367 réponses à ce sujet

[Alesia_BH]

Alesia: I'm really, really, busy tonight but will try to do the following test tomorrow.

 

 

That's kind of you. Thanks! I'm sure others will appreciate this as well.

 

 

 I'll use Ruzzel (an illusionist) and try 50 casts of blindness on Keldorn (with his saves at 0), although if he fails I will just stop right there - I'll turn on the save rolls too so I can see that. 

 

Shouldn't Keldorn's save v spell be set at -1, given the previously referenced oddity in relation to unmodified saves v spells? At 0, we'd expect Keldorn to fail in either case, with or without a specialist save penalty. At -1, we'd expect him to fail only against an illusionist with an implemented specialist save penalty.

 

Is anyone else interested in running trials?

 

Best,

 

A.

[corey_russell]

 

That's kind of you. Thanks! I'm sure others will appreciate this as well.

 

 

 

Shouldn't Keldorn's save v spell be set at -1, given the previously referenced oddity in related to unmodified saves v spells? At 0, we'd expect Keldorn to fail in either case, with or without a specialist save penalty. At -1, we'd expect him to fail only against an illusionist with an implemented specialist save penalty.

 

Is anyone else interested in running trials?

 

Best,

 

A.

 

No, it should be zero. Reason? Because MAYBE I got the failures was because when Ruzzel was casting blindness! Remember at -1 they always saved, Ruzzel or otherwise. At zero, the normal mage should never get Keldorn blind (though if he does, then your theory might be right). If I'm right that my test was tainted by Ruzzel being illusionist, the proposed test of mine should clear it up.

 

I'm not taking into account GrimJim's test because he used abilities saves rather than spell saves like me.

[Alesia_BH]

 

I'm not taking into account GrimJim's test because he used abilities saves rather than spell saves like me.

 

Noted. I was taking GrimJim's result, and its applicability to spells, as a given, but it's worth re-examining that assumption, I suppose.

 

Let us know what you find. 

 

Best,

 

A.

 

Btw. Is anyone else available to replicate, and or do pairwise comparisons across EE and classic?  

 

Btw II. Here are the save related issues that I see as settled, along with the issues in need of further study.

 

Settled

 

1) Presence of save anomalies in classic installs- at least with inane abilities (GrimJim findings)

2) Presence of a specialist save penalty in EE

 

In Need of Study

 

1a) Scope of save anomalies in classic installs (extension of GrimJim findings)

2a) Presence and scope of save anomalies in EE

3a) Presence of a specialist save penalty in classic

 

Corey seeks to address 1a and 3a in his trials. Will anyone be available to replicate, and can anyone address 2a?

[GrimJim]

After some poking around in the TobEx source code and doing some more testing in my non-EE install, I've found that:

1. Specialist mages do get a +2 bonus to their roll against spells in their specialty school.
2. Saves against traps are not affected by the weirdness I've reported before, so a save of 1 will guarantee success against a unmodified save from a trap.

I'll try to do some more poking to investigate the possible specialist save penalty.

[Alesia_BH]

It's good to hear from you GrimJim!

 

After some poking around in the TobEx source code and doing some more testing in my non-EE install, I've found that:

1. Specialist mages do get a +2 bonus to their roll against spells in their specialty school.

 

 

Noted.

 

 

1. Saves against traps are not affected by the weirdness I've reported before, so a save of 1 will guarantee success against a unmodified save from a trap.

 

 

Interesting. So the delivery mechanism is somehow relevant, apparently. Weird- very weird. Establishing the scope of the anomalies may be non-trivial, then.

 

 

I'll try to do some more poking to investigate the possible specialist save penalty.

 

Please do. I'm curious about that. 

 

Best,

 

A.

[Grond0]

In Need of Study

 

1a) Scope of save anomalies in classic installs (extension of GrimJim findings)

2a) Presence and scope of save anomalies in EE

3a) Presence of a specialist save penalty in classic

 

Corey seeks to address 1a and 3a in his trials. Will anyone be available to replicate, and can anyone address 2a?

I tested 3a quite recently

http://forum.bioware...ran/?p=20102403

and confirmed that there was a specialist save penalty in classic as well as EE.

[corey_russell]

Results are in!

 

Setup: Vanilla BG 2 and ToB with official ToB patch

 

Test: Have Ruzzel (an illusionist) cast 50 blindness spells at Keldorn with save vs spells at 0.

