Oblivion talk:Useful Spells/Archive 5

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

What about chain spells?

Hey, I was wondering where all the chain spells disappeared: Old UESP Page for Useful Spells Is there any particular reason why no chain spells are listed on this recent version of the article? — Unsigned comment by 89.132.242.20 (talk) on 30 August 2010

They don't work so they were deleted. rpeh •T•C•E• 18:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

What the hell do you mean they don't work? They are working just fine (with the latest patch)! I've just cast one like 1 minute ago! --89.132.242.20 19:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

They do work very well if you make the spell correctly and keep casting before the fortify effects wear off. I'm disapointed that this section has been removed.--Wizy 19:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

My point exactly! I just can't understand why one would remove it! Perhaps it was a mistake of some sorts? I really think the section should be reintroduced and I see no reason whatsoever why not to have them in this article. --89.132.242.20 20:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, they totally work... I'm using latest patch version with all the DLC and Shivering Isles too (PC Version! which might be the issue if you're using xbox version...). It's exploity, true, so I could see how it might be removed under that justification. But otherwise, should be reinstated. If you can't get them to work, its probably because A) your spell effectiveness is too low and B) your skill level in the spell's particular school isn't high enough. The numerical values listed are for maxed out resto and spell school of relevance (eg destruction), but you can mess around with the numbers at lower values and get the chain to work. I use this all the time for skill training.— Unsigned comment by 71.255.103.118 (talk) on 31 August 2010

(←) Just read the section above. There it is the conversation where it was decided to be removed. --S'drassa ^•T2M 01:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually wouldn't mind re-adding them if they actually work. Despite what Rpeh and Corvus said, my 19th level Dunmer had a fairly small magicka pool - and had to use magic quite a bit. It would have been nice to have known about this when fighting a Daedroth, a Storm Atronach and a Spider Daedra with 200 health. (Also to anyone who's going, Hmm that point of view is subjective and opinion based: It's no more subjective and opinion based than "Precisely, any magic-orientated [sic] character should have a decent reserve of magicka and potions anyway, these spells serve no real purpose, and are overly complex compared to chugging back a few potions" - I used my character to prove that's not actually true.).--TheAlbinoOrc^{any_questions?} 17:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well honestly guys, this is a Wiki, right? So it should serve as mean of getting information. The Wiki page should contain all the necessary information about chaining (including the fact that some people find it useless, it's hard to get right and it might be easier to just spend a fortune on restore magicka potions). But nevertheless, it should at least mention it, so that people have all the information and they can decide for themselves whether or not they want to use it. I believe the purpose of UESPWiki is to provide all the information there is about the Elder Scroll games: its purpose is not deciding how others should play a video game. People should have the right to decide for themselves: I find chaining useful and apparently some other people too. We shouldn't derive new comers of this excellent technique, in my opinion. But yes, the Wiki page should address both sides of the coin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). --89.132.242.20 17:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

We do base some of our policies on Wikipedia's, but the Wiki in UESPWiki means that almost anyone can contribute to the site; this isn't the UESPedia. Chaining is more of a gameplay that gamers came up with. Because of the difficulty of chaining, I doubt that many gamers find out this method by themselves. Of course, that could be all the more reason to explain chaining on here, but it's definitely not a necessity. A discussion I had a while back brought up that previous explanations of how to chain were complicated and confusing. Anybody is free to add a chaining section, but if it just repeats past mistakes of being confusing then it doesn't have any purpose here. -- Jplatinum16 19:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I see. So the section was removed because it was written improperly and was confusing, in other words, did not meet the quality standards. That I can understand. However, I do believe that it is absolutely a necessity to have a section about chaining here, on UESPWiki. You've said so yourself: gamers will probably not discover this by themselves, so it's important to have information regarding this subject available to them. --89.132.242.20 20:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well since you seem to know about chaining why don't you go ahead and make an account and start working on it in a sandbox?--TheAlbinoOrc^{any_questions?} 19:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Mage Lighting Proof of Concept

Since the incorrectly typed version was deleted as not working, here's some links proving the correctly typed version does:

Mage Lighting Spell: [1]

Bruma Caverns Before: [2]

Bruma Caverns 1 Dose: [3]

Bruma Caverns 2 Doses: [4]

Bruma Caverns 5 Doses: [5]

Triaxx2 03:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I tried it as well, and I have to concur with rpeh - the only lighting is coming from the Frost effect, there's no additional light being provided by the Light effect that I can see. Try shooting the same 1, 2, and 5 doses with only a Frost spell and post images if you can demonstrate noticeable differences. – Robin Hood↝talk 03:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the way spells generally work- whichever is the dominant effect is the effect displayed upon casting. And, having just tested, the Light Effect only works when cast upon a living thing. Now, even just eyeballing those pictures, it looks very clear to me that it is only the Frost Effect being displayed. The Light Effect is a bright yellow. That was a much duller and obvious blue. That being said, the Light Effect in that spell is only wasting Magicka. --^Darkle ~ _Talk 03:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I thought I'd found a way around the restriction on living targets for light. Worth a shot. Triaxx2 11:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviving Spell Chaining

Ok, first test, just in case people are still saying it does not work. This is a *TEST*, not demonstration of usefulness. That comes later.

