or I might disregard it. --Jesus lover 23:12, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

What are you talking about? They already are split by school. This page is pretty much just a table of contents for the other 6 pages... --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 00:17, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

Baically the same thing, just split the schools into different pages, and adding the list. Ill take your comment as opposed. --Jesus lover 16:29, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

I don't get what you're suggesting. The schools already are on different pages, and there's a list of all the effects here. What exactly are you planning to do? --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 22:47, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

You know what, nevermind, I cant quite get the template to work, so lets all just forget about this. --Jesus lover 21:12, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Fortify Skill?

In Restoration column Fortify Skill links to Restoration_Spells#Fortify_Skill but there's no such section there. What's wrong?.. 77.122.58.179 16:20, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

The fortify skill spell effect is only available with the Tribunal expansion, and nobody has added the relevant spells (and spell effect section) to the restoration page. --Gaebrial 08:53, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

that is false the fortify skill effect is available on the original xbox game after collecting all of the sanguine items for the morag tong

Starting Spells

On all the various spell school pages (or at least all the ones I have looked at), there is some comment to the effect of "You get xxxx spell if xxxx school is one of your Major skills". This is not quite true - you can get some starting spells even if the school is a miscellaneous skill. The game actually checks the casting success percent for each of the spells marked as starting spells, and if it is above a certain value, you get that spell at the start. For example, I have had a character get Bound Dagger, but not Summon Ancestral Ghost, with a Conjuration of 25 (minor skill, Breton race). Certain mods change the Restoration starting spell to Balyna's Soothing Balm, and you can get that with a magic-specialised Breton even when Restoration is a miscellaneous skill. I don't know the exact casting success percentage required, but I think it's somewhere in the region of 60% - I seem to remember it's a game setting, but I don't have the CS to hand to check.

The big question is how to condense the actual situation into something that is simple to explain and understand. Any ideas? --Gaebrial 09:02, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

See the larger discussion of this issue at Morrowind Talk:Destruction. The original poster's claims seem to be correct, and help to answer several questions. --TheNicestGuy 15:41, 5 January 2008 (EST)

fortify skill

the link goes to the restoration list. the only problem is, fortify skill isn't there. there is a fortify skill page, i found it on a link from the cheats page. Morrowind:Fortify_Skill btw. — Unsigned comment by 4.224.168.11 (talk)

Thanks for pointing that out. A brief section has now been added to Morrowind:Restoration Spells so that the Fortify Skill link on this page is no longer broken. --Nephele^Talk 04:16, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Formulas

Out of curiosity, how do you find out the formula for spellcasting? Did someone look on the editor? Or was it a produced through math and rigorous testing? Please reply --Umbacano 22:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The first part ([Spell's skill * 2] + [Willpower / 5] + [Luck / 10] - Spell cost) is pretty simple to find out through the CS. I found the values just by tweaking the stats (in the CS the spell % is displayed, even if it's over 100) As an example a character with 100 luck, willpower and destruction given a fireball spell costing 150 will have the chance displayed as 80% in the CS (2*100 + 100/5 + 100/10 - 50 = 200+20+10-150 = 80). Once I played the game though the value was different, due to the "fatigue multiplier"(Current fatigue + [Maximum Fatigue * 1.5]) / Maximum fatigue * 2. Depending on how much fatigue there is the chance will be between 0,75-1,25*80. So with full bar, it's 100% and empty one, 60%. You can try the above in the CS, and fiddle with the stats too, like lowering luck to 50, the spell chance changes to 75%. Of course this is assuming I didnt screw any calculation up but i'm reather confident — Unsigned comment by 194.144.22.200 (talk) at 04:10 on 25 September 2010

Traps

How exactly am I supposed to make a spell that will work as a trap ? (Spell I'm trying to use can be found here)--TheAlbinoOrc 01:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You can't. So far the only Magic Effect I've heard of that lingers after impact is Oblivion:Frost Damage (not Morrowind's). --Timenn-<talk> 10:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I mean one that I can use as a trap on a chest in the CS.--TheAlbinoOrc 18:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Just check the "locked" box and select a trap. Easy.— Unsigned comment by 186.104.27.66 (talk) on 13 Feburary 2010

