Oblivion talk:Spell Stacking

Finding a better title for this page

I initially named this page (Spell Stacking) after a commonly used term. That term however, is misleading. This page isn't about spell nor stacking. It is about weakness to magic amplifying itself, and how to exploit that for spells, enchantments, and poisons. I do mention stacking, but only in passing (it's not very useful in practice).

So I'd like to change the title. The new one should be short, comprehensive, and accurate. Here are some Ideas (Please add other titles at if you have other ideas):

1. Weakness to Magic Amplification
2. Weakness to Magic Self-amplification.
3. Weakness to Magic Stacking

My current appreciation is that (1) is incomplete, (2) feels convoluted, and (3) is inaccurate. Overall, I prefer (1) over (2) and (3), but if someone could find an even better alternative, that'd be cool. I'd move the page on my own if I were sure, but I'd like some evidence of consensus first--Loup-vaillant 14:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

How about just weakness stacking? Or Weakness Amplified Magic could be called WAM for short. Actual spell stacking is a useful practice come on now. --Datacaust 04:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I've decided that the most accurate name for this page is Effect Stacking, as that is how I wrote the page. However I'm not sure if it should even change since "spell stacking" has been traditionally what this concept has been called, albeit erroneously. I will leave this to someone with more clout than me. --Datacaust 15:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Umm.. Stacking?

I was just reading through this and noticed that this page doesn't really mention that you need to make TWO spells to stack their effects also it lacks an introduction explaining the concept really. --Datacaust 14:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The introduction is fine and the page does not mention two spells because: one you can do it with one spell and two because the page is also about enchantments. --Manic 14:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The way I came to understand this is, one spell repeatedly cast will not increase after the second cast, while two spells repeatedly cast successively will increase exponentially. Are you telling me now this is incorrect? --Datacaust 14:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

No, you are correct in part. Spell stacking can include a spell with a weakness to fire and fire attack all in one spell. It could be a spell then an attack with an enchanted item. It may be improved at a later time, but it's of low priorety at the momment. --Manic 14:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

If that is what you meant. It's not clearly stated. I think this page is inferior to the spell stacking section that previously existed on Oblivion:Spell Making. It seems the writer has failed to hit the nail on it's head. --Datacaust 14:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

If you don't like the article change it to how you think it should be. If we think its better then we will keep it. If you think you can make it better then do. --Manic 14:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Roger. --Datacaust 14:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll be blunt: Datacaust, I am right, and you are wrong. I checked and rechecked the facts, both with math and actual experiments. Your original section on spell stacking comes from a good idea, I know it was a lot of work, but it's inaccurate. I trusted it at first, but I changed my mind when I noted some contradictions, both from the wiki and from my own experience. So I did some math and many experiments. I may have written some mistakes, but I'm positive that (1) you don't need more than 1 spell, and (2) progression is always polynomial, never exponential, even with several "prepare" spells.--Loup-vaillant 00:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I undid your edit, it was too much at once. You are of course welcome to modify the writing, but if you want to modify the facts, as you did, please be very careful. Read the page. If something seems wrong, please tell me what and why. Think of possible tests. If your tests are conclusive, then edit accordingly. I know I'm patronizing you here, but I was just as careful myself. I didn't destroy your work on a whim. I build upon it. You made major mistakes, but without your work, I couldn't have done mine. Thank you for that. Just understand that we won't be going back, in the same way that we didn't came back to Newtonian gravitation since Einstein's Relativity (also note that without a Newton, there would be no Einstein).--Loup-vaillant 00:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, this kind of bickering just makes me want to delete the page again. This whole technique is a waste of everybody's time. rpeh •T•C•E• 10:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Err, this was my first intervention since Datacaust's edit. Give him time to respond. I also reckon I sound a harsh, but the facts are on my side.--Loup-vaillant 11:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

By "this whole technique" you meant Weakness to Magic self amplification, aka spell stacking, right? From my experience, enemies that took 30 casts to fall can't withstand 6 with this technique. May be cheesy, but certainly not useless.--Loup-vaillant 11:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Now I do agree that this page is too prominent. We should take the link out of the main magic page. Now that I think of it, the useful spell page and the hints page are a better fit for this link.--Loup-vaillant 11:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with rpeh, this page is rather useless and has done nothing but stir up trouble. Elliot (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this just talk, or are we seriously considering starting a deletion review here? I as well think this is an overly complicated strategy for a tiny pay off that attracts a lot of bickering. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 15:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

