Web needs moving more systematically away from opcode 109

[DavidW]

(I'm assuming a general framework for thinking about opcodes 109, 175 and 185 which I laid out here)

Quite a lot of creatures are supposed to be immune to Web, but Web implements opcode 109 and so often that leads to immunity to opcode 109. This isn't necessary (Web doesn't need to apply 109 in the EE, since 157, Web Effect, also applies a hold effect) and unnecessarily grants various creatures immunity to paralysis from other sources. A non-exhaustive list of creatures I think this applies to:

- Kuo-Toa (immune to Web in PnP)
- Wyverns (large enough to rip through a web, and to look silly if the web overlay plays on them)

It actually doesn't apply to spiders and ettercaps, who get the ANTIWEB item: that *used* to implement 109 immunity, but in EE it instead gives immunity to the web *projectile*. That's ingenious but doesn't quite work: there are single-target web effects, like SPIN683, that don't use that projectile.

In addition, ANTIWEB is carried by several Dryads: in BG1, the Hamadryad, DRYADHA; in BG2, the summoned Hamadryad and several BD nymphs. It's pretty clear that the BG2 fey only have ANTIWEB because they're clones of DRYADHA. What's less clear is why she has it. (There's no in-game or AD&D reason given.) My guess is that it was intended to be proof against Entangle (which DRYADHA casts and will entangle herself in), but I'm not sure (and BG1's spellcasting AI is systematically awful so it's hard to infer reliably that way).

My suggestions:

(1) Remove the 109 effect from Web spells
(2) Remove immunity from 109 (and associated immunities to strings, icons etc) from Kuo-Toa, Beholders, Wyverns, and anything else we find that is being given 109 immunity as an accidental corollary of web immunity
(3) Use IWD 318 tricks, applied to Web spells, to immunize anything with RACE=SPIDER, RACE=KUO_TOA, RACE=ETTERCAP, or circle size>[whatever size makes the web overlay look silly]. (Yes, I know I said here that we shouldn't import any of the IWD architecture into BG; this is an exception. A foolish consistency is the (Chill) hobgoblin of little minds. And I think this is better than burning a spell slot, which would be the other systematic way.)
(4) *Slightly more tentatively*, remove Antiweb from fey.
(5) *Even more tentatively*, replace the fey antiweb item with an immunity-to-entangle item. 

[CamDawg]

1 and 2 definitely--and probably even more need to be removed from 2, see my reply about BG2FP on the main thread. 3 I'm generally OK with but I'd want at least a cursory review of creatures with those races first.

4 I'm tentatively on-board with if we follow 5, swapping it to an anti-entangle item.

[Luke]

10 hours ago, DavidW said:

(1) Remove the 109 effect from Web spells
(2) Remove immunity from 109 (and associated immunities to strings, icons etc) from Kuo-Toa, Beholders, Wyverns, and anything else we find that is being given 109 immunity as an accidental corollary of web immunity

I agree.

10 hours ago, DavidW said:

(3) Use IWD 318 tricks, applied to Web spells, to immunize anything with RACE=SPIDER, RACE=KUO_TOA, RACE=ETTERCAP, or circle size>[whatever size makes the web overlay look silly]. (Yes, I know I said here that we shouldn't import any of the IWD architecture into BG; this is an exception. A foolish consistency is the (Chill) hobgoblin of little minds. And I think this is better than burning a spell slot, which would be the other systematic way.)

I'd also add:

• flying creatures (RACE=DRAGON, RACE=WYVERN, RACE=HARPY, etc...)
• magically levitating creatures (RACE=DEMILICH, RACE=BEHOLDER, GENERAL=WEAPON – Mordenkainen's Sword, etc...)
• incorporeal creatures (RACE=SPECTRE, RACE=SHADOW, RACE=MIST, CLASS=SPECTRAL_TROLL, etc..)
• special cases such as RACE=SLIME...

Edited March 20, 2022 by Luke

[DavidW]

There is a question of developer intent... I think those are inherently sensible moves, but I don't know what Cam's comfort zone is like here!

[CamDawg]

Yeah, I'm more than a little wary of extending this beyond what's already been proposed, mainly because we'd be firmly in 'we like this change' as opposed to 'this is dev intent'

Even if we were going with 'we like this change', I'd still oppose adding it to anything which doesn't touch the ground. Visually creatures who are webbed are depicted as having their bodies webbed and can't do actions that would only require their arms (such as using a weapon) so we can assume a depth of at least a couple of feet. As such there's really no reason to compare it with a ground-based phenomena such as, say, grease, which does allow you to do such things.

As for non-corporeal: if they're able to be hit by material objects such as swords, and get blocked by doors and walls, I don't see why webs would be excluded.

The more sensible restriction--and done in IWDEE--is that large creatures are immune.

[DavidW]

1 hour ago, CamDawg said:

The more sensible restriction--and done in IWDEE--is that large creatures are immune.

I agree with this, and I’d stress the “otherwise animations look stupid” line, which is fairly clearly a design principle in BG2. (In BG1 nothing is really big enough for it to matter.)

[subtledoctor]

I’ve always assumed flying creatures are already immune to web. I thought that was the rationale for wyverns - not that they are too big. (IIRC even smaller “baby wyvern” monsters are immune to web.)

[CamDawg]

Yes, wyverns are immune via ring97 and dragons via dragring. Imps and quasits, OTOH, can be webbed as can IWD harpies.