Morrowind talk:Birthsigns

I think it would be good to include pictures of the birthsigns here. Is there any chance of that happening, or are you waiting to see how the traffic gets once Oblivion gets released? Anyway, this at least clears the Hints page a bit.

--Mdimitro 13:52, 1 Jun 2005 (EDT)

I believe the birthsign pictures could be used on here only by fair use, since the text is talking specifically about them. I'll see if I can find some pictures, and try to upload them here. --Werdnanoslen 11:31, 12 August 2006 (EDT)

I have some pictures of them.

--Delrok 11:34, 12 August 2006 (EDT)

Table FormatEdit

Can we join the birthsign description closer to the main sign table? It looks a little disconnected atm and it's hard to tell if a description goes with the sign above or below it. For example:

Birthsign	Description	Abilities
The Warrior ID: Warwyrd	Constellation of The Warrior with a Prime Aspect of Masser.	Ability: Warwyrd- Fortify Attack 10 pts
The Warrior is the first Guardian Constellation and he protects his charges during their Seasons. The Warrior's own season is Last Seed when his Strength is needed for the harvest. His Charges are the Lady, the Steed, and the Lord. Those born under the sign of the Warrior are skilled with weapons of all kinds, but prone to short tempers.

Basically I justed joined the two tables together add added a colspan=3 tag to the description row. Nice work on the article btw! -- DaveH 13:19, 13 August 2006 (EDT)

I say sure, I'll go do it--Delrok 13:31, 13 August 2006 (EDT)

All done--Delrok 13:53, 13 August 2006 (EDT)

Also, if you want to get the columns to line up in the different tables, you can add width tags... for example, I just added some to the table on this page (width=25%, width=50%, width=25%). You probably want to play with the exact values to see what works best, just demonstrating. --Nephele 15:11, 13 August 2006 (EDT)

okay--Delrok 15:40, 13 August 2006 (EDT)

Ok, everything is uploaded, and I just aligned it. Everything looks good and more interesting than before, nice job. --Werdnanoslen 15:44, 13 August 2006 (EDT)

Yes it looks much better --Delrok 15:45, 13 August 2006 (EDT)

Fay issueEdit

I know little about most signs since their in game description is very clear so I choose the one that fit but to the chosen sign there seem to be an error at Fay. To start out I will point a rule: on regular basis: Magicka=Intelligence with Fay: Magicka=Intelligence+0,5*Intelligence=1,5*Intelligence with fortify +5 magicka: Magicka=Intelligence+5 so probably the formulas are either missunderstood by me! — Unsigned comment by 89.47.146.146 (talk) on 8 September 2008

The Fay ability granted by the Mage birthsign uses Fortify Maximum Magicka, which is very different from Fortify Magicka. Reading those two articles should hopefully explain the difference. --Nephele^Talk 15:42, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

Warrior vs LoverEdit

What is the difference between using the Warrior's Fortify Attack ability and the attack chance gained by the Lover's Fortify Agility ability? In other words, which one is better in terms of chance to hit: 10 points of Fortify Attack or 25 points of Agility? -- --Mebestien 18:03, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Fortify Attack will give you an extra 10% chance to hit, but I don't know what percentage that is for Fortify Agility 25 pts. Given that both effects have the same Base Cost, I think the Fortify Agility effect would be more useful. --Timenn < talk > 08:38, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

The attackers Agility divided by 4 is the percentage of hit gained, so 25 agility is 6.25% to hit. The Warrior gives the player 10% to hit, but does not give the other Agility bonuses such as dodge. Lukish_ Tlk Cnt 18:09, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

That's exactly what I was looking for, thanks! So choosing Warrior will make it slightly easier to hit in the beginning, and later when you max your Agility the Warrior will still be helpful. 25 Agility can be obtained in five efficient levels. Choosing the Lover will greatly help stealth characters early on, but they can also benefit from the Warrior (it sucks sneaking up on something and missing your all-important sneak attack). -- --Mebestien 23:39, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Incorrect ValuesEdit