Create a Fortify Magicka 100 and Fortify Intelligence 100 spell, set duration so that the spell cost is about 120. If you can't cast it that high, than set it to the highest that you can cast it at.

Now hold down the cast button and watch your Magicka pool drain, then keep holding it down. You'll notice you do not stop casting the spell, ever, and it will reach a point where your magicka does not look like it goes down anymore.

There you go, spell chaining works. ZirePhoenix 05:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

IT. DOESN'T. WORK. Out of good faith, and a bleary-eyed morning cheerfulness that has now evaporated, I tested this yet again. Spell created as suggested (duration was about 30s; total cost ~110). Removed all armor so spell effectiveness was 100%. Cast the spell several times, observing magicka pool dropping steadily. After a few casts, my magicka ran out and I couldn't cast the spell any more. Seriously, this technique DOESN'T WORK!!!!!!!!! rpeh •T•C•E• 06:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you need me to make a video of this? I'm doing this with a Fortify Intelligence 100 pts at 18 seconds, Fortify Magicka at 19 seconds, costs 98. 100 in Restoration. I'm level 1, max Magicka pool of 160. Once I cast this, I cannot get below 205 Magicka casting this. Just for kicks, unloaded every single one of my mod. It still works just fine. Oblivion patch v1.2.0416. The only thing still loaded is the DarNified UI v1.3.2, but that doesn't affect spells. Honestly, instead of telling everyone that it doesn't work, why not figure out what is causing it to not work for some? ZirePhoenix

(edit conflict) Originally, I had this very nice, detailed, post trying to figure out why it worked for the OP and why it worked for me, but not for you. Then it occurred to me what might be different...and sure enough, it was. Fortify Intelligence must be the first effect.

Specifically: Fortify Intelligence 100 for 20 sec on Self, Fortify Magicka 100 for 20 sec on Self. Character is a Redguard born under The Ritual, and I had dropped the Scales of Pitiless Justice, so all relevant skills and abilities were at exactly 100. The spell cost was 108. Casting repeatedly, my max Magicka went to 500, my Intelligence to 200. Magicka drained to a point around 200, then hovered there! It dropped very slightly with each cast, but regenerated very quickly, holding perfectly steady within the slight variations of casting.

Flipping the effect order around, I ran out of Magicka normally. – Robin Hood↝talk 08:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Robin Hood is right. I always had Fortify Int first for all these chain spells for some reason. Probably because it was at the top of my spell list, so I pick it first, then Fortify Magicka. Here is the video to seal the deal - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiwGK4Jw-Nc ZirePhoenix 09:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

So you wasted my time and the time of everybody else by describing incorrect spells instead of taking the time to test them properly?

I'm not interested. Fill this page up if you want but I'm not spending any more time on you. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't suppose anyone here knew it was the order of the spells caused it to work, so we're making progress. Now that we figured out why it didn't work, I'm sure you can get it working. I never placed the onus on you to prove that it works. I hope this is enough information to other interested users to replicate the results, so the initial justification of it "Not working" is invalidated. The next step is to explain it better so it'll be a useful section for the Wiki.

I also think this is the reason why Touch spells worked on raising skills for me and not on others. The order of your spells seems to have more effect than just Soul Trapping. I'll experiment some more. ZirePhoenix 17:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of the time, the order is irrelevant, but we've seen order-of-effect issues before, which is what made me think of it. I think a small section on spell chaining, such as what used to be on the page might be in order, though we'll have to make it much more clear this time around that the order of effects is important.

I don't have time at the moment, but before putting anything back on the page, we should test what the important factors are in spell chaining. Based on the old Chain Heal spell, it looks like Fortify Magicka is the primary effect that makes chaining possible and Fortify Intelligence is just a "bonus". Given that, it makes sense that my earlier statement should have read "Fortify Intelligence must come first, if used, followed by Fortify Magicka, and then any other effects you wish to add". If nobody else has played with it and determined "the rules", I'll try to look at it some more tonight. If someone beats me to it, though, all the better. :) – Robin Hood↝talk 19:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I've started a section in my sandbox User:ZirePhoenix/Sandbox. I just want more explanation so it is clearer. I'll have to play around with the rules for this, since the original section does read very poorly. ZirePhoenix

Analysis of Spell Chaining and the mechanics

Important Update: The following theory was a hypothesis which has been clarified and corrected. It is explained on Wizy's Page much better. ZirePhoenix 07:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

After doing a pile of tests, I found out that it is Fortify Magicka that lets you not lose magicka past a certain point. Fortify Intelligence alone does not work. I have worked out the theory that matches all the test results.

Normal Magicka use is this: Starting pool - Magicka use = Resulting pool.

In the re-casting of Fortify Intelligence, it doesn't look like the Magicka pool maximum is recalculated as part of the effect, because your Magicka pool is a derived stat, and there's no reason to put the calculation into the spell.

