Creepin's various WeiDU questions of varying silliness

I am trying to make weapon attack modify target's saving throw before applying core effect of that attack.

 

My testing rig is a dart doing 1 damage upon target failing save versus death. Target have save vs. death 10, so under normal circumstances dart hits 10 times out of 20 attacks. Then I am adding prior (slot 0) effect #33 adding 6 to target's save. If that would work in theory hit to fired ratio should fall down to about 4 per 20 attacks, but testing gives same 10 of 20, so my #33 obviously not working.

I have filed it with target 2 (preset target), value 6, modifier 0 (increment), timing 0 (instant/limited), dispel 3 (dispel/bypass resistance), duration 0 and probability 100. Which of these is wrong?

 

I am attaching the item in question just in case.

Have you tried to delay the effect a second for the save throw to get reduced ? -got ninja'ed-

Edited by The Imp, 03 May 2018 - 01:41 PM.

I believe--and I'm sure I'll be corrected if this isn't accurate--that the engine rolls for saves on an item/spell once and at the time of the attack.

Have you tried to delay the effect a second for the save throw to get reduced ? -got ninja'ed-

Edited by Creepin, 03 May 2018 - 02:19 PM.

Edit: hmm, what field should I put delay amount to? "Special" (in terms of NI)? Or perhaps I should externalize it into Eff v.2 and use parameter 3?

Edited by The Imp, 03 May 2018 - 02:20 PM.

Well, you don't technically, but you subject the victim to another delayed effect. So you first cast the spell with the save throw penalty, preferebly without being able to resist it, and another effect that using the opcode #177 with delayed effect. The then reffered .eff file containing the damage and save etc.

Ok, I don't see yet how is that better than delaying damaging effect directly, but I'll check that out. Still, even within #177, where do I put delay amount?

COPY_EXISTING ~spwi808.spl~ ~override~		//Improved Mantle
LPF ~ADD_SPELL_EFFECT~ INT_VAR opcode=177 parameter1= parameter2= target=1 timing=6 duration=1 STR_VAR resource=effect1 END	

Parameter #1: IDS Entry
Parameter #2: IDS File

Still, even within #177, where do I put delay amount?

Edited by The Imp, 03 May 2018 - 03:27 PM.

These works:

Opcode:33, target=2, parameter1=0, parameter2=1(Set), timing=0, duration=0.

Opcode:33, target=2, parameter1=0, parameter2=2(Set %), timing=0, duration=0.

Opcode:166, target=2, parameter1=100, parameter2=0(Increment), timing=0, duration=0.  // Magic Resistance

Opcode:166, target=2, parameter1=100, parameter2=0(Set), timing=0, duration=0.  // Magic Resistance

So it's odd that this doesn't:

Opcode:33, target=2, parameter1=20, parameter2=0(Increment), timing=0, duration=0.

Confirming that in regard of its influence on the next effect within the same item ability:

these works as intended
Opcode:33, target=2, parameter1=0, parameter2=1(Set), timing=0, duration=0
Opcode:33, target=2, parameter1=20, parameter2=1(Set), timing=0, duration=0
 
while these doesn't do a thing
Opcode:33, target=2, parameter1=10, parameter2=0(Increment), timing=0, duration=0
Opcode:33, target=2, parameter1=-10, parameter2=0(Increment), timing=0, duration=0
 
kjeron, you seem to have first hand knowledge on these matters, any idea why so? Some engine flaw? Any workaround?

Edit: interestingly,
Opcode:33, target=2, parameter1=10, parameter2=0(Increment), timing=0, duration=1
works, as in displayed on charsheet, but doesn't affect next effect within the same use of the same item ability

Edited by Creepin, 04 May 2018 - 06:03 AM.

kjeron, you seem to have first hand knowledge on these matters, any idea why so? Some engine flaw? Any workaround?

No idea why the "Increment" option doesn't cooperate for saving throws.

As for workarounds, it would depend on why you cannot simply give the effect itself a save bonus/penalty.

