0.10.15: Spellmaker cost differs from classic [SAME AS CLASSIC]

Post here if you need help getting started with Daggerfall Unity or just want to clarify a potential bug. Questions about playing or modding classic Daggerfall should be posted to Community.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jay_H
Posts: 4072
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 1:54 am
Contact:

0.10.15: Spellmaker cost differs from classic [SAME AS CLASSIC]

Post by Jay_H »

Quoting mikeprichard in another topic:
mikeprichard wrote: Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:24 pmThe relevant UESP page description from https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Daggerfall:Lev ... ell_Points:

Spells and items that Absorb Magic can be used to gain free spell casts.

Access the Mages Guild Spell Maker (must be a member) and create a spell with the Soul Trap or Damage effect as 'area around target' with '1-1 + 1-1 per 2/level' magnitude.
Add two more effects from two other schools of magic.
Cast the spell near a wall or at your feet in order to absorb and regain the spell points used to cast the spell
The resulting spell might look something like these:

Example 1
Damage 1-1 + 1-1 per 2 levels (area around target)
Light 1-1 + 1-1 per 2 levels
Free Action 1-1 + 1-1 per 2 levels


However, I can confirm from testing that as of DFU alpha 0.10.15, the resulting cost of this spell in DFU (20 spell points) doesn't match its cost in classic (5 spell points). This discussion therefore may need to be moved to Help & Support, as I'm not sure whether the spell cost changes are a DFU bug/oversight which the DFU devs would need to address, or an intentional gameplay change made by DFU compared to classic which Jay_H would capture in his DFU wiki, I leave this up to Dubiousintent/the devs.
It appears spell costs for the above-cited spell are different in DFU and in DF.

User avatar
mikeprichard
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: 0.10.15: Spellmaker cost differs from classic

Post by mikeprichard »

Thanks, Jay - if this is in fact an unintentional change compared to classic, I'm fairly certain this will affect the spell point costs for a wide range of Spell Maker spell effect combinations in DFU vs. classic.

User avatar
Interkarma
Posts: 7247
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 1:51 am

Re: 0.10.15: Spellmaker cost differs from classic

Post by Interkarma »

Spell costs are dependent on your related magic skills. Are you using the exact same character in both classic and DFU when performing these tests?

DFU uses the same cost values and formula as classic. However, different characters will yield different cost outcomes.

User avatar
mikeprichard
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: 0.10.15: Spellmaker cost differs from classic

Post by mikeprichard »

Interkarma wrote: Tue Dec 17, 2019 9:26 pm Spell coats are dependent on your related magic skills. Are you using the exact same character in both classic and DFU when performing these tests?

DFU uses the same cost values and formula as classic. However, different characters will yield different cost outcomes.
Wow... how could I possibly have forgotten this? I'm not; sorry! However, the issue was originally reported by another user, who I directed to this forum from the original topic, so he/she may have something to add.

User avatar
Dubiousintent
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2019 12:41 am

Re: 0.10.15: Spellmaker cost differs from classic

Post by Dubiousintent »

Since we have the means to peer into this particular "black box" and I reported the original question, here are the pertinent bits at the time I created those two spells mikepritchard reported above, directly from the save file immediately after creation, to see if there is a code problem:

Level 1: INT=65, WIL=60, LUC=41
Major: Mysticism 28%
Minor: Illusion 21%, Restoration 26%
Misc: Destruction 6%, Thaumaturgy 6%, Alteration 3%

One thing I think needs explaining on the wiki is why the "casting cost" when purchased is apparently double that shown during construction. But given the assumption a "training spell" is likely to be created by a beginning mage, people are going to be wondering why they can't get a casting cost of "1". Saying it depends upon related magic skills is "why" but doesn't provide guidance as to how much is needed in which to meet the thresholds of that target.

User avatar
mikeprichard
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: 0.10.15: Spellmaker cost differs from classic

Post by mikeprichard »

The relevant part of my reply I just posted in the classic wiki topic: "As to the values in the "Cost" box within the Spell Maker UI for a particular effect not matching the "Casting Cost" in the main spell UI during spell creation, that occurs in both DFU and classic, while the difference is not always double, depending on your skill level, so I'm not sure what the detailed calculations are under the hood." Not sure if this is what you're referring to.

User avatar
Jay_H
Posts: 4072
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 1:54 am
Contact:

Re: 0.10.15: Spellmaker cost differs from classic

Post by Jay_H »

I made a character in DFU and DF to test this with the following stats:

Code: Select all

Dest 23
Alt 23
Myst 23
Thau 19
Rest 19
Ill 17
Spell cost was 48, magicka cost was 9 in both classic and DFU.

Unless you can provide further information on whether this bug is extant Dubious, I'm going to close this topic.

User avatar
mikeprichard
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 6:49 pm

Re: 0.10.15: Spellmaker cost differs from classic

Post by mikeprichard »

You're too quick for me, Jay, but as to the UESP wiki at least, I just posted in the main wiki topic the following update. I don't think there's anything else to see here. ;)

I've removed the "Cost" column from the "Cheapest spell for each school of magic" table at https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Daggerfall:Lev ... eap_Spells and tweaked the related introductory language to resolve this issue and avoid confusion, as the figures were in any case inaccurate in most cases.
Last edited by mikeprichard on Wed Dec 18, 2019 2:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Jay_H
Posts: 4072
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 1:54 am
Contact:

Re: 0.10.15: Spellmaker cost differs from classic

Post by Jay_H »

Ah, excellent. Good work removing that :)

Post Reply