35 réponses à ce sujet

[Lance Botelle]

Hi All,

OK, I have obviously taken a wrong turn within this thread and recommend we let it die ....

Please redirect all further comments to this thread, which has my latest updates on the matter:

http://social.biowar...46451/2#8463231


PLEASE DO NOT POST ANY MORE IN THIS THREAD

BY ALL MEANS COPY COMMENTS TO POST IN THE THREAD LINK ABOVE.

Lance.

ORIGINAL POST ....

Hi All,

I was looking through/creating some scripts for monsters that use supernatural abilities: spell-like abilities that are not subject to spell resistance, but are supposed to disappear in an anti-magic field.

Now, NWN2 has some differences in rules to the core rules of D&D, and so I am asking the opinion of players what they believe the answer to this should be (or if it has already been answered, what is the answer) ...

If a monster has a supernatural ability (like a death gaze), should an item that gives immunity to death magic prevent this supernatural ability affecting the PC or not? i.e. Is the PC immune to the death gaze or not?

Note, the same PC would be immune to any spells that deliver death magic. I just want to know if supernatural powers override the abilities of items that give certain immunities.

Thanks in advance.
Lance.

Modifié par Lance Botelle, 08 octobre 2011 - 07:21 .

[Shallina]

You are immune to a spell ID.


If the gaze spell ID and the Immunity to spell ID match you are immune.

Now you'll be immune to every ability that use this spell ID.

If you want to be immun just to a specific creature, then you need to make a custom spell and a custom immunity, or a custom immunity that check the casters ....

[Lance Botelle]

Shallina wrote...

You are immune to a spell ID.

If the gaze spell ID and the Immunity to spell ID match you are immune.

Now you'll be immune to every ability that use this spell ID.

If you want to be immun just to a specific creature, then you need to make a custom spell and a custom immunity, or a custom immunity that check the casters ....

Hi Shallina,

It does not appear as easy as that. Let me give you an example ...

A) An amulet has immunity to Death Magic.
A creature has a supernatural death gaze.

1) Does the supernatural death gaze qualify as "death magic" or not? (Need an answer here.)
2) Is the amulet acting as a kind of "antimagic" field for the supernatural effect or not? (Need an answer here.)
3) Is the supernatural "death gaze" subject to "spell resistance"? (Should be "no".)

My guess (at the moment) is that an item with an immunity acts like an antimagic device for the owner (either wearing or carrying subject to activation). However, if this is the case, then there are some scripts for creatures abilities that do not currently check for immunity items. E.g. The Death Gaze will kill somebody who fails a fortitude saving throw versus death - even if they wear an amulet that gives them immunity to Death Magic.

If people agree with my own current assumptions, then I will need to update a few scripts to fit the ruling ... alternatively, are we saying supernatural powers now override any "immunity" items, and that "immunity items" actually only refer to spells. (Period.) i.e. Death Magic refers to spells that deal with death and excludes things like gazes and other supernatural abilities?

Many Thanks.

Lance.

Modifié par Lance Botelle, 06 octobre 2011 - 02:47 .

[kevL]

I think you should go with whatever's more difficult, Lance

( non answer )


of course i like the division between magical and natural abilities, but ..

[Shallina]

Check the spell ID of the death attack and the spell ID or your spell death.

You can be immun to a spell ID or to an Effect or both. That's how the game works.

So now if you wants something different, it's up to you to script it. The game allow you to declare immunity vs a spell ID or Vs an Effect. (EffectDeath) in your exemple.

The immunity you can do with script :

Immunity vs spells (single or group of them, or all), mostly a check on their ID.

Immunity vs  creatures, you can choose to check the damager and ignore the effect of the attack if the damager has the criteria you want to check.


Immunity vs Effect : you can declare immunity vs an effect from whereever it comes ability or spell or traps or whatever...


Now if you want to be immune against a specific spell casted by a specific creature :

The best way is to write a custom spell with a custom ID just for this creature, declare it in the various 2da, make the creature use it, and make a custom immun effect that will make you immune vs that spell ID.