WOW. A deletion Review. Can you at least chime your opinion here RPEH. It says in the rules that effects from the same source do not stack but replace each other. --Datacaust 15:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't care whether it works or not. It's such a combat-by-accountancy way of playing the game. It reminds me of playing D&D where you'd always eventually get one ghastly little git who knew all the rule books backwards and who eventually came up with some weird combination of spells, abilities and artifacts that totally ruined the game for everyone else. If you really play the game by looking up a creature's HP then checking on table A to find out how many times you have to cast spells B and C... then good luck to you, but it's not something I want to have anything to do with. rpeh •T•C•E• 16:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I have a reliable authority source in this discussion. This should settle the factual matter.--Loup-vaillant 16:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

So, you think this page describes an exploit. Therefore it seems it has a place in the hints page, maybe even in the exploits page. An you know what, I agree. If you really think about deleting it however, think of what could spoil the game more than the Chameleon Suite.--Loup-vaillant 16:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I think it describes something really, really dull that's not worth including anywhere.

If it can stay quietly on its own page, then that's fine. If you and Datacaust are going to start arguing over it then I'd rather see it disappear. rpeh •T•C•E• 17:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. But frankly, if I were you, I wouldn't worry: once Datacaust read this discussion, he will probably agree with me. Because even though I threw some hard punches at him, he didn't strike back. As far as I'm concerned, he's someone we can talk to.--Loup-vaillant 18:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Whatever man act superior if you want. Using a spell on my page I killed a minotaur lord on maximum difficulty in eight hits with one spell and five hits with two spells. I had no problem switching between the spells but I guess have the skill to do so, so its not a chore for me. Long story short two spells is stronger. Hows that for a hard punch, tough talk, bet your not. I stayed out of it to save face you should do the same. Delete this page. munchink. --Datacaust 01:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

8 vs 5… Knowing that you can cast faster when you maintain the block button pushed (and that you can't do that if you switch spells), I think the enemy should fall down in roughly the same time, by pushing fewer buttons. You certainly weren't wrong on the general idea, but your numbers were off, and your belief that one somehow need 2 spells was plainly false. But you did the experiment, and saw first hand that 1 spell alone is more than enough. That was my whole point.--Loup-vaillant 08:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Five hits with a switch in between each hit is eight, they werent my numbers and forgive me for thinking the spell stacking page would involve spell stacking. --Datacaust. — Unsigned comment by 207.216.130.182 (talk) at 18:57 on 1 July 2011

(EDIT: Ha, that was unsigned. I was wondering why this was so poorly written. Probably an usurper, then. Thank you Legoless, I should have noticed.) Glad we finally agree. As I already said (here, and here), "Spell Stacking" was indeed a bad title. Do you have any suggestions?--Loup-vaillant 20:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

(←) I've started the deletion review, let's see how that goes. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 02:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Just gonna go out here with a suggestion that every just stay calm. And a reminder that personal attacks are blockable... Just some friendly advice. Thanks! --DKong27 ^{Talk Cont} 02:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Up. That said, as the main author of this page, I must say I kinda agree with AKB: this page's content should be split, trimmed down, and put elsewhere (see my vote on the deletion review). I originally thought that a comprehensive explanation of the mechanisms involved might be useful, but the fact that several contributors here didn't even get what this page is about suggests that it doesn't explain anything, or at least very badly.--Loup-vaillant 09:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Too much trouble for too little gain? Really?

Some people here seem to think the strategies described on this page are much trouble and gains you little. Well, yes and no.

[[Oblivion:Spell_Stacking#Spell_Stacking_on_self|"Stacking" on self]] really is cumbersome. I ran some tests just to be sure it would work (post 1.1 patch), and it proved so cumbersome I decided I wouldn't use it. Permanent enchantments are already enough to render you virtually invulnerable, you don't need more. Frankly, I (re-)posted this exploit mainly for pedantry's sake. I wouldn't mind a major cut in this particular section, leaving out only the theoretical bits, from which anyone should be able to devise a not-so-practical application.

The rest of the page however is a long explanation for a so-powerful-it's-cheated offensive spell, which you could call the Munchkin's Wrath:

• Soul trap for 1 second on target in Y feet (optional)
• Elemental damage X points on Target in Y feet (you can combine all 3 elements).
• Elemental weakness 100% for 2 seconds (or more if you fear spell absorption).
• Drain Health 100 points for 1 seconds on Target in Y feet. (optional, I'm not sure it really helps)
• Weakness to magic 100% for 2 seconds (or more if you fear spell absorption).
• Chain spell effects. (So you can spam your mighty 300 Mackicka spell over and over).
• invisibility on self for 2 seconds (So you stay hidden while you destroy the world)

The Munchkin's Wrath get's used as followed: aim, fire until enemy is dead (which usually takes 3 or 4 hits at high level), rinse, repeat. After extensive tests, I found this spell very worthwhile. I use it all the time.