Jump to content

Non-detection + Improved Invisibility feels broken.


Recommended Posts

Yeah but the first one came across as yet another example of "SRR does it better! 😛" Which was in that case incorrect, and therefore seemed like narcissism/hubris.

Look ultimately, spell descriptions should be concerned about describing the spell. I still maintain that SR's Detect Invisibility does that - while SR's Nondetection does not. But a spell description is not the place to point out differences in behavior between the mod and the vanilla experience; that should be in a Readme. You are right that this is an issue that ahs come up several times. But it would be entirely cured by a simple paragraph in a Readme about how invisibility detection works. Unfortunately, that is something that SR sorely lacks. :(

Edited by subtledoctor
Link to comment

@Bartimaeus Speaking from player perspective, I disagree that "a spell description is not the place to point out differences in behavior between the mod and the vanilla experience; that should be in a Readme." If a mod changes some spells mechanic and the description is not updated to reflect that, for me it's a bug. I rather had proper English description explaining altered spell behavior than translated 'vanilla' description. Having to have side-by-side the game and readme to read spell description is nonsense. Even if I read such readme once, the next minor update/bugfix could alter how the spell is working -> I'm noticing the difference vs old behavior -> I'm assuming that it's yet another bug.

Please continue to do whatever description updates you want.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, AL|EN said:

Please continue to do whatever description updates you want.

I think SD's point was moreover that for such a big functionality change in how a number of spells and their associated states interact with each other, a note of that new functionality should be made in the readme, rather than simply leaving it up for players to try to piece together the whole picture through a series of spell descriptions. But I will continue to do so in the descriptions themselves, since I think both accuracy and transparency are important in being directly on-hand through the game itself for whenever the player is questioning their sanity on how something works, especially when it's in the life stage of a game such as Baldur's Gate (i.e. omega old at this point) and when you're installing a bigly-sized overhaul mod like Spell Revisions, default_yes.gif.

Link to comment

My main point is that if a spell description is accurate, i.e. it mentions the things that the spell does, then it is satisfactory. Change for change's is stupid, and making broadside attacks against someone's description when 1) that someone is not around to defend themselves, and 2) the broadside attack is wrong, is simply not helpful to anyone.

If you want to talk about players being confused, look at the title of this damn thread. The SR description of Nondetection is inaccurate, quite badly so. That needs to change, it would do away with a lot of confusion here. Best to focus on what adjustments can actually help; the broadside attack doesn't help the people actually posting this stuff, so what's the fuckin point of it?

That's all I'm saying.

Edited by subtledoctor
Link to comment
34 minutes ago, grodrigues said:

The original PR is in the master branch (always make a new branch when submitting PR)

Really? Shit - I just noticed that when I submitted a PR for the description of Non-Detection... I'm used to making edits for a PR and hitting "submit," which automatically makes a new branch. I forgot that Mike gave me write access to the master branch, which means blindly hitting "submit" will actually make changes to the master rather than just making a PR.

I unraveled my mistake with the Non-Detection description, but I didn't realized I had made the same mistake with the invisibility flags. Sorry!

Link to comment
3 hours ago, grodrigues said:

@BartimaeusCould you please take a look at the break invisibility/hostile flags in the table in the PR? The choices are those @subtledoctor and he gives a rationale in the discussion with which I agree entirely, but maybe there is something that sticks out to your eyes as just plain wrong.

I'll respond here for better discussion. I do not believe adhering to what the EEs do or do not have set makes any kind of sense, especially given how new this flag is to the EEs and the likelihood of their choices being error-prone and the fact that the errors and inconsistencies may well never be dealt with given Beamdog's inactivity and ineptitude.