However, if a Fortify Magicka spell is cast, and then is re-casted, I suspect this is what is happening:

• The Temporary bonus is first removed
• Then the Temporary bonus is added back in
• Then the cost of the spell is deducted from your pool

Whereas, with a Fortify Intelligence spell, you get the following:

• Temporary stat bonus is removed
• Temporary bonus is put back in
• All derived statistics are re-calculated (carry weight, magicka, fatigue, hp, etc).

It is because your Magicka pool was not re-calculated in the *middle* of the spell that is why it does not work, and your pool continues to drop.

When the pool is recalculated, since your magicka does not go into the negatives, this does explain why chaining works.

Assuming you have a base pool of 160, then you cast fortify magicka 100, raising it to 260. Assuming this spell of yours cost 50 magicka, and you are currently at 50/260 Magicka.

• First, the spell strips your temporary pool, leaving you with 0/160 (you just magically gained 50 magicka right here).
• Next, it re-applies the temporary pool raising your magicka back to 100/260.
• Now your 50 magicka cost is deducted, giving you a result of 50/260 magicka.

In a spell that has multiple effects, I'm suspecting that all current spell effects are first removed top down, then all the bonuses re-apply top down.

• • NOTE: ** Key point that is incorrect. See Wizy's Page.

If fortify intelligence is used first, the scenario will occur like this:

Starting with 160, you cast fortify int and magicka at 100, giving you maximum of 460 magicka. Assume the spell costs 100 magicka, and you are currently at 100/460 magicka, this is what would happen:

• All temporary bonuses removed. Fortify Magicka recalculates your magicka pool *after* fortify int's bonuses are gone, giving you 0/160 (you just gained a whopping 200 magicka)
• Fortify Intelligence is applied, providing 200 Magicka
• Fortify Magicka is applied, now you are at 300/460
• The cost of your spell is subtracted, giving you 200/460 magicka.

If the fortify intelligence effect occurs after fortify magicka, it would go like this:

• All temporary bonuses removed. Fortify magicka re-calculates while you still have your int bonus, dropping your magicka to 0/360.
• Fortify magicka is applied, giving you 100/460
• Fortify int is applied, but your magicka pool would not have re-calculated, so it'll just be 100/460 still
• Then 100 Magicka is deducted, giving you 0/460.

Now, almost the same condition, but you're at 75/460 Magicka, and casting a 75 Magicka version of the spell:

• All temp bonuses removed, you're at 0/360
• Fortify Magicka is applied, giving you 100/460
• Fortify int bonuses do not affect your pool
• 75 Magicka is deducted, giving you 25/460

And this is EXACTLY what happens! All casts of the spell will cost me 75 Magicka, until the very last one, where the Fortify Magicka re-calculation saves me 25 magicka and leaves me with 25 (plus whatever from 1 second of regen).

I'm confident enough in the mechanics to explain this now.

ZirePhoenix 07:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, just in case this is missed, Spell Effectiveness WILL alter the results, so keep that in mind. ZirePhoenix 08:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, no general objections so far, so I'll get started on the basics. I'm messing around with Drain Attribute and Drain Magicka also... and I have found a way to chain spells greater than 150 magicka, but I have no idea how it works... in short, Drain Magicka really messes up and becomes a Fortify when it is re-casted with a spell that has both effects... It's really weird and doesn't make sense... >.> ZirePhoenix 00:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

First of, I knew of the chain spells before and can confirm that they work. However, my chain spells sucked ingame and were replaced. The main disadvantage is that you can not chain different spells. I wouldn't call them useless though.

As you already put in a lot of effort, I don't want to steal your laurels. Thanks to your advices I actually now manage to build up chain spells with 300 magicka (yes, 300), however you didn't contribute for quite a while, and I would like to know how your researches went so far.

Oh, and everybody telling that chain spells are useless, too complicated, or simly don't work should burn in the fires of Oblivion. -Borbarad 18:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I solved all remaining riddles. I can write an article about chaining spells soon if nobody else wants to. I will most likely NOT prove the assumptions I do, I calculated everything properly, but only a few would understand these and most would render that useless. Oh and ZirePhoenix, you made some errors in your assumptions which also gave me a lot of confusion first, without these I wouldn't have even been agle to start figuring it out though, so they were still very essential.-Borbarad 18:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

When you say "with 300 magicka" Do you mean spells that cost 300 magicka total? If so I'd really like to know how, the best I have done is spells that cost 150 with stuned magicka and just a little more without stun. --Wizy (Talk/Contribs) 19:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I only consider stunned magic to make things simplier. Your approach most likely is Fortify Intelligence 100, Fortify Magicka 100. Just add any Drain Magicka level (I use Drain Magicka 3 e.g., but it can also be 100) to gain full 300 after Fortify Magicka. -Borbarad 03:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Holy ****! It does really work and 300 is quite powerful, this is the spell I used for the test:

• Fortify Intelligence 100 pts for 3 secs on Self
• Fortify Magicka 100 pts for 3 secs on Self
• Drain Magicka 3 pts for 3 secs on Self
• Damage Fatigue 72 pts in 15 ft for 4 secs on Target

• Total casting cost: 300

I set them to 3 secs so block is not necessary, without stunned magicka it does even work at 95% spell effectiveness due to high Willpower. --Wizy (Talk/Contribs) 08:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Analysis of Spell Chaining and the mechanics solved

I thought it would be better to start off a new section for that, as I came to significant results. I also try to make it as easy as I can.

