[Discussion] Opcodes 109, 175, 185 (Paralyze and Hold)

[Luke]

1 hour ago, Galactygon said:

Does your implementation work if the flag is set inside an external .eff?

Yes, it should (asking @Bubb for confirmation...)

[Bubb]

5 hours ago, Luke said:

Yes, it should (asking @Bubb for confirmation...)

Yes.

[kjeron]

8 hours ago, Galactygon said:

Without the above flag implemented you could also change the HOLD and similar projectiles to exclude undead to avoid changing the spells, assuming mod spells use those projectiles. But yes, the "bypass opcode 101" flag is preferrable from a mod compatibility point of view.

Keep in mind that projectile SPLPROT targeting fields only work for area-effect projectiles, as it controls which creatures are targeted with the "explosion projectile".

[polytope]

On 8/4/2023 at 6:36 PM, Luke said:

Actually, this might be incorrect...

I asked ChatGPT (lol) about that, and it depicted hold monsters as "a spell that affects a creature's physical movements by magically paralyzing them. It doesn't directly target the mind, but rather the body."

• OK, nevermind, ChatGPT also states that the "Hold Monsters" spell is considered a mind-affecting spell. Mind-affecting spells are spells that target a creature's mind, influencing their thoughts, emotions, or mental faculties. "Hold Monsters" falls under this category because it affects the physical actions and movements of creatures by magically paralyzing them.

The fact that it is an Enchantment spell is kinda misleading...

I think undead immunities have varied a lot between editions of the rulesets, like in 3rd edition they were immune to illusions, but in 1st and 2nd edition of AD&D only a few were.

Original MM says ghouls are "subject to all attack forms except sleep and charm spells." whereas for instance spectres are "not affected by sleep, charm hold or cold-based spells. Poison or paralyzation do not harm spectres", wights (and by extension wraiths) get the same immunities. Shadows, even skeletons and zombies are also described as proof against sleep, charm, hold and cold magic.

Perhaps the idea is that "living" flesh - with metabolism and a need for food - is susceptible to hold-type spells, paralyzation or poison, so ghouls actually count; reanimated and incorporeal/ghostly undead don't. There's a consistent pattern that all undead are definitely immune to sleep & charm-type spells presumably including the ones that hadn't been published yet such as Emotion.

Edited August 5, 2023 by polytope

[Luke]

On 8/4/2023 at 12:14 AM, Galactygon said:

For the sake of consistency, it might be a good idea to have Hold Undead use 175 and change Hold Monster to affect everything but Undead as well as remove protection from 175 from undead immunities (i.e. RING95.itm). This way, they are affected by Free Action as well.

Follow-up question: as you surely know (and as stated earlier in this thread), if something provides immunity to op109, then it also provides immunity to op175 (and viceversa).

If that is indeed incorrect, then why does op162 (Cure Paralysis) remove both op109 and op175? That is to say: should we have two separate removal opcodes, one specifically for op109 and another one specifically for op175...? Now that I think of it, it would be better to edit the special field of op162 so that it can remove op109 if, say, BIT0 is set, and op175 if BIT1 is set...

Edited August 16, 2023 by Luke

[polytope]

On 8/16/2023 at 1:53 AM, Luke said:

f that is indeed incorrect, then why does op162 (Cure Paralysis) remove both op109 and op175? That is to say: should we have two separate removal opcodes, one specifically for op109 and another one specifically for op175...?

Are there specific situations where you'd want to remove one but not the other? Except of course when one's a magical effect and the other isn't, but then it can probably be dispelled in any case.

Remove Paralysis spell description states: "By the use of this spell, the priest can free all creatures within the area from the effects of any paralyzation or related magic (such as a ghoul's touch or a Hold spell)." Seems to cover all in-game cases of #109 and #175.

Related, should Remove Paralysis actually have a #163 in addition to the #162 in the block?

 

[subtledoctor]

On 8/15/2023 at 1:53 PM, Luke said:

should we have two separate removal opcodes, one specifically for op109 and another one specifically for op175...? Now that I think of it, it would be better to edit the special field of op162 so that it can remove op109 if, say, BIT0 is set, and op175 if BIT1 is set...

Wouldn’t this require EEex? Is EEex going to be a fundamental part of the FixPack? (Sorry, I haven’t been keeping up.)

Can’t you already achieve this with opcode 337? 

[CamDawg]

4 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

Is EEex going to be a fundamental part of the FixPack?

No.

[Luke]

On 8/18/2023 at 7:27 PM, subtledoctor said:

Can’t you already achieve this with opcode 337? 

Nevermind, it does not really matter... As Polytope said, op162 is meant to remove both op109 and op175 (as per spell description...)

[subtledoctor]

On 8/20/2023 at 5:03 AM, Luke said:

Nevermind, it does not really matter... As Polytope said, op162 is meant to remove both op109 and op175 (as per spell description...)

Well, Polytope said that particular spell is meant to remove both, but there could be circumstances where you would only want to remove one or the other. E.g. I have a psionic power designed to clear adverse mental status effects - that should theoretically cure Hold, but not paralysis. 

But, as I mentioned, on the EEs I assume we can use opcode 337 to make that distinction. Unless my assumption is mistaken. 

[Luke]

14 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

But, as I mentioned, on the EEs I assume we can use opcode 337 to make that distinction. Unless my assumption is mistaken. 

Yes, op337 should work fine... It just cannot remove permanent (timing=9) effects...