1. Cleric Magic Stone should not be marked as breaking invisibility (if other summonable weapon spells aren't, why would it?).
2. Cleric Faerie Fire should be marked as breaking invisibility (spell that you will target enemies with that has hostile effects; if True Seeing is set, there's no reason this shouldn't).
3. Cleric Obscuring Mist should PROBABLY be marked (it can be used for beneficial purposes, but also the opposite; if Chant is marked, I would say this should be as well).
4. Cleric Know Opponent should be marked (spell that you target enemies with that has hostile effects).
5. Cleric Animate Dead should be marked (if other summoning spells e.g. Animal/Monster Summoning do, why wouldn't it - plus the wizard version is!).
6. Cleric Gust of Wind should be marked (hostile effects + the druid version is).
7. Cleric Ice Storm should be marked (obviously).
8. Cleric Aerial Servant should be marked (another summoning spell).
9. Cleric Conjure Animals should be marked (this is a disabled for players duplicate of an Animal Summoning in SR, IIRC).
10. Cleric Conjure Fire Elemental should be marked (other summoning spells plus even literally the other elemental summonings are).
11. Cleric Banishment should be marked (obviously + the wizard version is).
12. Cleric Stalker might need to be marked? It's marked as hostile, but I don't remember what this one refers to...Shambling Mound, perhaps?
13. Cleric Restoration should not be marked (basically a healing spell + Lesser Restoration isn't anyways).
14. Cleric Mass Raise Dead should not be marked (debatable BUT Raise Dead and Resurrection aren't so why would it?).
15. Cleric Aura of Flaming Death should not be marked (if e.g. Fire Shield isn't, no reason it should).
16. Cleric elemental transformations should not be marked (if e.g. Polymorph Self isn't, no reason it should).
17. Wizard Obscuring Mist should be marked (see cleric Obscuring Mist).
18. Wizard Find Familiar should PROBABLY be marked for being a summoning spell, but I don't really care since this isn't a spell you'd ever use in combat anyways.
19. "WIZARD_FOG_CLOUD"?
20. Wizard Battering Ram should be marked (hostile spell).
21. Wizard Fire Shield Red is marked as breaking invisibility but Blue isn't? I don't think these types of spells should be marked, since they do not have any direct hostile effects, but I know SD disagreed; regardless, these should be set consistently.
22. Wizard Eye should be marked as summoning spell but it's another one like Find Familiar that I do not care at all, it would just be for consistency.
23. Wizard Shadow Door should be marked (thought SD and I agreed that this one should on account of its hostile maze effect).
24. Wizard Conjure elementals (both normal and lesser) should be marked.
25. "WIZARD_IN1_STALKER"?
26. Wizard Mislead probably should be marked but that's one I don't have a strong handle on, and it's ultimately of little importance given that it casts invisibility and is a short casting time anyways.
27. Wizard Contingency breaks invisibility but sequencer doesn't? IMO, Contingencies/Sequencers should not break, but make them consistent.
28. Wizard Summon Nishruu should be marked.
29. Wizard Project Image should maybe be marked (see Mislead)
30. Wizard Death Knight should *definitely* be marked, as well as Cacofiend.
31. Wizard Mordenkainen's Sword, Summon Efreeti, Summon Djinni, and Summon Hakeshar should all be marked.
32. Wizard Limited Wish should be marked (all sorts of stuff could happen, plus you're literally holding a conversation in the middle of battle!).
33. Wizard Simulacrum: if you're going to mark any of these, I would think it'd be this one.
34. Wizard Summon Fiend should be marked.
35. Wizard Gate should be marked.
36. Wizard Chain Contingency probably shouldn't be marked.
37. Wizard Wish should be marked (see Limited Wish).

Link to comment

Let us see if we can systematize your examples into concrete principles.

1. Weapon spells should not break invisibility (Cleric Magic Stone).

2. Spells that target others and have "hostile" effects should be marked hostile and, as a rule of thumb, break invisibility (Faerie Fire, Know Opponent).

3. Summoning spells should be marked hostile. I think there is a case that can be made for animal summoning not hostile -- think about a ranger walking into a village with his animal companion. Exception for Find Familiar , which we could also tag the spell as castable only outside of combat, and arguably Wizard Eye.

4. Healing spells should not be marked hostile or break invis (Restoration, Mass Raise Dead).

5. Polymorph spells should not be marked hostile (Polymorph Self).

6. I tend to think buffs targeting self (aoe or not) should not be marked hostile. Break invisibility only if they have retaliations? If one retorts that GoI conjures a freakin' globe, my answer is that invis covers the globe as well with the in-game presentation merely an engine limitation. My biggest concern however is with the AI.

7. As a general rule, illusions should not break invisible or be hostile. Do you have a link for the Shadow Door discussion? I would argue this applies to Mislead, PI and simulacrum.

8. Sequencers and contingencies should not break invisible or be hostile. I have a tweak to toggle the flag castable only outside of combat (mainly to stop the Sorcerer + Chain contingency douchebaggery) but have to put an RFC, etc. and I want to get the public release out ASAP.

9. Wish spells break invis -- you are holding a conversation.

Anything you would like to add?

Link to comment

My rules for how I decided it were pretty simple:

  1. Spells that directly cause hostile effects, regardless of the magnitude of said hostile effects, should break invisibility. Something like Shadow Door causes a disabling maze effect, therefore it should break invisibility.
  2. Summoning spells do not directly cause hostile effects, but the idea of being able to endlessly summon creatures to fight without breaking invisibility (both by the player AND by enemies) would be a patently unfair process for everyone involved.