If you need different creatures to save at a different bonus/penalty, you can always put the effect in an external EFF, and call it multiple time with different targeting parameters.

If this is for EE-only, you can also use opcode 318 to create more complex targeting options for the opcode 177 (Use EFF).

As for workarounds, it would depend on why you cannot simply give the effect itself a save bonus/penalty.

I am making a shield which by design should give +2 Saving Throw against petrifying gaze of basilisks and medusas to its wielder. Sadly engine has no option to fine-tune saves: there's no modifiers to save vs. item or save vs. creature or save vs. spell, nothing, so I was unable to find a way to do so from shield's side.

The only thing I managed to come up with is to give all basilisk/medusa items which they use for ranged attack two additional effects, where first will make target immune to second, and second will always bestow +2 save vs. petrification upon target, and then give my shield immunity to the former of these two so only one using the shield will get that +2 save.

Oh, and it's for classic engine so no fancy opcodes for me

Edited by Creepin, 04 May 2018 - 10:31 AM.

The obvious simple solution here is to just make the shield give a +2 bonus on Petrification/Polymorph saves. Or you could make the shield give a shifting immunity to GAZE.PRO. Add an Instant/While Equipped Use EFF File on Condition effect, applying a spell every second. The spell lasts 1 second and makes the wearer immune to GAZE (or reflect it, hey) at 25% probability. Let people take their chances with this, if they care to.

...Medusae? What medusae?

Edited by temnix, 04 May 2018 - 11:09 AM.

temnix, thank you for your suggestions, but unfortunately they are of little help in this exact case. See, I'm not looking to do something, anything, I am interested in the exact, to the letter, implementation of this:

Spoiler

...Medusae? What medusae?

My 1 year old Big World installation has at least 2 Medusas: cmmedus.cre and f_medusa.cre, and Gwendolyne promised to bring more.

Edited by Creepin, 04 May 2018 - 11:48 AM.

1) have the shield set a dpellstate/stat/proficiency while equipped

2) add effects duplicating the basilisk gaze to a separate subspell. the save in the subspell will be with a 2-point bonus compared to the original.

3) in the original gaze .SPL, before and of the existing effects, add 1) a 326 effect targeting the shield's state/stat/prof, casting the subspell; and then 2) a 324 effect targeting the state/stat/prof, blocking the gaze spell itself.

That's just off the top of my head, not tested. But it should work.

EDIT - requires EE v1.4... are you trying to do this on the old & busted engine? Probably out of luck if so.

EDIT2 - maybe give have the gaze two different effects: Gaze Effect A with a normal save, and Gaze Effect B with a save +2. Give everyone a repeating .EFF/permanent 232 that provides immunity to effect B. 

Then give the shield immunity to Gaze Effect A, and immunity to the repeating .EFF.  So ~6 seconds after equipping it, you become vulnerable to the gaze effect that has the +2 save bonus.

But, applying a repeating spell every round to every character, just for this one shield... see this here is precisely why I like the EE games.  I wanted nothing to do with them either, until they added in the IWD stuff.  There's just so many juicy possibilities now...

Edited by subtledoctor, 04 May 2018 - 03:33 PM.

Thank you, this is an elegant idea but alas, not only I do lack #326, I'm also reluctant to touch main engine of basilisk gaze attack item: it is not a spell but embedded effects in vanilla, which at some point changes into .spl in Big World, so I will had to dynamically read and wrap said engine into my custom .spl - a feat I wouldn't dare even with the help of the community...

wait... ok it's 2AM so I might be wrong but...

subtledoctor, that is in fact brilliant! What if I insert, as a first effect, toned down by -2 version of the main gaze engine AND block original not toned down attack? That could actually work perfectly "on the old & busted engine" Now I wonder what will happen if I will give immunity to the gaze projectile from the middle of the stack of effects in this very same projectile

Edited by Creepin, 04 May 2018 - 03:36 PM.