 

Summary:

As some of you know, when I did this test last time, -1 guaranteed a save, but anything less than that was NOT a guarantee. But there was talk about a possible penalty to saves if the spell caster who was a specialist cast a spell from his school. So the plan was to cast 50 spells at Keldorn with his saves of spell at 0. If there was a -2 penalty then this would not guarantee a save. (he would need -1 for a spell save)

 

The test went far faster than expected - why? Because Keldorn rolled a zero and made his save. This implies that there ISN'T a penalty to save applied, at least not in vanilla. This means Alesia_BH was correct when she says it wasn't implemented in the basic game. This ALSO means that sometimes save vs. spell at 0 vs. unmodified save like blindness MIGHT work, but sometimes not. Meaning the failure of unmodified spell saves with save vs. spells at 0 (which normally should be automatic save)   WON'T always make you fail your save.

 

I think this means a certain set of conditions must be true for the spells saves to work wonky (though what those conditions are I have no clue). I'm not sure what this means to the no-reload community.

 

EDIT: Just saw Grond0's test he linked - he got different results, with what seemed like the same test, though he used a much different approach. I'm not sure how to reconcile the test results - I assume "Classic" BG is same as what I mean by Vanilla.

[corey_russell]

Alesia_BH said...

Interesting. So the delivery mechanism is somehow relevant, apparently. Weird- very weird. Establishing the scope of the anomalies may be non-trivial, then.

 

 

 

Speaking as a person intimate with programming in general, I would think delivery would be relevant. To a human, save is a save roll, but almost certainly every item/ability has code associated with it, whether it be spell visual effects, how it interacts with other abilities/statuses/equipment and what have you. Meaning different code executes, also meaning using one item/ability may work one way, yet another one a different way (though to a human a save vs spell is a save vs spell - delivery wouldn't matter to a DM, but of course the computer is not a human DM, though it tries...)

 

This is all general - it would take someone with extensive knowledge of the Shadows of Amn code base to speak with certainty, and that certainly isn't me.

[Alesia_BH]

I tested 3a quite recently

http://forum.bioware...ran/?p=20102403

and confirmed that there was a specialist save penalty in classic as well as EE.

 

 

Noted. I was aware of the EE result, but not the classic confirmation (I had only skimmed that post). Quote of the relevant line from Grond0's earlier post, for everyone's reference:

 

- I followed that up by quickly doing the same test in BGT, i.e. using the original BG2 engine.  Out of 100 blinding attempts Imoen saved 41 times, but again with a maximum score of 18.

 

Hopefully Corey's test will provide further clarity/replication here. 

 

Best,

 

A.

 

FYI, Here's the question I've been trying to answer. I've always made a point of keeping my save v spells at -1, -3, and -5 against 0s, -2s, and -4s, respectively. This is a long standing practice, which I had settled on without having a sound basis, other than a vague conviction that it was "safer" since "weird things happen." What I've been wondering recently is why I've never failed against an unmodified at -1, if the GrimJim anomalies are applicable to spells, and there is, in fact, a -2 specialist penalty in classic. The answers I've entertained are: 1) I've gotten lucky; 2) the GrimJim anomalies have a narrow scope; 3) the specialist save penalty was never implemented in classic. Answer 1 has always seemed unlikely. I had been leaning toward 3, but in light of your results and GrimJim's trap findings, it's beginning to look like 2, I guess. Looking forward to further clarity here.

[Alesia_BH]

Results are in!

 

Thanks, Corey!

 

EDIT: Just saw Grond0's test he linked - he got different results, with what seemed like the same test, though he used a much different approach. I'm not sure how to reconcile the test results - I assume "Classic" BG is same as what I mean by Vanilla.

 

 

Yes. We've yet to a reach a definitive conclusion. We should try standardize our test methods/remove confounds.

 

Best,

 

A. 

[corey_russell]

Grond0 claims his BGT is the same as the classic engine. However, the the BGT we use in the quad/trio uses ToBeX (which DOES implement the specialist penalty to spell save if casting a spell from their school). So maybe he used ToBex install without realizing it.

 

Mine was pure vanilla, only discs from BioWare and official ToB patch. That might explain our different test results.

 

EDIT: Grond0 would be easy to see if ToBeX - it shows a ToBeX DOS screen very briefly just before the game loads.

[Alesia_BH]

 I would think delivery would be relevant.

 

Ideally, it wouldn't be relevant, of course. In practice, it could or couldn't be. This is/was an empirical question, really.

 

No difference was a sensible null hypothesis. Revising expectation makes sense now. 

 

At this point, defining the scope of the anomalies may require consideration of vector, amongst other variables.

 

Best,

 

A.

[Alesia_BH]

Grond0 claims his BGT is the same as the classic engine. However, the the BGT we use in the quad/trio uses ToBeX

 

I agree that ToBeX is a potentially relevant variable- definitely something we should control for/keep track of.

 

 

ToBeX (which DOES implement the specialist penalty to spell save if casting a spell from their school)

 

That wouldn't surprise me. What source are you relying on when you say that ToBeX does implement the specialist penalty?