First off, the calculation order suggested previously before is wrong. I have been unable yet to test whether this order applies by sheer randomness for the magicka spells or whether there is any order, but for these this is what happens:

• The temporary effects are removed in the order shown in the spell description
• The cost of the spell is substracted
• The temporary effects are applied in reverse order shown in the spell description

The second notable fact to mention is:

• Drain and Fortify (after effect's end) can not reduce the magicka lower than 0
• Any indirect manipulation of magicka, e.g. Intelligence change or a spell cast, can reduce magicka lower than 0
• Even when the magicka is less than 0 and drain / fortify effects apply, it becomes 0.

When we consider the "classic" chain spell, which only consists of fortify magicka, it goes the following:

• Mana = 50 <= after last spell was cast
• Mana = 0 <= 100 fortified (Magicka) is removed, but can't be lower than 0
• Mana = -50 <= Spell cost is substracted
• Mana = 50 <= 100 fortify is applied

Now we come straight to my suggested 300 magicka chain spell. Those who didn't read my previous comments, it is:

• Fortify Intelligence 100 for 3 seconds
• Fortify Magicka 100 for 3 seconds
• Drain Magicka 3 for 3 seconds
• Any effects to make use of the 300 magicka

This is what happens:

• Mana = 300 <= after last spell was cast
• Mana = 100 <= 200 fortified (Intelligence) is removed
• Mana = 0 <= 100 fortified (Magicka) is removed
• Mana = 3 <= 3 drain is given
• Mana = -297 <= Spell cost is substracted
• Mana = 0 <= 3 drained is removed, but can't be lower than 0
• Mana = 100 <= 100 fortified (Magicka) is given
• Mana = 300 <= 200 fortified (Intelligence) is given

As drain is only used to reset the magicka pool, the amount of drain is unimportant.

Naturally, Drain Intelligence would have no effect, as any fortified magicka would be reduced after spell end, so we can consider the 300 as the total maximum for chaining spells

PS: Don't wear armor, 100% spell effectiveness is still important of course.

Well, that's it.-Borbarad 14:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Good job. Makes sense, now I undestand how the drain magicka works for this matter. By the way, I'm gathering information here and would like to add this analysis, also I would be happy if you contribute there. --Wizy (Talk/Contribs) 16:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You can add the analysis if you want to, but rather than spreading information about chain spells to different locations, we should focus on a good article for the actual page. To be honest I am not sure how to do it, the page seems to be a collection of short-described spells, while chain spells need some explanation in order to understand these. If people don't understand them, they would deem them "non-working" again. Maybe chain spells should get a new article, a real one, not in some discussions. I am not too familiar with the wiki to know whether that is appropriate though, because they are not part of the game strictly speaking. Is ZirePhoenix still working on it? -Borbarad 18:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I created that page because there is no real place for this, ZirePhoenix is missing since October, this talk page is for spells but this is rather a new system of casting wich does not fit well here, and they won't let us make any new page content about this until we come with a decent article easy to understand. For now I will stick to post data in the Sandbox. --Wizy (Talk/Contribs) 09:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

(←) One thing I found is although when the Drain Magicka is applied the mana is set to 0, the game still remembers the ammount "you would have" when the drain effect is removed, so it will be changed from a supposed -303 to -300 but then again reset to 0. Where you say Mana=3, it is Mana=0. And Mana=-297 is Mana=-300. Anyway, the chain still works perfectly, this only obviates the unimportance of the drain effect's magnitude. --Wizy (Talk/Contribs) 14:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

My Chain Spell Article so far: Chain Spells. Also I still think my calculation was correct, but maybe I misunderstood you.. -Borbarad 16:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

When is spell chaining coming back?? I use these things ALL THE TIME. IT. DOES. WORK. Datacaust 05:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Moved from main page

Chain Lightning

• Shock Damage 14 pts for 1 sec on Target
• Weakness to Shock 100 pts for 2 sec on Target
• Weakness to Magic 100 pts for 2 sec on Target

Base Magicka cost: 72; requires an Journeyman in Destruction.

This spell has a "chain-effect" that means every subsequent hit deals more damage because of weakness to magic. The first strike is fairly weak, dealing only weakness to shock 100 pts, weakness to magic 100 pts and 14 pts shock damage. The second strike (within 2 secs) causes weakness to magic 200 pts, weakness to shock 200 pts and 56 pts shock damage because of the multipliers from the first spell. Damage thus raises to 126 pts, 224 pts, 350 pts ,... That means this spells causes a cumulative damage of 420 pts with the 4th strike at the cost of only 232 mana (Destruction: 50 pts). This spell is supposed to be efficient for 200 - 400+ pts damage in less than 8 seconds and without switching spells.

Deadly Lightning

• Shock Damage 12 pts for 1 sec on Target
• Drain Health 60 pts for 1 sec on Target
• Weakness to Shock 100 pts for 2 sec on Target
• Weakness to Magic 100 pts for 2 sec on Target

Base Magicka cost: 92; requires an Journeyman in Destruction.

