Talk:Skill Cost modifiers: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
more checks |
No edit summary |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Maximum reduction for combat skills is -5PP cost, checked on all classes by hoyifung.<br> | Maximum reduction for combat skills is -5PP cost, checked on all classes by hoyifung.<br> | ||
Currently it's impossible to achieve more than -4PP on non-combat skills, so it's undetermined whether same limit applies to them.--[[User:Shikao|Shikao]] 07:35, 9 January 2011 (PST) | Currently it's impossible to achieve more than -4PP on non-combat skills, so it's undetermined whether same limit applies to them.--[[User:Shikao|Shikao]] 07:35, 9 January 2011 (PST) | ||
==Combat spells== | |||
This is kind of ambiguous. Even the game says "to the cost of combat spells", but spells usually refer to elemental/psion combat skills, and the reductions apply to all combat skills (even naturalist, gadgeteer and unclassed), right? I am currently not in a position to verify conclusively (out of turns), but pretty sure that jill's gloves reduce cost of shock grenade, and aura:mystery of animal kung-foolery. This might bear a mention. --[[User:XKiv|XKiv]] 10:14, 1 January 2012 (PST) | |||
:I believe the terms "[[skills|skill]]" and "spell" are interchangeable in this game. [[User:Richardhg|Richard H-G]] 03:30, 4 January 2012 (PST)<br/> | |||
::Not so. [[Bonus spell damage]] only applies to Elem/Psion skills, not to Gadget/Nat skills. Using [[Shock Grenade]] at 10 skill points, my Gadget (level 70) should do {{col|sonic|70-80 damage}}. 78 and 71 were observed on [[Lady Macbeth]]. With a [[Mirror of Nitocris]] equipped (+50% spell damage), Lady Macbeth took 78 and 73 -- in the same range. Oh, and also, it only cost 8 PP. Nat skills should decrease in cost as well. As posted in the section [[#Reduction limit|above]], I have tested it, although for a different purpose (testing the cap back then), and it was a year ago. (Not sure about [[Animal Kung-Foolery]], as it didn't exist back then.) --[[User:Hoyifung04|hoyifung04]] 12:04, 5 January 2012 (PST) | |||
:: So .. you are confirming that "reduces cost of combat spells" reduces cost of all combat skills, even those that are not spells? (The section above discusses difference between combat and noncombat skills, which is a different difference) --[[User:XKiv|XKiv]] 12:18, 6 January 2012 (PST) | |||
:::Basically, yes, but I haven't/can't check Animal Kung-Foolery, as I don't have it. --[[User:Hoyifung04|hoyifung04]] 14:45, 7 January 2012 (PST) | |||
These are now displaying as "Combat Skill" to prevent this confusion. It's intentional they work with all skills, not just spells. --[[User:Kinak|Kinak]] 19:52, 7 January 2012 (PST) | |||
Latest revision as of 03:52, 8 January 2012
Reduction limit
Maximum reduction for combat skills is -5PP cost, checked on all classes by hoyifung.
Currently it's impossible to achieve more than -4PP on non-combat skills, so it's undetermined whether same limit applies to them.--Shikao 07:35, 9 January 2011 (PST)
Combat spells
This is kind of ambiguous. Even the game says "to the cost of combat spells", but spells usually refer to elemental/psion combat skills, and the reductions apply to all combat skills (even naturalist, gadgeteer and unclassed), right? I am currently not in a position to verify conclusively (out of turns), but pretty sure that jill's gloves reduce cost of shock grenade, and aura:mystery of animal kung-foolery. This might bear a mention. --XKiv 10:14, 1 January 2012 (PST)
- I believe the terms "skill" and "spell" are interchangeable in this game. Richard H-G 03:30, 4 January 2012 (PST)
- Not so. Bonus spell damage only applies to Elem/Psion skills, not to Gadget/Nat skills. Using Shock Grenade at 10 skill points, my Gadget (level 70) should do 70-80 damage. 78 and 71 were observed on Lady Macbeth. With a Mirror of Nitocris equipped (+50% spell damage), Lady Macbeth took 78 and 73 -- in the same range. Oh, and also, it only cost 8 PP. Nat skills should decrease in cost as well. As posted in the section above, I have tested it, although for a different purpose (testing the cap back then), and it was a year ago. (Not sure about Animal Kung-Foolery, as it didn't exist back then.) --hoyifung04 12:04, 5 January 2012 (PST)
- So .. you are confirming that "reduces cost of combat spells" reduces cost of all combat skills, even those that are not spells? (The section above discusses difference between combat and noncombat skills, which is a different difference) --XKiv 12:18, 6 January 2012 (PST)
- Basically, yes, but I haven't/can't check Animal Kung-Foolery, as I don't have it. --hoyifung04 14:45, 7 January 2012 (PST)
These are now displaying as "Combat Skill" to prevent this confusion. It's intentional they work with all skills, not just spells. --Kinak 19:52, 7 January 2012 (PST)