The stats aren't entirely correct, I've noticed: the mage gives a 0.5x int magicka upgrade, not a 5 pnt upgrade. And the atronach gives a 2.0x int magicka upgrade, not 20 pnts. EyeCube 12:48, 26 November 2008 (EST)eyeCube Nov 26 2008

The explanation is given on the Fortify Maximum Magicka page, but I'm not quite sure why it was done like that. It's certainly more confusing on this page. The game uses, eg, "Wombburn 2.0x INT" as its description. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 13:35, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Based on what we've done in other comparable cases (enchantment values, Oblivion's Open spell, etc.), I'd say we should stick to using the effect descriptions as they appear in game. The details of points should only appear on the Fortify Maximum Magicka page, since they're not apparent to anyone playing the game, only to people using the construction set. I've updated various articles accordingly. --Nephele^Talk 19:39, 30 November 2008 (EST)

This may help. Lukish_ Tlk Cnt 17:11, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Abilities and Powers need pagesEdit

It has come to my attention that there is very little consistency to to the "Availability" section in infoboxes, especially with information on bonus Abilities and Powers of Vampires, Races and Birthsigns. Most effects which I am referring to are redundant in their articles, such as Fortify Attack having the list of available sources of the effect in both the infobox and the notes. Some have their information in the description, and exclude the source from the infobox, such as Altmer in Weakness to Element. Acrobatics, Fortify Attribute, and Fortify Skill omit the Vampirism source, while in Resist Normal Weapons Vampirism is in both spots. Resist Paralysis has vampires in the description, but not in the infobox, yet completely omits the quest reward in Tribunal.

Reanimate uses a descriptive "Power" attached to the effect "Risen Flesh" in the infobox, so it doesn't need a paragraph describing the otherwise cryptic source. I believe this to be the proper course to use when eliminating redundancy and completing effects pages (and similar source infoboxes). It would mean making entries for powers and abilities, and/or including them on the Spells list or linking from Gameplay Information. I will try to iterate down the long line of articles to make these corrections for format consistency, but I'm bringing this up first so that everyone can either give a hand or offer a different approach. Lukish_ Tlk Cnt 06:52, 19 December 2008 (EST)

I'd noticed the consistency problem too. Your Fortify Attack example lists individual scrolls and potions whereas others just say "potions" or "scrolls". Why not use the ShowHide template to display headings and then list the individual items within rollup sections? Dr Jones 09:10, 21 December 2008 (EST)

I don't see it as inconsistency; rather it allows pages to have more or less detail as appropriate. The listing in the infobox was originally intended to be a brief overview of the ways that the effect can be obtained, using general terms such as "spells", "potions", etc. It's used on all spell effect pages, regardless of whether the effect is widely available or only available from one or two items. The text is then used to provide more extensive details if necessary. That's how the infoboxes are done on all types of pages: the infobox provide a brief overview, but more extensive details are provided in the text.

Therefore, for effects which are only available in a handful of ways, it's appropriate in the text to list all of those possibilities; for effects which are easily available, it's not really appropriate, since readers are unlikely to be going out of their way to find such common effects. In those cases where the effects are hard to find, listing the possibilities in the text allows for the option of providing more complete information on the items; in particular, the magnitude of the effect can be listed. The infobox is not designed to provide such details of the items, since it's not appropriate for common effects. The ability to list extra details when appropriate is one reason why listing the items in the text is preferable to listing them in the infobox. Another reason is that listing every item in the infobox only for rare effects gives the impression that those effects are easier to obtain than common effects (where it wouldn't be practical to list every possible source in the infobox, and therefore the infobox listing will be far shorter). --Nephele^Talk 11:52, 28 December 2008 (EST)

Right, but you acknowledge that the current situation is inconsistent. Some pages have long listings in the infobox and others just use headings. I can see why you prefer keeping the infobox listing brief (I'm ambivalent about this), but I think we can both agree that having some with the full detail and some with just minimal information, is bad. Dr Jones 12:40, 28 December 2008 (EST)

Oh. I see you're already making the changes. I thought these things were supposed to be discussed? Dr Jones 12:43, 28 December 2008 (EST)