Well that works for everything Betheseda put in the game but my spells don't show up in the tab.--TheAlbinoOrc 14:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If you make them in "spellmaking", and name them something like 00_yourtrap the will be easiliy visible at the top of the list. Then, the spell can be in touch like the rest, for example im working on a mod, and a trap is 100 weakns magick 100 sec, 100 damage health 100, both on touch, and it works pretty well. Remember, its from "spellmaking", and not from "enchanting" section of the editor.— Unsigned comment by 186.104.13.197 (talk) on 14 February 2010

Ah, it has to be on touch thanks.--TheAlbinoOrc 20:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Spell Formulas

I was looking at the formulas and I cannot seem to get the Magicka Cost Formula to come out correct for built-in spells. Also, the equation itself does not take into consideration the Base Cost of the effect. Is this the confirmed equation? --DKong27 ^{Talk Cont} 18:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

So this ([Max Magnitude + Min Magnitude] * [Duration + 1] + Area ^ 2) / 20 is the relevant section right?--TheAlbinoOrc^{Got_a_question?} 18:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's right. --DKong27 ^{Talk Cont} 18:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll test this as soon as I can figure out what this ^ thing means. My preliminary question though is are you sure the spells you're looking at have auto calculate cost checked?--TheAlbinoOrc^{Got_a_question?} 18:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

^ Means it's to whatever power, in this case Area to the second power -- Jplatinum16 18:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Squared. ^2 means squared. And not at all. I have the Xbox version so I have extremely little knowledge about the internal workings. --DKong27 ^{Talk Cont} 18:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you take into account that "Target" spells multiply the above spell cost by 1.5? -- Jplatinum16 18:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. That is definitely not the problem. --DKong27 ^{Talk Cont} 18:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Thanks! So which spells are you using then?--TheAlbinoOrc^{Got_a_question?} 18:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Some examples are Ondusi's Open Door and Light. --DKong27 ^Talk 18:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, for Light if 40 * 31 + 900 /20 is correct then it should have a cost of 107 not 9.--TheAlbinoOrc^{Got_a_question?} 18:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That's what I got. I even thought to multiply it by the Base Cost for Light (.2) and it still doesn't come out right. --DKong27 ^{Talk Cont} 19:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Even if you do that you end up with 21.4. More reasonable but still not correct.--TheAlbinoOrc^{Got_a_question?} 19:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

← I'm looking at other spells also and it seems the problem is with spells with no magnitude range, but I can't be sure. Base cost also seems to have an effect, but the question is where does the base cost fit into the formula -- Jplatinum16 19:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

So time to call in someone else? Or do you think we can figure this out without bugging anyone?--TheAlbinoOrc^{Got_a_question?} 19:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay I just made a test spell (Open on touch in 10 feet with a magnitude of 30|30) and it has a cost of 11 (actually 10.50 but the game rounds up) which is correct.--TheAlbinoOrc^{Got_a_question?} 19:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I made a couple also (on Xbox). Open 50-50 on Touch cost 30. Divine Intervention on Self cost 18. Both more than the equivalent built-in spells. --DKong27 ^{Talk Cont} 19:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) And my second test spell which has a magnitude of 30|40 but is otherwise the same as the first one has a spell cost of 12 which is also correct. So what would affect base spells but not my spells?--TheAlbinoOrc^{Got_a_question?} 19:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, something is wrong with our formula. I'm searching the site now because I believe another conversation was brought up about it. I'm also wondering where this formula came from. -- Jplatinum16 19:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Unregistered user in April put in up. I checked the page history before I asked. One of the reasons I was somewhat suspicious. --DKong27 ^{Talk Cont} 19:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion wouldn't happen to be the one at MW_talk:Spell Making would it?--TheAlbinoOrc^{Got_a_question?} 21:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

He was asking the same basic question, and also got no good answer. This formula would be for the Magicka Cost, not the Spell Chance. There's a difference. --DKong27 ^{Talk Cont} 23:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

