Hold Undead should probably use opcode 175, not 185

[DavidW]

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

According to the original logic of paralyze/hold opcodes worked out in BG1, 'Hold Undead' should be implemented with opcode 175, using IDS to gate it to require GENERAL=UNDEAD. (This is the same pattern used in Hold Person and Hold Animal.) But Hold Undead is only implemented in BG2, and Bioware chose to use opcode 185 instead; that decision has persisted in the fixpack and into EE. I think this just reflects the fact that by BG2, Bioware was losing track a bit of the delicate system they'd built in BG1. It's *mostly* just me disliking inelegance, but it does have some consequences: if an undead character uses Free Action, Chaotic Commands or similar, they will not be protected from Hold Undead. I'm not sure if any enemy is scripted to use those effects, but in BG2EE there is a party-joinable undead character. *Probably* no-one is scripted to use Hold Undead on her, but... And of course there will be lots of ways this could happens in modded games.

It also means that undead beholders can be affected by Hold Undead but ordinary beholders can't be affected by Hold Monster, which is a little weird and surely unintentional. (I don't think beholders should be immune to hold at all, but if they are it doesn't seem to make sense for undead beholders to lose that immunity.)

I suggest shifting to 175 as the BG1 designers would have wanted. (This does assume we make the changes I suggest here and revert the EE addition of 175-immunity to ring95.)

[CamDawg]

Agree.

[subtledoctor]

2 hours ago, DavidW said:

but ordinary beholders can't be affected by Hold Monster

I didn’t even know that. Seems weird; they are monsters, after all.