That's the list. Weapon spells, healing spells, (self) polymorphing spells, purely beneficial buff spells (AoE or not), sequencers and contingencies, etc., would not be covered by these two, so I leave them as not breaking invisibility. There are some possible exceptions, though:

  1. The illusion-summoning spells: Mislead/Project Image/Simulacrum. My feeling ultimately here was that while these aren't "summoning" spells in the normal sense, they effectively operate in a similar manner, especially in regards to Simulacrum, and if I'm going to mark Simulacrum, I might as well mark Project Image and Mislead as well given the shared traits between these spells (plus, both Project Image and Mislead make the caster invisible anyways...also, see SD's comment about them). However, if you were going to make an exception, Mislead would probably make the most sense given that the summoned cannot do any harm...even though the entire concept of the spell is to literally "mislead" other creatures into thinking the illusion is you and ignoring the real you, which allowing to not break invisibility kind of flies in the face of - Project Image and Simulacrum would be questionable at best, IMO.
  2. Find Familiar and Wizard Eye: Wizard Eye literally doesn't have any capability to do harm, so it would make sense to make it an exception to the "no summoning" rule if you were going to have any; Find Familiar *does* have the ability to cause harm, but that certainly isn't the spell's primary purpose unlike every other normal summoning spell in the game. But this is such an edge-case, since nobody's going to cast it in combat anyways, that I can't say I particularly care.
  3. Triggers/contingencies: I did not think about contingencies and triggers possibly being exploitative. IIRC, kjeron said if a spell is marked as "cast instantly", then it ignores the flags that set for the instantly cast spells, which can obviously be a problem if that holds true with triggers/contingencies. It seems like it would be wise to mark them as breaking invisibility, then. Or at least having contingencies do so...and then maybe having the trigger ability for the sequencers do so instead.
  4. Limited/Wish: I actually don't like the "holding a conversation" angle, because there is already vocalization for casting spells as it is and that doesn't break invisibility; however, it would fall under both the general summoning rule and "capability of to do direct harm" rule, since both of these spells can cast debuffs on enemies (e.g. Time Stop) - therefore, they should be included.
Link to comment

The illusionary clone spells are specifically designed to... create a visible image of the caster. I think they should 100% break invisibility. (Plus they are basically summons and the general rule for other summons is that they break invisibility.)

I don't think summoning spells really need the hostile flag - I don't think it does anything. (AFAIK the hostile flag works on targets of a spell... and summoning spells have no target.)  My default was to make animal summons break invisibility, and monster/fiend summons both break invisibility and hostile. But after further thought, they probably should all just break invisibility and not be flagged hostile. No need to go setting flags willy-nilly where it won't even have an effect.

I want to continue to disagree about Fire Shield/Acid Sheath/Blade Barrier/Globe of Blades/Gedlee's Electric Loop/Circle of Bones/etc. These spells all have very prominent, colorful, visible animations. They are not pure self-buffs in making you stronger or faster or more blessed, they actually create a thing/substance/energy around you and apart from you. They are furthemore hostile; the only difference is that the hostile effect is delayed and contingent.

(Ditto for Prismatic Shield - how can something be prismatic if it is invisible?)

Finally, I want to argue for an exception for Obscuring Mist and Gust of Wind. These are natural things, quite unlike a fireball or a poisonous killing cloud. I just like the idea of a hidden druid being able to puff air around or gin up some fog, while remaining hidden.

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

(Ditto for Prismatic Shield - how can something be prismatic if it is invisible?)

If you are invisible, then so are your protections...and enemies can't hit you anyways. If you are not, then they are not. If you are invisible and an enemy can see through your invisibility, then they can attack you, but those protections would also be visible to those enemies but not to others. That's how I think of it, and any other logic starts getting messy awfully quick when you start thinking about other spells and how prominent their graphical effects are or aren't. There are "attack back" items in IR like Casiel's Soul that have no graphical effect that have identical functionality to something like Fire Shield - are you saying that if there were no graphic effect associated with Fire Shield, you then would be fine with it not breaking invisibility?

As an aside, Blade Barrier and Globe of Blades obviously should break invisibility, because they have ongoing hostile effects that directly target enemies, as opposed to something like Fire Shield or Mestil's et al., which require enemies to attack you in order to have any effect.

I would personally say no to the exceptions for Obscuring Mist and Gust of Wind...but I'm not that invested in it. If a pure divination spell like Know Opponent breaks invisibility (something that conceptually literally has no effect on an enemy and is supposed to be purely consequences of the knowledge that the caster now has), then something that creates an actual manifested physical change like a mist or wind not breaking invisibility would seem very strange indeed.

Edited by Bartimaeus
Link to comment

@Bartimaeus@subtledoctor Before discussing the table itself and whatever changes to implement (the PR was merged, a new PR will be submitted with these specific changes), note that the way the code is implemented leads to somewhat misleading conclusions when reading values off the table. The reason is that the code *only* patches the spell if it finds the flag 1 in the column. The value 0 does *not* currently mean "set the flag to 0" but rather "do nothing". In particular, currently we can only enable the flags not disable. So before discussing the table proper, should the code be changed to set the flags to the values in the column? I say yes because it is less confusing and gives more flexibility but what say you?

Link to comment

Better to have the code in there, I think. There are some spells that are not overwritten by SR, aren’t there? In which case it would be good to make them conform to whatever rules are applied. 

Also, to be clear, it’s not worth arguing to much about this or that spell. The point of having a human-readable table is that each of us can set it the way we like, regardless of the SR defaults. So please feel very free to go against my opinions when setting those defaults. It was worth saying my piece but SR’s default state need not conform to my preferences. Better to get the next beta in shape without too much dickering. 

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...