[outdent]It seems that whoever put entered the calculation in its current state forgot to factor in the base cost. The correct calculation should be (Min Magnitude + Max Magnitude) * (Base Cost / 40) * Duration + (Area * (Base Cost / 40)) . If someone could check these numbers for me (both via calculator and in-game if possible), I'd appreciate it, but I'm fairly certain this is accurate. Dlarsh^(T,C) 01:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Tested multiple spells with the calculator and some of the custom spells mentioned above... and they all came out correct! "Target" spells still multiply the spell cost by 1.5, and the duration for spells with no set duration is 1. I'll do a couple of more checking tonight, but it seems like we've cracked this case. -- Jplatinum16 01:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The only somewhat issue I can see is the values of variables that are not applicable with the effect (such as Magnitude with Divine Intervention). Assuming an input of 1 where a variable is not inferred I got Divine Intervention on Self as 11.25, whereas my in-game testing came out as 18 magicka. It still seems as if custom spells are at different costs than built-in ones. --DKong27 ^{Talk Cont} 02:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the minimum value for either magnitude level (min or max) is 1, rather than 0 (so Divine Intervention actually has a set magnitude of 1-1, rather than 0-1), which is why you're getting a number that is slightly off (I hope 18 was a typo and you meant 8, if not, then there is still an unsolved mystery...)

Edit: Never mind, minimum area can be 0 (and is for this spell), which is what threw off your calculation, not a mixup with magnitude, sorry.Dlarsh^(T,C) 02:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Which would make sense, because on-self spells have an area of zero. Ok, all we have to see is if DKong27 actually meant 8 instead of 18 to confirm this formula. -- Jplatinum16 02:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought I might have seen it wrong, but I tried again. Divine Intervention on Self most definitely costs 18 magicka. --DKong27 ^{Talk Cont} 02:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

[Outdent]Grasping at straws here, but are you sure it was Divine Intervention effect and not, say, Recall (which does have a cost of 18)? Dlarsh^(T,C) 02:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it was definitely Divine Intervention. --DKong27 ^{Talk Cont} 03:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Odd, I just noticed that the open spell you mentioned creating above is still twice as expensive as it should be as well. I wonder if there is some sort of modifier for custom spells that increases the base cost? DKong, could make two more spells in game for us, give us exact qualities, and cost please? It shouldn't be too difficult to determine what's happening this way. Dlarsh^(T,C) 03:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll pick a few effects that I have available and put that on. --DKong27 ^{Talk Cont} 03:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Absorb Health 28-39 pts for 3 seconds on Touch costs 53. Invisibility for 25 seconds on Self costs 26. Soultrap for 35 seconds in 3 feet on Target costs 5. Jump 12-44 pts on Self for 52 seconds costs 222. I tried to get a variety. --DKong27 ^{Talk Cont} 03:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Calculating these out with the current equation I got 40.2, 25, 7.225. and 218.4, respectively. --DKong27 ^{Talk Cont} 03:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

All your numbers add up except Soultrap (I'm getting 5.475). That being said, I'm still not seeing a number pattern... Absorb Health's base cost would be multiplied by between 1.306 and 1.331 (give/take some decimal places) because of the rounding factor, while invisibilty is between about 1.02 and 1.06. I suppose skill level at the time of spell creation could be a factor... is your llusion skill higher than your Mysticism? Even that wouldn't account for it all though, since the maximum amount that your Soultrap could be multiplied by is only about 1.004. Dlarsh^(T,C) 04:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Checking in the CS I found that the cost for the base Absorb Personality spell (Absorb Personality 5-20 points On Touch in 0 feet for 30 seconds) based on this new formula should have have a cost of 39.375, and so should the test spell I made, also in the CS, that's identical to the base spell- but for some reason they both have costs of 38 (actually 37.50 but the game rounds up). So what's going on? Is this an exception? Does this formula need more work? And also why do the base spells work differently than the custom ones until it becomes convenient to us for them to do so?--TheAlbinoOrc^{Got_a_question?} 13:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, in Morrowind Skill Level has nothing to do with how much a spell costs, only the chance to cast. As per my skills, my Mysticism was around 40-50 and my Illusion was under 20. Also, Alteration was in the 40-50 range. --DKong27 ^{Talk Cont} 14:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