You can also check the creature who is casting the spell, but if you go that way, if an other cast it you'll have to include it in your script if you want immunity.

If you have trouble following what I'am saying, it means that you have progress to do with scripting before you'll be able to do it

Modifié par Shallina, 06 octobre 2011 - 03:56 .

[MasterChanger]

Lance Botelle wrote...
If a monster has a supernatural ability (like a death gaze), should an item that gives immunity to death magic prevent this supernatural ability affecting the PC or not? i.e. Is the PC immune to the death gaze or not?


Thanks in advance.
Lance.

I don't believe that a special ability like that has to be supernatural. My default assumption about an ability like this is that it would be "spell-like" or perhaps "extraordinary". In NWN2, I'm pretty sure the difference (in scripting terms) between Magical, Extraordinary, and Supernatural effects is how they are ended: Magical can be ended through dispel or rest, Extraordinary can be ended through rest by not dispel, and Supernatural has to be specifcally removed by script.

I'm pretty sure the rules in PnP about immunity are centered around what is considered "Magic." If something is spell-like, then it's subject to Spell Resistance and Immunities, but if it's Supernatural then it isn't subject to either. For example, this determines what a golem is and isn't impevious to.

For most campaigns, I'd recommend treating most abilities from enemies as Spell-like or Extraordinary, unless there's a specific balance or plot reason to make it Supernatural. What I think you should control is immunity items. Most of these items should probably just offer bonuses to saves against the particular effect (Death, Fear, Poison, Disease, etc.) rather than Immunity.

[Lance Botelle]

kevL wrote...

I think you should go with whatever's more difficult, Lance

( non answer )

of course i like the division between magical and natural abilities, but ..

Hi KevL,

I seem to attract "difficult" ....  I'm still pondering ....

Shallina wrote...

Check the spell ID of the death attack and the spell ID or your spell death.

You can be immun to a spell ID or to an Effect or both. That's how the game works.

<SNIP>

If you have trouble following what I'am saying, it means that you have progress to do with scripting before you'll be able to do it  

Hi Shallina,

I really did have trouble following what you were saying.  I think the problem I am having is determining whether the effect the PC is "immune" to is "specific" or "general". To me, being immune to "Death Effects" would mean being immune to any and all magical effects that bring about instant death. This would include spells and supernatural effects. Some OC scripts, however, would tend to suggest this is not the case. E.g. Death gaze.

MasterChanger wrote...

I don't believe that a special ability like that has to be supernatural. My default assumption about an ability like this is that it would be "spell-like" or perhaps "extraordinary". In NWN2, I'm pretty sure the difference (in scripting terms) between Magical, Extraordinary, and Supernatural effects is how they are ended: Magical can be ended through dispel or rest, Extraordinary can be ended through rest by not dispel, and Supernatural has to be specifcally removed by script.

Hi MasterChanger,

I suppose I like to try to keep as close to the original D&D concepts as possible and there is a distinction between the supernatural and extraordinary effects as I am sure you know. In NWN2, however, these terms do take on a slightly different meaning as you describe.

MasterChanger wrote...

I'm pretty sure the rules in PnP about immunity are centered around what is considered "Magic." If something is spell-like, then it's subject to Spell Resistance and Immunities, but if it's Supernatural then it isn't subject to either. For example, this determines what a golem is and isn't impevious to.

This is where I am struggling to make a distinction between "immunity" and "antimagic". If, for example, we say that being "immune" is akin to 100% spell resistance, then supernatural effects (like death gaze) would bypass any item that offers immunity to "death" effects. i.e. Items that offer "immunity" are only offering an immunity to "spell like" effects and not supernatural abilities, even ones that emulate spell like effects. If, however, being "immune" is akin to an antimagic shield against a particular effect, then something like the death gaze should also be protected against.

MasterChanger wrote...