This is a lightning spell with a decent Drain Health effect. As an improvent to the standard Drain Health 100 pts, 1 sec and 3 pst damage spell, this one is intended for use against stronger enemies who have more than 100 health and because of the lightning effect it is much easy to aim. This spell needs to be casted twice within 2 seconds and causes cumulative damage of (12+(60*2)+12*4 = ) 180 pts at the cost of 146 mana (Destruction: 50). Deadly Lightning is supposed to be very efficient for 100 - 180 pts damage in less than 3 seconds and without switching spells.

No time for me, just needs to be rewritten because it is in 1st person and should probably be evaluated by someone.--Catmaniac66 11:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for my mistakes, I am new to editing a wiki, especially this one. I tried to improve my phrasing.--78.48.33.86 12:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Spell Timer

Detect life 3pts for 30 sec on self.

Command humanoid level x for 30 sec on touch.

This spell uses a cheap effect on self to time the intended effect on touch or target. Many different spell effects can be used. The concept is to use one that is so cheap it doesn't affect the magicka cost, while of course still having the same duration as the intended effect. When the timer effect icon expires you know the intended effect has expired as well. This is also good for buffing allies.

Datacaust 18:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. How about making the indicator spell expire a few seconds early, so you have time to react before the target spell expires? --Brf 18:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah it's up to the user for specifcs, I like knowing exactly when it will expire. Combining this with a small restore and fortify health on touch makes allies more useful. I'll put this up in a few days if it meets no opposition. Datacaust 21:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Overhaul?

I want to add spell timer but it's giving me the page too big message which generally lights an editor fire under my computer chair. So I'm just going to throw out this invitation for ideas on the future of this page. There is a couple of things that I do and don't want to do. I don't really want to create new pages for the individual sections like on glitches. Maybe Useful spells 2? Maybe create Battle Spells (offensive and defensive spell sections) and Other Spells pages linked from useful spells? Or maybe just clean it up as it stands so that everything is smaller. I also want to put Weakness Stacking A.K.A spell stacking and Chain Spells here, or with their own pages linked from here. Datacaust 00:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem with this. As far as I'm concerned, this is something we need. This page is overwhelming, I think. However, going about doing this and talking about it will be two COMPLETELY different matters. --Kalis Agea 01:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. The page is only 30K long, which means it's a long way off being our largest, and I'm more worried that a split would cause the new pages to expand to fill the space available. The trouble is that at least 99% of new spells added to this page are rubbish, being simply a mixture of powerful spell effects for some "uber" killing spell, or totally obvious spells that there's no point listing. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Some af these have spell effects that are arbitrary. Others are repeats, how many paralyse 1 sec or invisibility after strike listings should there be? Predator is hidden knife with a chain attached a good idea but doesn't explain chaining well and if we put chains ans stacks here we would be talking some serious size issues. Most of the additions are rubbish. Datacaust 17:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

And you want two pages of rubbish instead of one? I don't get it. rpeh •T•C•E• 19:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No rubbish was the majority of additions remember? The pages content is a bit long; maybe the descriptions can be shortened, some spells are questionably located; undersea exploration in defensive spells? Chain spells really need to go somewhere and "spell stacking" doesn't belong on spell making really. "Peculiar spells" is defined as spells that are not useful yet the page is useful spells? Datacaust 02:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I know I'm not in this really but looking at some of the titles of the sections, I cant help but feel its not right

"finish him"? that's not how a wiki should be wrote IMO it needs some fixing but almost none of what Datacaust is saying Wolfy 02:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

(←) After hearing what Rpeh said, I'd actually have to agree with him. At 30K, it isn't that long, and having two (or more) pages to patrol for the many useless, unecessary, and "rubbish" edits already (which are already being made on one, I might add) just seems plain rediculous. We need one, consistent, useful page, and yes, perhaps it could shortened a bit; we do NOT need two, pointlessly long, borderline-useless pages, as these tend to become until someone (usually a Patroller or Admin) steps in and cleans up the page. I was on this wiki as an IP long before I registered, and trust me -- that has been the pattern in the past, and most likely will continue to be.--Kalis Agea 02:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I originally said I didn't want to create new pages, for the record, I was just putting ideas out there. Does no one agree with the stacks and chains at least? Or is that going to continue to be something we don't document here. Datacaust 05:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Stacks and Chains should be in the article, but the spell list needs to be cleaned up or removed/not allowed. Almost all the listed spells don't really belong here. I don't really like listing spells, but would rather see the basics of spell creation explained properly. A lot of the combat spells are too weak in mid to high level games (shock for 9pts for 4s?). Personally, I don't even see the point of most of the damage spells. Drain Health 100 pts for 1 second is, by far, the most effective magicka/damage ratio out there. Early game this kills everything. Late game this is still a good finisher. 1 on 1 should not be a problem in mid/late game, so crowd control/debuff would be a better effect than straight damage.

The article can make comparisons between certain effects. (I.E.: Paralyze vs Chameleon 100% vs Calm. Paralyze drops your target to the floor. Great for single target, less useful when you're surrounded, high requirements and cost for longer duration. Chameleon 100% lets you do sneak attacks, target may still run around, enemies will end up attacking allies. Calm ensures that your current target stops moving/attacking, generally has low cost, can be used to save NPC, may suddenly stop working when target's level increase if the effect is not maxed.)