 

Best,

 

A.

[GrimJim]

Okay, after a bit of testing I think I have a pretty good guess as to what's going on: the specialist save penalty is real, but the code to determine whether it applies only checks whether the number representing caster's kit matches the number representing the school of the spell. It does not account for the case where both are equal to 0. That is, if a character with no kit casts a spell with no school, the specialist save penalty applies.

 

This explains the results I got before. Umber hulks have no kit and their confusion gaze has no spell school, so there was a -2 penalty. Generic vampires have no kit, but their domination gaze is flagged as an enchantment spell, so there is no extra penalty. Koshi has no kit in vanilla, so the school-less stun effect on Celestial Fury had a save penalty. Shadow fiends actually do have a kit, so their attacks did not.

[corey_russell]

I agree that ToBeX is a potentially relevant variable- definitely something we should control for/keep track of.

 

 

 

 

That wouldn't surprise me. What source are you relying on when you say that ToBeX does implement the specialist penalty?

 

Best,

 

A.

I read it on the forum somewhere, and recently at that. I'm pretty sure it was a GrimJim post. Since I know he knows at least portion of the code base, I considered his claim pretty authoritative. I tried a lot of google searched, but didn't find anything conclusive either way. 

 

If Grondo could do a test on an install like mine (e.g., no ToBeX) and if he got the same results at he did with BGT then I would accept his findings. As it is, I'm not certain we are the same.

[Alesia_BH]

Nice work, GrimJim!

 

We now have a parsimonious theory with the potential to explain all our observations, even the seemingly disparate ones (save Corey's recent Russel findings, perhaps). A few questions: 1) Do you think further testing is needed to confirm your hypothesis? (personally, I'd like to see third party verification); 2) Are your results invariant across the three setups: vanilla, ToBeX, and EE?; 3) There is a bug here, I think we would all agree: Is this a tractable problem, one that could be addressed in a future JimFix?

 

Once again, awesome work, GrimJim!

 

Best,

 

A. 

[Alesia_BH]

 

If Grondo could do a test on an install like mine (e.g., no ToBeX) and if he got the same results at he did with BGT then I would accept his findings. As it is, I'm not certain we are the same.

 

Makes sense.

 

Best,

 

A.

[corey_russell]

Makes sense.

 

Best,

 

A.

I decided I had a ToBeX install already - how about try my test in ToBeX? So I was able to get a new dwarf save vs spells to 0 (barely). I then cast blindness until I got 0. The dwarf made his save vs blindness (with a save of 0) by a caster who was a illusionist. So guess ToBeX is like vanilla, at least in this respect. But this again implies different behavior than what Grond0 got, so not sure what this means exactly.

[corey_russell]

I just scanned the core fixes of the BG 2 fixpack - no wonder some people say you gotta have it - it prevents a ton of crashes, as well as making a huge number of things as intended. It was checking it because our Trio ToBeX BGT install uses Core fixes of BG 2 fixpack. It didn't say anything about specialist save vs. spells penalty if if casting from their school.

 

So I'm really scratching my head now, how Grond0 says the penalty works, yet in both my ToBeX and Vanilla they don't seem to be applied.

 

I think my next run in BG 2 will be BG 2 plus fixpack. Seems pretty helpful.

[Alesia_BH]

I just scanned the core fixes of the BG 2 fixpack - no wonder some people say you gotta have it - it prevents a ton of crashes, as well as making a huge number of things as intended.

 

I think my next run in BG 2 will be BG 2 plus fixpack. Seems pretty helpful.

 

 

I think you've made the right call, Corey. There's a non-trivial amount of hate and skepticism directed at the Fixpack, but to my mind it has always been a must have. Does it over-reach at times? Sure. Does it get things wrong on occasion? Of course: the team is human, after all. The overarching picture remains clear, nonetheless: the Fixpack fixes far more than it breaks, it gets far more right than it gets wrong. We are incredibly lucky to have the Fixpack, and we should be grateful to the team, even if we might feel inclined to whine about this or that at one time or another. It's not perfect, but what in this world is? I'll settle for awesome, any day. Go, team Fixpack!

 

Best,

 

A.

[Alesia_BH]

 

So I'm really scratching my head now

 

 

Yeah. There's a bit of muddy going.

 

GrimJim's theory seems promising, but we need to replicate and figure out what's going on in your case. Looking forward to seeing more results.

 

Best,

 

A.

[GrimJim]

I read it on the forum somewhere, and recently at that. I'm pretty sure it was a GrimJim post. Since I know he knows at least portion of the code base, I considered his claim pretty authoritative. I tried a lot of google searched, but didn't find anything conclusive either way.

