Talk:Wizard spell summaries

PnP vs DDO numbers
Currently most spells' numerical effects are taken from the PnP version (since Turbine hasn't released the numbers). I suggest to use bold numbers for 'true' DDO numbers. Does that sound ok for everyone? -- Tihocan 19:45, January 26, 2006 (PST)


 * I'd say just remove exact numbers untill they are released. -- 20:23, January 26, 2006 (PST)
 * Well even with inexact numbers, you can use them to judge the relative strengths of spells. There only seems to be mild deviations on that. It's better than saying something generic like "repair critical heals about 4 times as much as repair light".... bleh ;p --Uky 23:25, January 26, 2006 (PST)


 * I also think that people do find PnP numbers useful for DDO. It gives you a better idea of what spells are doing (at least to compare spells). And there is no guarantee that the DDO numbers are ever going to be released (though I plan to find out some of them by myself in such a case). So I'd keep them until we have better numbers to replace them with. -- Tihocan 04:46, January 27, 2006 (PST)


 * Ok then, but it should be that all NON-VERIFIED descriptions are in italics - that differentiates them more. And don't just bold a single number, nobody will notice that - it's all or nothing. If you can't verify a whole description (at LEAST a whole sentance alone) then don't normalize the text. For instance, if you know that magic missle makes 6 missles, but don't know if the 1d6 per missle damage is correct, then just put something like this: "Summons six magical missles that speed unerringly to their target. Each missle does 1d6 arcane damage on impart." - make sense? 14:26, January 27, 2006 (PST)


 * I tend to find that bold makes a significant difference for me (I do notice it). Italics do not. Yes, we may write a whole description in italics, but then we have a lot more to write just to say the same thing. Me = lazy. This (laziness) is the same reason why I preferred to distinguish the verified numbers, instead of the non-verified ones (there are just a couple of verified numbers right now). Makes also more sense to emphasize what is true. Is there a way to put some wiki code around numbers that would tag them (un)-verified, in order to have a way to mess with their appearance at will without needing to edit everything each time we find a better way to do things? This way we could experiments with fonts, colors, etc. and see what fits best. -- Tihocan 15:02, January 27, 2006 (PST)
 * Well I barely notice bold and hardly notice italics! Whoo! Let's throw in underlining to really jumble the descriptions! :D
 * (not actually a joke, but yeah... much silliness altogether ;p) --Uky 17:55, January 27, 2006 (PST)
 * Sorry for opening an old discussion, but please don't fill a page with bold numbers. It hurts my head to go between normal text and bold text frequently, and distracts me too much from the whole meaning of what I'm reading overall. I'm going to play devil's advocate, and argue that the assumption that any visitor to this page will make is that all information is verified as correct for DDO. And if not? Well, then eventually someone will notice and correct it. Even a verified number could end up being wrong sooner or later, if Turbine makes a patch and tweaks things. Dedridd 11:55, February 8, 2006 (PST)

Some useful info
Just copying some info from the beta 5 release notes, that may be useful in some spells' description (Tihocan 11:31, February 8, 2006 (PST)):
 * Added a saving throw to resist blindness caused by glitterdust, as per the Player's Handbook.
 * Protection from evil now correctly protects you from charm and compulsion effects.
 * Shocking grasp and chill touch now allow a reflex save for half damage.