[od]Albino, something's off with your calculation... It does come out to 37.5 based on the equation:
(5+20)*(2/40)*30+(0*(2/40))^2 = 25*0.05*30 = 1.25*30 = 37.5
As for what affects custom spell cost when you have the same spell must either be a modifier to the base cost, or a modifier to the final cost (adds a percentage). This could be caused by a number of factors including, but not limited to: skill/governing attribute level at time of creation (I doubt this almost as much as DKong, but it would explain why the effect can be so different for various spells), the effect itself (seems a little complex, why add another differing variable for each effect when they already have differing base costs?), or it could even have something to do with the actual cost of making the spell for all I know. It would make more sense for something simpler though, but there is deffinately something added to the equation when creating a spell in game. Dlarsh^(T,C) 01:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This formula is almost surely incorrect. And I believe it was correct some time ago, but someone changed that. The "Duration" is almost certainly not the actual duration of the spell, but something like "actual duration + 1". This can be easily seen with an example: Spell that does 100 dmg costs more than spell that does 10 dmg for 10 seconds. Therefore it is magicka-wise to create longer lasting spell effects rather than short strong impulses. This is not true for enchanting, where 100 dmg and 10 dmg for 10 seconds costs exactly the same. Sethiel 14:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the guy that created the original formula. I arrived at it by extensive testing with Resist Magicka, forgetting about base cost as was surmised. After reading through the thread and doing some more testing with other spells, I've figured out the actual formula, which is very similar to the one currently posted. The correct formula, to my knowledge, is: ([Max Magnitude + Min Magnitude] * [Duration + 1] + Area ^ 2) * (Base Cost / 40). There are two minor notes to make it match exactly: first, the minimum possible magnitude for any spell is 1 (despite the fact that you can set the slider to zero), and second, spell costs round down to the nearest integer. Finally, this formula is only valid for custom spells: pre-created spells may have their costs manually set. I will update the article accordingly. Edit: Oh, and spells without magnitudes behave like they have magnitudes of 1. 68.190.207.187 06:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

For spells without magnitude the value is (Min = 1) + (Max = 1) = 2 or Min + Max = 1? --Wizy (Talk/Contribs) 07:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The first. In other words, the actual minimum value for a magnitude (max or min) is 1. 68.190.207.187 07:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Something is wrong with the formula or I did something wrong. Tested with two random spells and these are the results:

• Dispel 9 to 16% in 21ft on Target
  • Min=9
  • Max=16
  • Duration=0
  • Area=21
  • Base Cost=1.0
  • Target(*1.5)

([16+9]*[0+1]+21*21)*1/40*1.5=17.48; but the real cost for this spell is 13

• Restore Health 1 to 7 pts for 264 secs in 50ft on Touch
  • Min=1
  • Max=7
  • Duration=264
  • Area=50
  • Base Cost=5.0

([1+7]*[264+1]+50*50)*5/40=575.5; but the real cost for this spell is 271 --Wizy (Talk/Contribs) 08:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right that there was a problem; the "area" portion of my formula was still off (see article for new formula). However, I seem to have gotten it correct for me, now, but I still can't quite get your figures to work. My Restore Health spell at your parameters costs 1921, not 271; could you double check? 1921 works perfectly with my new formula. Dispel is strange in that it has no duration. If you use a duration of 9, its numbers seem to work with my new formula. I also figured out that *no* slider (magnitudes, duration, or area) can go below 1, even though they show zero. 68.190.207.187 22:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

271 is definitely the magicka cost of that spell, 1921 is very close to the price in money to make the spell. Tested the new formula, it goes further away from the magicka cost and gets closer to the money cost, the changes are going in the wrong direction --Wizy (Talk/Contribs) 03:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

[outdent] I'm not sure what to say. I've checked several times and I'm definitely getting a 1921 magicka cost (not money, the cost is about $13k) for that spell. If I set the area to zero, the magicka cost is near 271 and the gold cost is near $1900; is that what you're doing? If not, what are your results when you do set the area to zero (i.e. restore health 1-7 points for 264 seconds on touch)? I'm not playing vanilla, but I'm fairly sure I don't have any mods that are affecting spell costs. If anyone else can weigh in, that would be great too. 68.190.207.187 07:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Spells Require Over 100

I've noticed that 100% Weakness to Common Disease requires more than 100 Destruction for some reason. Why would that be?--TheAlbinoOrc^{any_questions?} 20:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if no one knows the answer. I'm hoping it just got lost in Special:RecentChanges. To remind everyone though: This still hasn't been answered.--Ghurhak gro-Demril _{or TAO}^Yes? 18:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Lower casting cost of some spells

Did you notice that some (very few) of the (premade) spells have lower casting cost than they should have? For example, the basic Fireball spell costs much less (5) than the same spell if you make it yourself (about 11, IIRC). I noticed this during my playing, which is some time ago now, so I'm not sure about specifics. I definitely remember Fireball being one of the cases, and some of these as well: Fire Storm, Greater Fireball, Frost Storm, Greater Frostball.