For most campaigns, I'd recommend treating most abilities from enemies as Spell-like or Extraordinary, unless there's a specific balance or plot reason to make it Supernatural. What I think you should control is immunity items. Most of these items should probably just offer bonuses to saves against the particular effect (Death, Fear, Poison, Disease, etc.) rather than Immunity.

I certainly agree about limiting "immune" items.  On the other hand, I also like to keep as many supernatural abilities of monsters as possible, which would mean (if I go with the immunity meaning immune to spells only) such monsters could be a lot deadlier when encountered, as immunity items would have no effect.

So, bottom line question is to go with either .....

A) Immunity means immunity to spells (or spell groups) only. i.e. NOT monster special abilities.
Immunity acts like antimagic and protects the user against both spells and effects that emulate spell effects.

>>>>>> Which one would you opt for? (Question open to everybody!) <<<<<<


Many Thanks,

Lance.

Modifié par Lance Botelle, 08 octobre 2011 - 12:21 .

[MasterChanger]

I had been under the impression that supernatural special attacks were a lot rarer than they seem to be in core D&D. I looked at the d20 special abilities page, though, and it seems they're much more common than I thought. Breath weapons, for example, are mostly supernatural (I would have thought Extraordinary since I think of breath weapons as products of a weird biology). Supernatural effects don't allow Spell Resistance so theoretically shouldn't allow immunity.

Since you mention gaze attacks, I looked at those specifically. It seems they're most Supernatural.

I guess you'll need to figure this into your thoughts about difficulty in your campaign!

[Lance Botelle]

MasterChanger wrote...

I had been under the impression that supernatural special attacks were a lot rarer than they seem to be in core D&D. I looked at the d20 special abilities page, though, and it seems they're much more common than I thought. Breath weapons, for example, are mostly supernatural (I would have thought Extraordinary since I think of breath weapons as products of a weird biology). Supernatural effects don't allow Spell Resistance so theoretically shouldn't allow immunity.

Since you mention gaze attacks, I looked at those specifically. It seems they're most Supernatural.

I guess you'll need to figure this into your thoughts about difficulty in your campaign!

Hi MasterChanger,

Yes, this is the difficulty I am facing.  Some of the difficulty in the decision making is due to the word "immunity". After all, an elf that is "immune" to sleep would not be affected by a sleep breathe weapon would they?

Yet, in the core rules, "immunity" items/situations are not as common as they are in NWN2. Therefore, it may be simply be a porr choice of description on the part of NWN. Maybe if the item were described as an ability to resist a spell type, then it would be much easier to define. However, when I read "immunity" to an effect, I translate that as "immune" to an effect .... period!

Maybe, I should just change the descrition of the items that offer "immunity" to make it clear that it refers to spell and spell like abilities only ... or more importantly, NOT against supernatural abilities. What would you say?


Many Thanks.
Lance.

Modifié par Lance Botelle, 08 octobre 2011 - 12:21 .

[Shaughn78]

Lance I voted at both places and I am going for the bypass of immunities. I am reposting my comment I placed on you blog.

I voted for allowing supernatural abilities to bypass the immunities.

My vote is with the assumption that these abilities will be primarily used with special encounters and "boss-like" creatures. So that having an ability bypass the immunity would only happen occasionally. As a player having your immunity bypassed on a regular basis would be frustrating.

Something else that could be used with a system like this, would be artifact items or even a consumable that would give resistance to a specific creature's ability.

Modifié par Shaughn78, 06 octobre 2011 - 11:39 .

[The Fred]

The immunity items don't really grant spell immunity, they grant effect immunity. I think that's the way it works in PnP and certainly in NWN2. So, if you are immune to death magic, that generally includes death gazes, etc ("death magic" implies spells, but that's just a term; probably it's a bad example). Immune to "mind-effecting" means you're immune not just to Charm Person, Dominate Person etc but to anything which affects your mind.

I would say that these sorts of attacks could and probably (depending) should bypass spell resistance.

Shallina wrote...
You are immune to a spell ID.