Any of the effect specific quirks (shock AoE that sends bolts to all valid targets, fire AoE with high kinetic damage, frost projectile that damages as it travels, etc.) should really be listed in the effect itself. The effects can then be listed under categories like "Useful extra effects" or "Interesting extra effects", with probably a very short note on why that effect is "Useful" or "Interesting".

A single paragraph should explain all skill boosting effects. Boosting Combat skills will increase damage done. Even more so if the attack was a Sneak Attack. Interaction related skills do not need a long duration because time does not pass in interactions (barter, speech, lock picking, mercantile, charm) ZirePhoenix 17:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Clean up?

Hey I was just reading through this page and noticed that the spell "Steel Hammer" (I believe it's called) is useless after a patch. Since it's no longer usable to anyone playing with patches/updates I recomend deleting it's entry. Also has each spell in here been tested succesfully? Are there any others that might be broken after a patch? I'm just trying to think forward here, I'm sure most of these work fine. Anyways that's my two cents.— Unsigned comment by Orion Draco (talk • contribs) at 08:35 on 22 June 2011 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, we keep all spells regardless of Patches as there are still some players who do not use them. As for checking, I believe they all work fine, although anyone is welcome to check them.--Kalis Agea^{Yes? Contrib E-mail} 08:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok cool, I understand that, it's a useful spell. I'm currently unable to test out any other ones but when I can I would certainly be willing to- some of these are pretty nice. --Orion Draco

Alright, sounds good. I would do it, but I have quite a few tasks that I need to get done. Good luck with that!--Kalis Agea^{Yes? Contrib E-mail} 06:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems that "Best Deals" under "Skill-Enhancing Spells" does not create the intended effect. Upon casting, the NPC's disposition lowers immediately and it acts as if it was attacked (e.g. the NPC starts attacking and the guards come running in to arrest the character). Therefore, if one can actually get the NPC to speak with the character after casting this spell (through defense), one can expect to never have any worthwhile business dealings with the NPC in question. If this spell does not work (I wish it would!), it should be removed. --orgelspielerkmd

what its meant to do is make a merchant give you great deals for a short amount of time then hate you later i think that it would work better if the command is put to 2 secs and maybe add a charm i cant test any of this ive misplaced my oblivion disk (From Fear to Eternity- Eddie The Head 07:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC))

Well, I should wonder if that would work at all, since "Absorb" spells are offensive spells by nature. If a non-hostile NPC is subjected to an offensive spell (just like an offensive melee attack), why would it not immediately become hostile? Actually, I wish I had thought this through before I went and created the spell. BTW, I cast the spell just as it was recommended (i.e. I immediately start repeatedly pressing the space-bar key after pressing the C key, while the spell was actually being cast). So, 1 sec as suggested by the original creator should work, but it does not. I think the spell is just flawed (someone try to prove me wrong by actually trying it on their software). — Unsigned comment by 71.231.145.161 (talk) at 18:42 on 5 August 2011 (UTC)

moved from page

Armageddon

• Weakness To Magic 100 pts in 100 ft for 1 sec on Target
• Weakness To Fire 100 pts in 100 ft for 1 sec on Target
• Weakness To Frost 100 pts in 100 ft for 1 sec on Target
• Weakness to Shock 100 pts in 100 ft for 1 sec on Target
• Fire Damage 100 pts in 100 ft for 1 sec on Target
• Frost Damage 100 pts in 100 ft for 1 sec on Target
• Shock Damage 100 pts in 100 ft for 1 sec on Target

Base Magicka cost: 3796; requires an Expert in Oblivion:Destruction.

This will cost you 11388 in gold, but it makes people in the radius fly back, as well as die. No matter what level they are, they will die.

I have three problems here. The name is religion based and shouldn't be used on this site, the spell is too expensive, and I'm not sure it works the way the writer intended. To my belief weakness doesn't affect effects within the same spell. Datacaust 17:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

armageddon isnt religous it is used to refer to a great destruction not just a religous one (From Fear to Eternity- Eddie The Head 07:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC))

Okay it isn't and it is a religious term. Since it is we shouldn't use it. There's too many ways stuff like that could be offensive in the wrong context. Datacaust 16:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Recharge (two part spell)

Spell I: Summon Xivilai for 6 sec (if necissary add a Fortify magicka spell here)

Spell II: weakness to magic 50 pts for 5 sec on touch.

soul trap for 5 sec on touch.

shock damage 48 pts for 5 sec

Paralyze for 1 sec on touch (optional, this will make sure the creature won't hit you or NPCs who try to fight it)

• Requires very conjuration (75) and Destruction (100) skills to use, along with a lot of magicka*

The first spell will summon a grand soul level creature for a small time, and the second will kill it and soul trap it. This is useful to refill a weapon for free (if you have Azura's Star) If nessicary you can use the same format at lower levels (summoning a lesser or common soul level creature for lack of skills or magicka). Be sure to use this spell outside of populated areas, if the creature kills someone you will be blamed. You must be naked, or otherwise at 100% spell effectiveness or the creature will not be killed.