I've undone the changes made on a few pages recently (changes that were made concurrently with this discussion), because I had to patrol the edits. As far as I know, I'm changing the pages to be consistent with the rest of the site, rather than implementing a new format for these pages. Therefore, I'm not sure why the status quo needs to be discussed before being applied to more articles. --Nephele^Talk 12:57, 28 December 2008 (EST)

But the problem remains so all you've done is undo Lukish's work. I've not been here long but I've noticed a disturbing trend for some administrators to implement what they think is the desired solution without bothering to consult anybody. That's not how a wiki is supposed to work. In this case, I happen to agree with your viewpoint, but to dismiss Lukish's work without even a proper response is disrespectful. Dr Jones 15:01, 28 December 2008 (EST)

I'm sorry you feel that way. But from my point of view, I did not dismiss Lukish's work without a response: what is this if not a response? I also provided edit summaries explaining the changes the made. Furthermore, I didn't just undo Lukish's work. I made sure that the additional items that he had added to the pages were still included in the updates to the page; I changed the wording to try to make it clear why certain items were being separated out for special treatment. No, I haven't gone through and tried to find all instances of such pages and tried to fix them, but that wasn't my original goal and I'm not sure why it should be my responsibility. Given that I haven't even had time in the last month to follow through with proposed changes that I announced I would do, I really don't want to take on other projects. Again, I'm sorry you feel so negative about what I've done, but I'm really not sure what I did that was so wrong. In any case, at this point I just won't touch any more Morrowind effect pages. --Nephele^Talk 16:03, 28 December 2008 (EST)

Okay, sorry - I know how hard you work on the site. Let's see what Lukish thinks and then look at cleaning things up one way or the other. Dr Jones 16:40, 28 December 2008 (EST)

I think Neph is only catching up to us right now. It's perfectly fine for any editor to revert, modify and delete new additions. It's multiple reverts from the same editor that are anti-wiki. I would like to know what everyone's input on infoboxes is before implementing any sweeping changes, and this discussion is still ongoing.

Does anyone mind if we add definitive lists in ShowHide template sections for infoboxes as Dr Jones suggests? Lukish_ Tlk Cnt 20:05, 28 December 2008 (EST)

Actually I'm not sure Dr Jones is in favor of that or whether it's just a suggestion. I'd go with Nephele's version and have links to main pages in the infobox with any details on the main article. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 15:21, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Well then we would need main pages to link to if we aren't linking specific powers in a ShowHide. Are you in favor of the Abilities and Powers pages or sections? I've set up Chameleon how I think it should look, adding equipment to the page in the infobox. Lukish_ Tlk Cnt 07:26, 1 January 2009 (EST)

That's fine - but I don't think it needs the ShowHide at all to be honest. Anybody else? –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 07:42, 1 January 2009 (EST)

Strange Lady signEdit

When you choose Lady as birthsign, you should gain +25 on your endurance, which you do. But the +25 endurance does not affect your starting health! Posh! Janmojzis 22:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It definitely should. Check that again. +25 Endurance should give you about +12 starting health and 2.5 every level up, see Health. Sethiel 18:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I had the same experience as Janmojzis - starting a male Nord born under the Lady, the character had Strength 50 and Endurance 85, but Health only 55 at level 1, i.e. the average of Strength and Endurance before the +25 from the Lady. I had the same behaviour in both Morrowind + Tribunal + Bloodmoon + official patch only, and with unofficial patch and codepatch installed. (When leveling up to level 2, I gained the expected Endurance / 10 Health (9), up to 64 total Health.)78.105.154.218 21:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

As noted already, your beginning health is not affected by a birthsign which boosts Endurance. --Brf 02:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

SpellsEdit

Do spells granted by birthsigns ("Blood of the North" with "The Lord" birthsign for example) have the ability to fail? My copy of Morrowind is heavily modded, and I'm unsure whether my healing ability from the Blood of the North should succeed 100% of the time or not. If so, this has become pretty overpowered, and I think I'll change it to normal if possible... — Unsigned comment by 98.141.187.143 (talk) at 02:37 on 11 June 2012

Powers should never fail its probably just your mods.--Cole1 02:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thanks Cole! =) — Unsigned comment by 98.141.187.143 (talk) at 02:44 on 11 June 2012