If the gaze spell ID and the Immunity to spell ID match you are immune.

Now you'll be immune to every ability that use this spell ID.

Shallina, I think Lance is asking not how the engine does work, but how people think these abilities should work. Besides, most monster abilities do not actually check for spell resistance/immunity, so being immune to them does nothing, since IIRC it's not hardcoded.

[kevL]

well there is that "ImmunityType" column in Spells.2da

"ItemImmunity" there also .....

[Lance Botelle]

Shaughn78 wrote...

Lance I voted at both places and I am going for the bypass of immunities. I am reposting my comment I placed on you blog.

I voted for allowing supernatural abilities to bypass the immunities.

My vote is with the assumption that these abilities will be primarily used with special encounters and "boss-like" creatures. So that having an ability bypass the immunity would only happen occasionally. As a player having your immunity bypassed on a regular basis would be frustrating.

Something else that could be used with a system like this, would be artifact items or even a consumable that would give resistance to a specific creature's ability.

Hi Shaughn,

My mind is still switching between the two  .... the "problem" is that if a creature's effect is supernatural, which most things like breath weapons and gazes are (as well as quite a few other abilities), then the number of creatures/effects that can bypass the immunity increases - even for creatures that may not be considered "boss" types - some only CR4 (maybe less, I have not looked too hard). That said, I am tending to agree with you at the moment .... in which case, I may have to make the rules/descriptions clearer.

The Fred wrote...

The immunity items don't really grant spell immunity, they grant effect immunity. I think that's the way it works in PnP and certainly in NWN2. So, if you are immune to death magic, that generally includes death gazes, etc ("death magic" implies spells, but that's just a term; probably it's a bad example). Immune to "mind-effecting" means you're immune not just to Charm Person, Dominate Person etc but to anything which affects your mind.

I would say that these sorts of attacks could and probably (depending) should bypass spell resistance.

Shallina wrote...
You are immune to a spell ID.

If the gaze spell ID and the Immunity to spell ID match you are immune.

Now you'll be immune to every ability that use this spell ID.

Shallina, I think Lance is asking not how the engine does work, but how people think these abilities should work. Besides, most monster abilities do not actually check for spell resistance/immunity, so being immune to them does nothing, since IIRC it's not hardcoded.

Hi The Fred,

Regarding what Shallina said, you are right - and are spot on about the way the immunities are checked - they are not hardcoded as far as I can see - at least not the ones I am looking at.

Funny enough, you just highlighted the problem that had me make the original post: You would think that being immune to something like Death Magic would mean being immune to death gazes as well. However, when I checked the death gaze script (and other supernatural gazes), they do not check for any immunities ... as if such immunities do not apply to supernatural powers. Yet, you conclude as I currently do, that perhaps they (being supernatural in source) should override any "equivilent" spell like immunity. Have I understood you correctly?

kevL wrote...

well there is that "ImmunityType" column in Spells.2da

"ItemImmunity" there also .....

Hi kevL,

I don't think that entry works like we think. At least, it still needs coding if you see what I mean. May as well just code the immunity directly (or not) into the ability in question. Of course, I may not be understanding this column, so I may be wrong.

Many thanks all.

Lance.

Modifié par Lance Botelle, 07 octobre 2011 - 12:07 .

[M. Rieder]

I agree with Shaughn. A creature that can bypass immunity such as a death ward should be rare. Furthermore, the DM (in this case the builder) should give the player a reasonable chance to discover this and offer some sort of recourse. It would not be very fun to battle your way to the end of the game and get flattened repeatedly because of an unstoppable supernatural ability.

[Lance Botelle]

M. Rieder wrote...

I agree with Shaughn. A creature that can bypass immunity such as a death ward should be rare. Furthermore, the DM (in this case the builder) should give the player a reasonable chance to discover this and offer some sort of recourse. It would not be very fun to battle your way to the end of the game and get flattened repeatedly because of an unstoppable supernatural ability.