It might be a bit more complicated than that. But I think it can be done:

Gaze:
- opcode 146 casting Spell A, with a no-bonus saving throw
- opcode 177 triggering Eff B with a no-bonus saving throw
- opcode 146 casting Spell C, with a +2 bonus saving throw

Spell A: normal Gaze effects, no save

Eff B: opcode 206, resource = Spell C, 0x90 = 1, 0x94 = [Eff B's name]

Spell C: normal gaze effects, no save

Your shield should give 206 immunity to both Spell A and Eff B as equipping effects.

So, situation 1: a normal person is hit by the gaze and the make their saving throw. They are not affected by the gaze subspell 'A' and they are not immune to Eff B. The 177 effect is avoided, so they are not immune to Spell C; but they made their save against Spell C being cast anyway.

Situation 2: a victim fails their save. Spell A hits them and they are affected by the Gaze. Eff B affects them, which means they are immune to Spell C. So they don't get tagged twice by the gaze effect.

Situation 3: the victim is carrying your shield. They are immune to Spell A, and immune to the immunity in Eff B, so they will be forced to deal with Spell C... which has a +2 saving throw bonus.

Bob's your uncle... maaaybe. Definitely wants testing.

Edited by subtledoctor, 05 May 2018 - 05:01 PM.

I wonder what challenge the next paragraph of that tabletop adventure will throw at you, Creepin. What are you going to do when it reads "And they are teleported to a great citadel in Limbo with death slaads riding nightmares"?

There is no medusa animation, you know. That's why I asked.

I wonder what challenge the next paragraph of that tabletop adventure will throw at you, Creepin. What are you going to do when it reads "And they are teleported to a great citadel in Limbo with death slaads riding nightmares"?

That ain't bad, altogether. I mean, they did something like it in Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance II (or something), but I could be thinking of another game altogether.

Anyway, I'm not sure we need to bash Creepin, but I'll admit, I don't know exactly what he's trying to achieve either. He asked me, and I said we had a similar shield in Aurora's Shoes, but he was looking to do something else. So whatever explication is behind that might be helpful.

I don't know exactly what he's trying to achieve either.

There is no medusa animation, you know. That's why I asked.

I believe the megamods that use them use a recolored human or dryad or something. I was going to port the NWN medusa but like so many things, never got to it. Maybe Sam. or Gwendolyne can take over the task. And then there's the gelatinous cube animation, mmm. tasty.

We do have quite a similar shield in Aurora (Knight's Shield +2, Gwaulhaudh's Protector [aka Galahad]) or some such. But I suppose maybe Creepin is trying to do something more sophisticated. I tend to go for the simple solution. You could probably figure something out with a shedload of invisible minions. ;D

1. Is there any difference, regarding protections, resistances, saving throws and most importantly limited/exhaustable protections, between applying several effects directly from within weapon attack or applying 100% probable non-saveable non-resistable spell within weapon attack, which in turn contains exact same effects?

2. Which is the better setting to ensure utility spell, which is merely a container to certain effects, always deliver these effects: "natural/nonmagical" or "not dispell/bypass resistance"?

2.1 Am I getting this right that if a target has 50% chance to ignore the effect, this chance will still be applied even if the effect is delivered to the target not directly as the attack effect but wrapped in such utility spell?

Starting from its latest version G3Fixpack started handling basilisk's petrifying effect, so I need to rewrite my code for it to work with both not fixpacked & fixpacked games. To do so I need to be able to adjust saving throw bonus of all effects of a given spell, like this:

COPY_EXISTING crspl005.spl override
	LPF ALTER_SPELL_EFFECT
		INT_VAR
			match_opcode = -1
			savebonus = savebonus+2
		STR_VAR
	END

No doubt you have noticed a line that would not work . I'll try to study tomorrow myself on how should I change this code for it to work (I feel there will be a healthy dose of dreaded "read_byte" which I understood once, about 10 years ago, and forgot completely by now ), but if someone would lend me a hand with that it would be ever so cool!

Bonus question: if I accidentally alter save bonus for an effect having no saving throw at all, I won't screw anything, right, this save bonus simply will be ignored by the engine?