If you can confirm this, it might be good to compile a list of these "Cheap" spells. Not counting the special ones, like argonians' water breathing, which is IIRC also cheaper than adequate spell made by spellmaker. Sethiel 14:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There are definitely some cheap spells around - Vivec's Touch is another. I'll try to make a list when I get the chance, unless you beat me to it. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't get the numbers exactly right, but I believe this is because these spells have zero values (for duration, magnitude, etc.), whereas spells made in-game can't have values below one (even though the slider says zero, the spell cost counts it as 1). Using zero values in the formula gets the numbers very close to the actual costs of most of these spells. 68.190.207.187 22:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Spell Cost Formula

I make a new section since the old one is very large and this subject still requires attention.

I found the exact equation for the Area part of the formula, "Area*Area" is and always been totally wrong in any way, the equation is:

• ('rest of the formula' + Area / 40) * BaseCost * 1.5(if Target)

I have tested with every single Area number from 1 to 50 with multiple effects and different magnitudes/durations, and the amount of magicka added by Area is always Area * BaseCost / 40 regardless of the Magnitude and Duration values. --Wizy (Talk/Contribs) 06:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, the minimum Area is always 1, even on Self spells have an Area of 1. --Wizy (Talk/Contribs) 06:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Here are my numbers for a 100 damage, 1 second fire (base cost 5) spell on touch: for areas (1, 5, 10, 15, 20) costs are respectively (50, 53, 62, 78, 100). 68.190.207.187 07:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here is the complete formula:

• ( [ MinMagnitude + MaxMagnitude ] * [ Duration + 1 ] + Area ) * BaseCost / 40 * 1.5 (If on Target)

The minimum values for Min/Max magnitudes, Duration and Area is 1. PS: you have a path that modifies the area cost --Wizy (Talk/Contribs) 07:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You have probably the Morrowind Code Patch wich includes the following "fix":

"Spellmaker area effect cost. Adding a large area effect to spells had a cost which was independent of the spell magnitude. For balance and realism, large area spells should cost significantly more than they do." --Wizy (Talk/Contribs) 07:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Aha! I bet that's it. It's strange that a "patch" should have such a large non-bug change to a system. Hmm, so now the conundrum is what to do about the formula. Obviously the vanilla formula (yours) should go on there, but I'd guess that a large number of players use the "Code Patch" (it's practically mandatory) without expecting it to actually make changes, so that formula might confuse them as it did me. Edit: Hmm, nevermind, I was thinking of the Morrowind Patch Project. The Code Patch probably isn't in use as much. OK, well, at least we figured out the problem. Guess I can't help much with determining the formula on a non-standard build. 68.190.207.187 15:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheap/Expensive

Are Cure Common Disease and suicide in the wrong table, or incorrect values? --Brf 18:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

big question

what is the combined effect ofcommand and demoralize humanoid? — Unsigned comment by Retsam (talk • contribs) at 10:34 on April 25, 2011

Command brings an actor under your control. Demoralize makes them less likely to fight. Against a hostile actor, they run away, becasue they lost willingness to fight. I would predict that they would come under your command, but run away from any enemies. Much like the Adoring Fan from Oblivion. --DKong27 ^{Talk Cont} 21:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Location of Unique Spells

I'm having trouble using this resource to find the location of specific unique spells, such as non-scroll Icarian flight. Perhaps it would be a good idea to link to pages that show you where to find each spell in the game. — Unsigned comment by 69.169.139.245 (talk) at 04:32 on 25 February 2012

From what I know there is no non-scroll Icarian Flight. There are a number of spells that were left with limited access by the developers on purpose. -- kertaw48 16:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Prev: None

Up: Morrowind talk:Spells

Next: None