Hi Matt,

I want to be clear with what you are saying here ....

Shaugh is saying that supernatural powers should be able to bypass an item's immunity. i.e. A PC wearing an amulet with immunity to Death Magic would still die if they failed their saving throw.

Do you agree with this?

Or, are you saying such an amulet would prevent the death gaze from affecting the PC?

Many thanks.
Lance.

[kevL]

Lance, yes,

Per Skywing is not used in any way by the engine, only used for script which refer to it.

which of course leaves about a dozen questions open: Is *any* effect coded to be hard-checked? Why do some spellscripts do an immunity check and others (to which immunities apply) don't? Is there any reference that states which effects get checked by what immunities (if any)? How and are these affected by MagicalEffect, ExtraordinaryEffect, SupernaturalEffect?

perhaps someyear a consistent formula will be found, and all spellscripts re-written to take into account the .2da column, provide adequate PC-feedback messages, ironing out whatever inconsistencies w/ MySavingThrow, MySpellResist, and immunities ....


for now i suggest dealing with it on a case by case basis : +1 to separate (super)natural from magical abilities,


/sigh

[M. Rieder]

Lance Botelle wrote...

Hi Matt,

I want to be clear with what you are saying here ....

Shaugh is saying that supernatural powers should be able to bypass an item's immunity. i.e. A PC wearing an amulet with immunity to Death Magic would still die if they failed their saving throw.

Do you agree with this?

Or, are you saying such an amulet would prevent the death gaze from affecting the PC?

Many thanks.
Lance.

I think that a death gaze that bypassess item immunity could be a good idea, but only under certain circumstances.  If the death gaze can bypass an amulet of immunity, then I think that the player should have a reasonable chance to discover this prior to the fight and it would be good if there were some other way to mitigate the weapon, or to lessen its effect.  My concern is that if you have a death gaze for which there is no ward, it could possibly become very frustrating for the player and result in multiple re-loads. 

I also think that this should be reserved for boss type characters.  Players will become frustrated quickly if they have an amulet to protect from death that is bypassed several times. 

[Lance Botelle]

kevL wrote...

<SNIP>

for now i suggest dealing with it on a case by case basis : +1 to separate (super)natural from magical abilities,

/sigh

Hi KevL,

I think this is probably what I will be doing, but I do want to set a standard to work by. See my additional comment regarding the "Death Ward" spell below (to Matt).

M. Rieder wrote...

I think that a death gaze that bypassess item immunity could be a good idea, but only under certain circumstances. If the death gaze can bypass an amulet of immunity, then I think that the player should have a reasonable chance to discover this prior to the fight and it would be good if there were some other way to mitigate the weapon, or to lessen its effect. My concern is that if you have a death gaze for which there is no ward, it could possibly become very frustrating for the player and result in multiple re-loads.

I also think that this should be reserved for boss type characters. Players will become frustrated quickly if they have an amulet to protect from death that is bypassed several times. 

Hi Matt,

OK, I understand you now. However, where does the Death Ward spell fit into the equation then, which says this ... "The target creature becomes immune to any energy drain, negative energy or death spells, spell-like abilities, and effects."

In other words, are we now saying that the immunity to Death Magic effect items are not the same as the Death Ward type spell? ALTHOUGH when I tested this spell on a PC against the Death Gaze, the PC was still NOT immune to the creatures death gaze! So, it could be argued that the Death Ward spell and an item giving immunity to Death Magic are effectively the same thing .... and that neither of them protect against supernatural death gazes.

Even the 3e rules for the Death Ward spell say, "The subject is immune to all death spells and magical death effects. The spell does not protect against other sorts of attacks, such as hit point loss, poison, petrification, or other effects even if they might be lethal." (My emphasis.)

The problem is distinguishing what is considered lethal, but not a death effect! i.e Is a death gaze a lethal effect or a death effect? I would have thought them to be the same, but perhaps a gaze that causes death is considered "lethal", but not a "death effect".

