"Incorrect" Spell Recipe

[Eanelder]

Just made the following spell and realized a problem with the additive:

Monster Summoning IV

• Conjuring Thickener
• Ink of the Companion
• Luclin's Ink Additive
• Quill of the Arch Convoker
• Runic Parchment

The additive should be INK ADDITIVE OF THE NAMELESS, summoning pets has no resist check.

[Neebat]

I just made Monster Summoning IV for the first time Saturday. It didn't actually surprise me that it used a resist additive, since I've made all of these:
Spell: Child of Bertoxxulous
Spell: Legacy of Zek
Spell: Saryrn's Companion
Spell: Child of Ro

I like the idea that pets aren't resistable. But it doesn't seem to be consistent.

Those five seem to be the only ones which do not use Ink Additive the Nameless.

[Ngreth Thergn]

In all oddness... some pet spells have a "resist" even if it is never used. Int he end it is probably a harmless bug in the EQ data... but it is there!

[Neebat]

In all oddness... some pet spells have a "resist" even if it is never used. Int he end it is probably a harmless bug in the EQ data... but it is there!

I think I see what you're saying. The internal spell data EQ uses has a value in the resist field for some pets. You can't actually SEE that value without using Lucy, and it doesn't affect the game in any way, but researchers should use the correct additive based on...

Lucy?

[KyrosKrane]

Given that spell parsers such as Lucy are the only viable method for finding some spell info, is there really a practical alternative? Otherwise, we're left guessing what the spell designer intended, as opposed to just reading the data and translating it to tradeskill components.

[Neebat]

Given that spell parsers such as Lucy are the only viable method for finding some spell info, is there really a practical alternative? Otherwise, we're left guessing what the spell designer intended, as opposed to just reading the data and translating it to tradeskill components.

I like it a lot better when the spell description is enough, because it makes me feel clever. (I know it's an illusion, but hey.)

I'm not sure which spell effects you're talking about. I've found that in 90% of the cases, I can read the spell description, check the descriptions for the inks and additives, and put together a combine that works. Those five pets don't work that way.

I always trip up on spell procs, but I don't know if that's because of inconsistencies or just my poor memory.