Neither of these spells are particularly special on their own. Plus the Xivilai's reflect spell is hazardous, I would use Gloom Wraith. The order, magnitude and duration of the effects in spell II need work as well. Additionally the spelling, grammar and wikiness aren't up to the site's standards. Datacaust 05:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Spell Review

(moved from UESPWiki:Deletion Review/Oblivion:Useful Spells)

How about we go through each spell and determine whether or not it is truly useful. Then, once we have weeded everything out, we semi-protect the page to prevent the unoriginal or just plain stupid ideas from floating into the page. We could vote on each spell individually to have a clear consensus and even vote on the protection. If so, I will conjure up something here to get it going. Elliot (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a lot of voting, and I can't imagine there's more than four spells that don't belong here. Why doesn't everyone just state their opinions and we'll form a consensus out of that. I think Uppercut, C-4, Righteous Blow and Heart Attack should go. The spells with two names should pick one and the spells Finish Him! and Slaughterhouse need new names. Datacaust 03:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

We've done it before. Elliot (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Done what? Datacaust 04:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Voted a lot for an individual concept... Elliot (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh sorry didn't see the connection you were making between the page and the collection of user created fantasy pages you linked. So you want to vote individually on the 40 spells here one by one? Datacaust 05:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Elliot's proposition works well for me. And while it might sound a bit tedious to vote on individual spells, between that and nominating the bad ones it basically comes down to the same amount of work: reading the whole page once and deciding spell by spell whether it should stay or not. I'm for the semi-protection too after that. - Kharn 07:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

(←) A better example for "done it before" would be this and this done by Timenn some three years ago. By and large, the page is similar today to the one then, and many of the arguments still apply. While there's probably scope for a few spells to be removed from the page, I'd be wary of throwing out interesting or unusual spell effects at the same time. rpeh •T•C•E• 10:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I will go ahead and get started on that. I knew there was some type of deletion review that better reflected what I wanted. Thanks for finding that. Elliot (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I vote Against Proposal 2, I dont see the need to weigh a decision on spells that should have a precedent or are obviously useful. To do so would call into question the existence of the page itself which was the whole point of this review. --Datacaust 01:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I always groan at the sight of people voting against doing anything at all. Want you thought we should do is essentially the same thing, but we also are making cases for keeping certain spells. Elliot (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Datacaust, please look at the previous discussions I linked. Timenn went through all the spells and added a clear reason for keeping or removing it. There was then a chance for other users to chip in with their opinions, and eventually a consensus version of the page emerged. Many of the reasons for keeping spells were very generous, and I hope Elliot applies the same sort of rules this time. rpeh •T•C•E• 06:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Elliot

I figured I format like many discussions were formatted a few years ago, just for readability. But here are my ideas regarding the spells:

Spell name	Proposal	Reason
Undersea Exploration	Delete	If there is something better to use for it, then it really shouldn't be in here.
Unda Equus (Water Horse)	Neutral	When I read this, it kind of took me by surprise. I never considered doing it. While I think it is neat, I don't think it is practical.
Spell Timer	Delete	It's nothing spectacular or particularly useful.
Chain Spell	Delete	I'm sick of hearing about chain effects.
Lavacross	Neutral	It's helpful if you want to walk across lava, but other than that...
Hide in Plain Sight	Keep	If it does what is says, it might be useful. I can't test it out because I don't have a save with an Expert skill. If it isn't practical, than it should be deleted.
Shroud/Amnesia	Delete	Not a useful spell (or practical for that matter)
Spell of the Spelunker	Change	I think it would be better without the Invisibility. It would also be more cost effective.
Recuperate	Change	See above
Finish Him!	Keep	It is good for a quick kill.
Headshot	Keep	See above (I would still remove the Invisibility)
Hidden Knife	Delete	Not practical with a non-cost-effective Invisibility. It would be better to separate it from any damage done.
Predator	Change	See above
Provoke	Keep	Good tip if it works
Righteous Blow	Keep	Good but not practical
Shape of the Hunter	Keep	Good with any summon (Shapeshifter might be a better name though...)
Slaughterhouse	Keep	It is good if it can be pulled off correctly
Sleep Powder	Change	Get rid of the invisibility...
Soul Snatch	Keep	Good for soul gems when a mage doesn't want to use swords
Static Burst	Change	Getting rid of the paralyze would be better. Perhaps it should be listed as a combo instead of a single spell (How is a 148 base cost effective?)
Uppercut	Change	See above
Vampiric Trance	Keep	It is useful if conditions are met
Elemental Magic Weakness Amplification	Delete	Chains...
Bargaining	Keep	I frequently used this spell
Best Deals	Delete	Not practical for the disposition reason
Blessing of the Gray Fox	Neutral	Not too special
Fortify Magic Skill	Keep	It is good if the cost is less than just the spell by itself
Remedial Training	Keep	Obvious
Speedy Travel	Keep	Unique, but not particularly useful (unless you like micromanaging)
Steel Hammer	Delete	If it doesn't work, then we shouldn't have it.
Eloquence	Keep	Beneficial for those disposition checks in dialogue
Travel Pass	Keep	Useful if you can get everything outside
Liberate Effects	Neutral	It's good, but Open is a little better for Mages
Binoculars	Delete	All of these are useless and unoriginal
C-4
Locator (Taser Bomb)
Heart Attack
Lingering Chill
Odd Little Trick (Auras)
Light 'Em Up
Flaming Sword