Any one care to support or deny this assumption?

Lance.

EDIT: I think I have found a clue to answer the above: On page 74 of the DMG referring to Death Attacks, the Death Ward spell is supposed to protect a character against these sort of attacks. Therefore, if this is the case for the NWN version as well, then the death gaze attack FAILS to check for this spell immunity and the PC would still have to save or die. At the very least, it would suggest the death gaze script is "broken" with respect to the Death Ward spell .... and by implication, may suggest that immunity items should protect in a similar manner, suggesting many scripts are broken with respect to item immunity v supernatural abilities of creatures.

Modifié par Lance Botelle, 07 octobre 2011 - 01:28 .

[Arkalezth]

I haven't tested Death Ward against death effects so I can't say how it works.

As to your main question, I mostly agree with Matt. I'm fine with "normal" items (I'll explain later) not protecting against bosses' death abilities, but there should be some protection against them (at the very least, don't use a sky high DC).

Now, if the death-gazing enemy is a boss, there's the option to allow the player to get a story item specifically designed to fight that boss, that would protect him against the death gaze. It could be gained in a sidequest or something, so players (and not all of them) would have to earn it, and this would also add some RP value to the item. Maybe I'm going off-topic here, but it's an idea.

So, in short, my opinion is: don't allow immunity from items (or simply don't put immunity items in the module) unless it's a story item. But in any case, allow a way to protect against death: either make Death Ward work with it, or make DCs passable (not so easy that the every party member can make the save every time, but passable), or whatever.

Modifié par Arkalezth, 07 octobre 2011 - 01:40 .

[The Fred]

AFAIK, the scripts do not check for immunity to a spell ID, because they're not spells so they don't expect you ever to gain such an immunity. Neither do they check for anything else, however, effects cannot be applied to someone who is immune to that effect. This bit is hardcoded. So, a gaze might try and daze you, but Immunity: Mind-Affecting would leave you thinking clearly. However, you couldn't get Spell Immunity: Daze Gaze, say.

There's a distinction between what extactly it is you're immune to - an effect, or a specific spell or ability.

[Arkalezth]

I've asked to other players and I've been told that immunity to death magic (from spells) makes you immune to banshees' death effects. I guess this is the same case.

[MasterChanger]

By the way, MySavingThrow does check for immunity (inasmuch as the FortitudeSave, ReflexSave, and WillSave check for it). These functions are meant to return 0 if the save fails, 1 if it succeeds, and 2 if the target is immune. So, if you check...

if (!MySavingThrow(...SAVING_THROW_TYPE_*))
{ ApplyEffectToObject(...) }

the immunity will be taken into account.

Now as to how those functions check for immunity, I don't know.

[I_Raps]

I'll offer a player's unofficial opinion. A spell (Death Ward) or item that gives "immunity to death" should give immunity to death effects, whether from spell or item or supernatural ability or whatever. These game intricacies have no real application to what the characters would or should be thinking about their world. And evading the clear meaning of the immunity by legalism is baloney.

I remember specifically NWN/D&D 3.0 death immunity included Horrid Wilting - until it didn't (some ruling in Dragon Magazine, I believe, included in a patch). Suddenly Horrid Wilting was springing up in mods all over. I simply modded up death immunity items to provide immunity from the spell.

I would think long and hard about anything that circumvents the clear language of already existing rules/spells/items.  When players take precautions to protect against specific things - foregoing other options for that spell/item slot, the "DM" should not just ignore that without good reason.

Modifié par I_Raps, 07 octobre 2011 - 07:48 .

[painofdungeoneternal]

Horrid wilting is not death magic, it does not use negative energy, nor does it do a save or die as a death attack does, it just used that effect to implement the result. Its actually extracting water from a target. This is much like some spells conjure arrows which are non magical arrows, but others create magical constructs out of force and magic, or even illusions, how you are affected is the same using in game code, but the means is much different which means the defenses should vary.

