Dragon Stoneksin

[Capt Massacre]

It seems the Stoneskin of a dragon can be breached, except Firkraag's. Is that right? I thought Dragon Stoneskin wasn't breachable.

Is it possible that Pierce Magic dispels Firkraag's Stonekins? It seems it's what happened.

Also, I had the feeling that the Warding Whip dispelled Demogorgon's Stoneskins, without using Breach, but this battle is so confusing, I'm not sure.

 

 

Edit: and now it seems Breach can't dispel Draconis' Stonekins.

[Jarno Mikkola]

It seems the Stoneskin of a dragon can be breached, except Firkraag's. Is that right? I thought Dragon Stoneskin wasn't breachable.

Is it possible that Pierce Magic dispels Firkraag's Stonekins? It seems it's what happened.

Also, I had the feeling that the Warding Whip dispelled Demogorgon's Stoneskins, without using Breach, but this battle is so confusing, I'm not sure.

 

 

Edit: and now it seems Breach can't dispel Draconis' Stonekins.

Stoneskin is breach-able, but the Ironskin is not, well normally.

[Capt Massacre]

It says 'Stoneskins' for dragons. In that game I think I could breach it for all dragons but Firkraag. And now, I see I can't breach Draconis' either (his Protection from Magical Weapons is breachable). But this one is strange: I fired spelled sequencers at him, and nothing happened, no feedback, ditto for Finger of Death.

The only way I found to kill him is persevere in hacking.

[Wisp]

There are a two Stoneskin spells in the game that are marked as Spell Protections rather than Combat Protections. That would make them removable by e.g. Pierce Magic, but not by Breach.

[Capt Massacre]

That would make sense.

I guess Demogorgon, Firkraag and maybe Draconis use the 'Spell Protection' version.

[Dakk]

There are a two Stoneskin spells in the game that are marked as Spell Protections rather than Combat Protections. That would make them removable by e.g. Pierce Magic, but not by Breach.

Is this changed by SR?

[Demivrgvs]

There are a two Stoneskin spells in the game that are marked as Spell Protections rather than Combat Protections. That would make them removable by e.g. Pierce Magic, but not by Breach.

Is this changed by SR?

No, I didn't changed that version of the spell (spin694) though I've instead replaced druid's "not breacheable" Iron Skin (sppr506) with a "breachable" Stoneskin.

 

Should I "fix" the custom 'Spell Protection' version within SR?

[Dakk]

There are a two Stoneskin spells in the game that are marked as Spell Protections rather than Combat Protections. That would make them removable by e.g. Pierce Magic, but not by Breach.

Is this changed by SR?

No, I didn't changed that version of the spell (spin694) though I've instead replaced druid's "not breacheable" Iron Skin (sppr506) with a "breachable" Stoneskin.

 

Should I "fix" the custom 'Spell Protection' version within SR?

Woah, that's fast! I swear, sometimes I believe you are omnipresent Demi

Well, making spells/effects with the same name consistent is never wrong. What would be the ramifications?

[DavidW]

SCS fixes (well, changes anyway) dragon stoneskin to be breachable. (So does IA; in fact, I learned of the issue from Sikret.)

[Wisp]

SCS fixes (well, changes anyway) dragon stoneskin to be breachable. (So does IA; in fact, I learned of the issue from Sikret.)

But melstone.spl (used by Melissan and Demogorgon) still suffers from it.

 

Anyway, if it is something that should be fixed, it should go in the fixpack, shouldn't it?

[Demivrgvs]

Should I "fix" the custom 'Spell Protection' version within SR?

Woah, that's fast! I swear, sometimes I believe you are omnipresent Demi

Well, making spells/effects with the same name consistent is never wrong. What would be the ramifications?

Eh eh, I do try to check the forums at least twice a day to see if there are issues caused by mods and fix them as soon as I can.

 

Speaking of "ramifications" the only possible drawback of fixing this is that a script may want to keep vanilla's non breachable aspect (unlikely imo), but having a Stoneskin dispelled by Spell Protection Removals such as Spell Thrust is really inconsistent, and I do believe it was simply a mistake/bug.

 

SCS fixes (well, changes anyway) dragon stoneskin to be breachable. (So does IA; in fact, I learned of the issue from Sikret.)

But melstone.spl (used by Melissan and Demogorgon) still suffers from it.

 

Anyway, if it is something that should be fixed, it should go in the fixpack, shouldn't it?

Yeah, but FixPack is a huge mod which isn't update so often, including such fixes within SCS and/or SR is a quicker and easy solution imo.

 

David, do you simply change the secondary type from Spell Protection to Combat Protection, or do you also changed some other aspect of the spell (e.g. duration, # skins)? Do you mind if I include the "fix" within SR too?

 

I'd personally "fix" melstone.spl too if you haven't already done so.

[DavidW]

SCS fixes (well, changes anyway) dragon stoneskin to be breachable. (So does IA; in fact, I learned of the issue from Sikret.)

But melstone.spl (used by Melissan and Demogorgon) still suffers from it.

 

Anyway, if it is something that should be fixed, it should go in the fixpack, shouldn't it?

 

It's not clear to me whether it's a "fix" or not.

 

(Also, as a practical matter, I don't see much of a channel for new fixpack fixes to happen. I did the last update because it was getting silly, but I'm not planning to make a habit of it.)

[Wisp]

It's not clear to me whether it's a "fix" or not.

Not to me either. I always assumed there was some (probably stupid) reason for why they were not combat protections like the regular spell.

 

(Also, as a practical matter, I don't see much of a channel for new fixpack fixes to happen. I did the last update because it was getting silly, but I'm not planning to make a habit of it.)

Well, assuming no one manages to insinuate themselves into the circle of people trusted with managing updates and maintenance and none of its current members returns to do it, I guess it's possible the G3 Fixpack will be spun off in turn, or that someone will start some auxiliary project, or something (or nothing).

 

(On a personal note, I've toyed with the idea of asking someone if I could do it if and when some sort of critical mass was reached, but I'm not sure having a liking for fixing bugs is enough. Not to mention all the potential issues regarding trust and the like.)

[Salk]

(On a personal note, I've toyed with the idea of asking someone if I could do it if and when some sort of critical mass was reached, but I'm not sure having a liking for fixing bugs is enough. Not to mention all the potential issues regarding trust and the like.)

 

Well, personally I think that would be very good. There's been many tentative bug fixes from yourself, Ardanis, aVenger, Mike and others. I would be more than happy to have some mantainer as it's obvious that there are still unaddressed issues around.

 

Nythrun has also reported a number of fixes that sadly never made it to the archived posts.

 

Of course changes to the Fixpack should be carefully examined but this shoudln't stop new contributions. After all, even some approved fixes from the original team were later found to be incomplete or incompatible.