Avenger Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 teleport (124): no, it is not possible to set this spell this way. It seems applying effects in any way would overwrite the applied effect's point to the point in the applying effect. Sucks. 0x137 Random Wish (311) - This effect takes no parameters. It simply rolls a random number 1-25. And applies SPWISH<nn> on the target. No wisdom checks, no tweaking possibilities. This effect is useful for a deck of many things kind of item. (Modders should use it sparsely, the good effects, like truly permanent stat increase are among those effects). 0xdd (Dispel Secondary Type spells) - dispels all 0xe6 (Dispel one Secondary Type spell) - dispels only one of the highest possible The same applies for dispel school effects (0xdc vs 0xe5) Link to comment
Avenger Posted September 1, 2009 Author Share Posted September 1, 2009 0x70 Destroy weapon: it seems it removes the item more 'safely'. It updates the quick weapon buttons. It plays EFF_M02 when destroying the item. It is recommended to use this effect if you expect that removed weapon was wielded. 0x7b Destroy inventory item. No sound played. Less safe for weapons (it would cause some graphical glitches, i think). Link to comment
Avenger Posted September 1, 2009 Author Share Posted September 1, 2009 0x0bf Casting level bonus Parameter2:0 - mage (stat modified: 79 ) 1 - cleric (stat modified: 80 ) Parameter1: level bonus value (word, non cummulative setting) I don't see any effect of the stats, though. Link to comment
lynx Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Judging from the name, the "Casting level bonus" should just change the spellcaster's casting level (usually affects the number of rolls, so eg. a skull trap does more damage with a positive bonus). Wild mages have a chance of getting this applied anytime they cast. Link to comment
devSin Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Like Avenger says, they don't actually do anything other than mess with the stats. Taimon may have a patch, I think. Link to comment
igi Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 0xdd (Dispel Secondary Type spells) - dispels all This just removes all effects with the specified secondary type then? 0xe6 (Dispel one Secondary Type spell) - dispels only one of the highest possible This just removes a single effect (random chosen? the first one? the last one?) with the specified secondary type then? Link to comment
Avenger Posted September 3, 2009 Author Share Posted September 3, 2009 Yes, 0xdd removes all effects of a particular secondary type. This is without doubt. 0xe6 picks one of the highest possible levels (parameter1 is the level limit). I believe it picks either the first or the last matching effect of that level (or complete spell?). This is unsure. Link to comment
Taimon Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 I believe it picks either the first or the last matching effect of that level (or complete spell?). This is unsure. The first effect of the highest level determines which spell is chosen. All effects of that spell are a removed. Link to comment
Avenger Posted September 13, 2009 Author Share Posted September 13, 2009 0xa4 remove intoxication - i already wrote about this effect. It is buggy, it tries to remove 0xa4 effects (itself) instead of 0x5e intoxication effects. A simple byte replacement (2 occasions) could fix this effect. (I suppose Taimon can fix it in his own engine patch). The effect is working correctly in iwd2, but all other engine versions are buggy. Link to comment
Taimon Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 Yeah, this is clearly a bug and the patch should be easy. Link to comment
Avenger Posted September 25, 2010 Author Share Posted September 25, 2010 I was wrong with the wish opcode btw, it has min/max wisdom checks. (Sorry). Link to comment
igi Posted September 25, 2010 Share Posted September 25, 2010 Yeah I know, you mentioned it in one of the other threads I've yet to process Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.