In the official rules ( and my CSL ) this means contructs and undead are immune, and it does not notice if you have water, beyond doing extra damage to plants. This is mostly i think for balance, and to allow a pure necromancer a way to attack creatures who are immune to negative energy, which this is not, and also it does not heal undead.

In theory having water in the target is important part of how to look at this spell, and i think it should be assumed most creatures have SOME water. However it would be easy to extend what this does in reality, removing water, and making more creatures immune ( fire elementals ), while making other creatures take extra damage ( water elementals ). Might even rule flesh golems have water they need, as would a clockwork spider running on steam. I'd even say if you are soaking wet, this would be a great way to dry you off prior to dropping a fireball on you - but this would be more about removing a bonus to saves which in PNP would be granted by the DM. Ideally i want all spells to be this in depth, but that will take a long time.

Be very careful in overturning rules like this, magic is not about broad simple categories, it's about each spell having it's own job, it's own purpose and having it's own very specific rules, and making it act like it's actual description, often using very limited set of functions and effects shared by many completely different spells. Being a long time wizard i rely on horrid wilting for a lot of opponents who are immune to death magic, and to negative energy. Most new players would not notice this, which makes it so finding the correct spell a puzzle, and you can make that super boss near immune to magic. But you should not make it so those playing a wizard, who are smart enough to use the right combo after a LOT of research, cannot make what you designed as a hard encounter way too easy.

Note that the defense is a high level spell known as shades. That provides full necromantic immunity. This is a high level spell, and it should not be something a low level spell lets you ignore.

I think it's fine for a DM or module maker to decide to add spell immunity to an item, to give a person both immunity to this spell and to death attacks, i just see them as separate powers and should be described/noted that both protections are provided and not assumed that getting death magic protection also protects from this spell, and if it's granted in death ward, to note that in the spell description as well.

( Might want to look at drowning attacks as well, or attacks that remove the ability to breathe, same issues, but i prefer requiring a water breathing spell, or being aquatic ( or not needing air ) as a defense, might even help that water elemental somewhat, i'm sure adding water to one of those things would be pleasant for them. ).

Modifié par painofdungeoneternal, 07 octobre 2011 - 09:47 .

[painofdungeoneternal]

Fixing spells like this is more fixing symptoms, than fixing the rules themselves.

Only way to actually fix the rules overall, is to...


A. Read the pnp descriptions, and carefully note how it's described, and in some cases make up your own rulings, and figure out which scripts are what.
B. Flag the spell as supernatural, extraordinary, etc. ( doing this in the header of the spell )
C. Change resistspell, saving throw, and any etc so they look at what the setting is, and work accordingly - spells which normally don't need these functions should have them added in, but the flags being set correctly would make them work the same in game. ( thus a immune to spell or immune to school effect can work on a spell which ignore spell resistance, technically now that cannot be done )

Doing it spell by spell just does not work. You basically spend 3-4 hours, debugging, testing, figuring out one spell, and then rinse repeat for the next spell. And each implementation is different. If you only care about a few spells this makes sense.

You also run into cases where a creatures spells are modified for some reason, so what was once normal is suddenly extraordinary on the fly, so this allows dynamic adjustments where warranted, just like you can do in PNP.

The code should match the written PNP rules, so you see at the top of the spell how it should work. Then you go into every spell and make sure they have myresistspell even if the spell ignores magic resistance, all of them end up being set up the same way. The logic then can match the written PNP rules exactly instead of being custom coded per spell, and a lot of oddball situations you just don't think of will suddenly start actually following the rules. Errors are easy to fix, you just see how it's flagged, and if a particular spell is not working right, or if a modder dislikes how it works, they can just change the flag. And if its a problem in the various functions, fixing one, fixes things globally.

I did this for CSL with descriptors, school, and subschool, but never touched the actual magics type. Most of the time this just isn't apparent to the player, well monsters are treated as second class citizens with regards to bugs.

Modifié par painofdungeoneternal, 07 octobre 2011 - 09:44 .