Good work, and thanks for doing it. I agree with most of your recommendations, with my vote being "keep" for all the neutral ones, but I'd also keep most of the "Peculiar Spells". The effects exhibited are unusual, and I think one feature of this page should be to present new and interesting effects from spells and spell combos that wouldn't normally be expected. The only one I might cull is "Heart Attack", which doesn't really do anything unexpected. rpeh •T•C•E• 07:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess we could just for the effects, but the names really need to change. I also think that the article should be semi-protected indefinitely. Recommendations can be left on the talk page, where they can just be ignored if needed. If anyone wants to put in their own opinions, go ahead and use the same table. Elliot (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

As one of the other people who's made some attempts to keep this and "Useful Enchantments" under control in the past, I would certainly agree with Elliot's delete recommendations (especially the last 8, which appear to be exactly the case I feared here) and would probably lean to being even more aggressive about the "neutral" ones. "Make a sword glowy for 3s" is not useful, and that's what the page is supposed to be. I'd be fine with "Peculiar / Pointless / Gimmick" spells like that getting their own page if rpeh thinks they're worth keeping, but this is not and should not be the page for them. -- ali — Unsigned comment by 24.180.45.63 (talk)

Yeah, I don't think it would be too bad to include them here, but I those specific spells/effects might be better on the actual effect page. I really don't care either way, though. Elliot (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This is bull****. Your deletion review failed now your just going to butcher the page using a BS two man consensus. Congratulations RPEH for succeding in your personal agenda to keep spell chaining off the site. Can't help but feel this is personal since pretty much all the work I've done is up for deletion. Screw you boys. Have fun bullying people on your wiki. Get a job and a girlfriend and move out of your mom's already. Datacaust is done. --Datacaust 15:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm rather shocked you've managed to miss the point so badly. It wasn't that the deletion review failed; rather, it was agreed that the page should be kept but shorn of its more useless examples. You mention me by name, but fail to mention that my vote was for "Keep", so you're simply being unfair on that point.

On the subject of "butchering" the page, you're also simply wrong. This process has been done before with good results. You should also note that my votes are far more "keep" than anyone else's so far. Yes, I maintain - and always have done - that the Spell Chaining system is a waste of time, but to call the current vote a two-man consensus is insulting and inaccurate. If you really, really want to keep these spells, then make a proper defense instead of stamping your foot and walking out.

If anybody - Datacaust included - feels my actions on this page or the preceding DR page have been in any way inappropriate, please post on the Admin Noticeboard and ask for an uninvolved admin to review everything. I'll take whatever action the reviewing admin feels is appropriate. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing on done on the DR by anyone was inappropriate. As rpeh said, we came to a conclusion to analyze each spell. I made my info a Level 3 header for the sole fact that I wanted other people to have their say as well. No one did. So we take the silence as an "I agree" or an "I don't care either way". And yes, I second the notion that spell chaining is a massive waste of time. Elliot (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

(←) Okay I went ahead and updated the page. Can we get it semi-protected now? Elliot (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Good work, but I'm not sure about semi-protection. Do other users support this? rpeh •T•C•E•

Three users including myself thought it would be a good idea. Elliot (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Godlike powers

Spell:

Fortify <X> 100 for 3 on Touch;
Absorb <X> 100 for 3 on Touch;
Calm up to level 25 for 3 on Touch; # Just for convenience
Weakness to Magicka 100 for 3 on Touch,

where <X> is any attribute or skill. If casted multiple times on someone, it will permanently boost your attributes & skills as high as you like. Effect wears off only when fast-travelling or loading savegame. Tested on PC with 1.2.0416 patch. Not sure if I should add this to article, 'cause it destroys all interest in playing.

I don't understand how it permantly boosts your skills if it is cast on touch? --Manic 20:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

First, absorb can't be casted on target. Second, I don't know how, but it works. Try it yourself. It seems, when you cast it in a chain, only last works normally (i.e. wears off after 3 secs), but all casted previously stucks. I summon skeleton for 120 seconds, cast this spell repeteadly, until skeleton disappears, and get about 170k in any attribute. PS Just found that similar behaviour is described here: http://uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion_talk:Absorb_Attribute#Glitch

So you can effectively max out any attribute or skill with this? Saves you from efficient leveling I suppose. I will try it later. --Manic 14:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I recommend to absorb Intelligence first to be able to cast it non-stop. Spell costs 48 mana (with 100 Restoration) and requires 75 Restoration. Or you can try to set durations of fortify & absorb to 1 second, it will require only 50 Restoration then.

Any idea as to whether or not this will affect health gain on level up via Endurance? FromCrimsonToWool (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2013 (GMT)

Prev: Archive 4

Up: Oblivion talk:Useful Spells

Next: None