If I said that, it was because I was pretty convinced for a while that there was no interaction between mage specialization and saving throws in vanilla. Grond0's tests made me reconsider and after tonight I'm convinced that the effect is real.
 

1) Do you think further testing is needed to confirm your hypothesis? (personally, I'd like to see third party verification)

 
It certainly wouldn't hurt. In case anyone wants to try it, here was the test that led me to my conclusions:

1. Start with a fresh install of non-EE BG2 with no mods.
2. Create a human generalist mage in ToB. Level him up to the max with the console command CLUAConsole:SetCurrentXP(8000000).
3. Give him the Ring of Gaxx with the console command CLUAConsole:CreateItem("ring39") and the Ring of Protection +2 with CLUAConsole:CreateItem("ring07"). Equipping those and the Amulet of the Seldarine should bring his save vs. spells to 1.

4. Have him use one of the oils of speed.
5. Spawn a bunch of umber hulks with CLUAConsole:CreateCreature("udumber").
6. Run around while the hulks spam confusion at you. You should never see a saving throw roll higher than 18 and eventually the mage should get confused.
7. Exit the game and use NearInfinity to change the kit on UDUMBER.CRE to TRUECLASS.
8. Repeat 4-6. This time the mage should not get confused and you should see save rolls of 20.
 
I also did similar tests involving changing the school of the umber hulk confusion spell.
 

2) Are your results invariant across the three setups: vanilla, ToBeX, and EE?; 3) There is a bug here, I think we would all agree: Is this a tractable problem, one that could be address in a future JimFix?

It's an issue in vanilla and in the version of TobEx that comes with SCS v30 (beta 0023), but it does not seem to be an issue in the latest version of TobEx (beta 0026). The fix does not seem to be documented either. (I know that beta 0025 added a component named "Saving Throw Fix", but disabling that does not bring back the vanilla behavior.) I don't have EE so I can't test that.

 

EDIT: After testing some more it still may be an issue in the latest version of TobEx. I'm not sure exactly what's going on.

[Grond0]

I decided I had a ToBeX install already - how about try my test in ToBeX? So I was able to get a new dwarf save vs spells to 0 (barely). I then cast blindness until I got 0. The dwarf made his save vs blindness (with a save of 0) by a caster who was a illusionist. So guess ToBeX is like vanilla, at least in this respect. But this again implies different behavior than what Grond0 got, so not sure what this means exactly.

The BGT installation I was using for my test does not have ToBex, so I agree with Grimjim's conclusion that that was not affecting the results (thanks for all your work on this Grimjim ).  However, the installation does have Fixpack (along with SCS, Ascension, Oversight, generalised biffing and widescreen) and that might seem to me to be a possible candidate for reconciling results with Corey's.  The only thing is I'm pretty sure I also did a quick test previously with a pure vanilla installation to confirm the results applied in that as well - I'll go back and confirm that though ...

 

OK - now confirmed.  In an unmodded BG2 installation I created an illusionist PC and cast blindness at Imoen, who had a save vs spell of 1 - blindness soon took effect.  I then reversed it and had Imoen cast blindness at the PC - this time it wasn't long before I saw a save of 22.  Thus when the specialist is casting they apply a penalty (of -2) to saving throw.  However, when the non-specialist is casting, not only is there no penalty, but the specialist gets their bonus (of +2) to save against spells from their own school.

[Grond0]

I decided I had a ToBeX install already - how about try my test in ToBeX? So I was able to get a new dwarf save vs spells to 0 (barely). I then cast blindness until I got 0. The dwarf made his save vs blindness (with a save of 0) by a caster who was a illusionist. So guess ToBeX is like vanilla, at least in this respect. But this again implies different behavior than what Grond0 got, so not sure what this means exactly.

Looking again at your post Corey I think I see a possible explanation.  The penalty to spells from a specialist is applied before the die roll is shown on the screen.  Therefore a save vs spells of 0 by your dwarf against a cast from an illusionist means he actually rolled a 2 on the saving throw, but that was adjusted to 0 before being compared against his required save (successful as that was also 0).  If no penalty was applied you would never have seen a save vs spell of 0 in the text (as the lowest possible die roll is 1).

 

Using the same test your dwarf should fail a saving throw with an initial roll of a 1 (adjusted to -1 by the penalty) - could you try a few more casts to check that happens?

[Alesia_BH]

Looking again at your post Corey I think I see a possible explanation.  The penalty to spells from a specialist is applied before the die roll is shown on the screen.  Therefore a save vs spells of 0 by your dwarf against a cast from an illusionist means he actually rolled a 2 on the saving throw, but that was adjusted to 0 before being compared against his required save (successful as that was also 0).

 

Makes sense. 

 

Best,

 

A.