Spells with the wrong school

[subtledoctor]

I didn’t realize that spell is for a cut scene. In that case it should have as much as possible zeroed out - no primary type, no secondary type, power level 0, bypass MR, etc. 

(I almost said “not dispellable” but that would be assuming too much about a cut scene i don’t remember that well. Incidentally “is this dispellable?” might make another data point for whether something constitutes a spell-like magic ability.)

[DavidW]

Just now, subtledoctor said:

Incidentally “is this dispellable?” might make another data point for whether something constitutes a spell-like magic ability.

Yes, definitely (actually, 'does this bypass MR' works even better). I've been playing with that this morning.

[DavidW]

OK, I've spent a while looking at this (Cam is dead right that there are sectype errors too, and they're arguably more important).

Since in any case these are quite edge-case issues (the main effects of a spell school here are Spell Immunity and specialist saving throw bonuses, thanks to SubtleDoctor for pointing out the latter) and I'm not sure it's worth spending vast amounts of time on special cases, I'm going to suggest a general rule, that I think also captures dev intent:

If a spell 
(i) shares a name with a standard player-castable spell; and
(ii) does not bypass magic resistance; and
(iii) is used in core play and not just in cutscenes or dialogs; and
(iv) is not one of a small number of ad hoc exceptions

then its school and sectype gets corrected to the player-castable version.

Trying that out on BGEE, BG2EE, IWDEE and SoD only generates one case that looks egregious: BDSTINK, used by myconid spores in SoD. I'll unprincipledly make an ad hoc exception there. (I'm moved towards YES for Hulk confusion given (a) it doesn't penetrate MR and (b) it seems reasonable that Enchanters might expect a saving throw bonus against a magical effect that duplicates the Confusion spell, but I can see room for dissent).

I've written code that implements this automatically and generates a list of changes. The code is in eefixpack/files/tph/dw/school_sectype_errors.tph (and included in eefixpack/files/tph/dw_fixes.tph) and the lists of files to be modified (which are autogenerated but human-readable) are in eefixpack/data/school_sectype, one file per game. As always, the fact that I've uploaded code doesn't mean I'm trying to foreclose on discussion (and it's very easy to change the code to exclude other spells, e.g. if we go another way with hulk confusion).

[Bartimaeus]

6 minutes ago, DavidW said:

I'm moved towards YES for Hulk confusion given (a) it doesn't penetrate MR and (b) it seems reasonable that Enchanters might expect a saving throw bonus against a magical effect that duplicates the Confusion spell, but I can see room for dissent

It's a supernatural ability/effect, not a magical spell - make it pierce MR instead!

[Luke]

2 hours ago, DavidW said:

(the main effects of a spell school here are Spell Immunity and specialist saving throw bonuses, thanks to SubtleDoctor for pointing out the latter)

• Primary Type (School) is also relevant for op220/229
• Secondary Type is also relevant for op221/230

Having said that, I agree with the fact that innate copies of arcane / divine spells should inherit primary/secondary type, resist_dispel and power levels.

Psionic / Monster / Supernatural / Other (f.i. cutscene) abilities instead should ignore / bypass all checks.

Edited May 8, 2022 by Luke

[Sam.]

5 hours ago, Luke said:

Psionic / Monster / Supernatural / Other (f.i. cutscene) abilities instead should ignore / bypass all checks.

I'm uncertain in what context you mean this, but at face value I find it to be troubling.  There are items and spells in the game that specifically state that they protect from psionic attacks, the gaze of umber hulks, the gaze of basilisks, etc.  Just because an effect comes from a creature itself and not a cast spell or divine prayer doesn't necessarily mean it should pierce through all magical protections.  Having protection from level drain (whether from an item, spell, innate ability, etc.) should protect you from having your levels drained, regardless of whether the attack came in the form of a creature's bite, an enemy spell, or an enchanted mechanism like a trap or the Machine of Lum the Mad.  If you have magical immunity to hold and paralysis, you shouldn't be affected by that ability of carrion crawlers just because the effect came from a creature and not a spell.  Further, at a minimum I would argue that creatures with innate magic resistance (think Viconia for being Drow) should have an innate resistance to magical effects, not just magical spells.  I can see where people may argue magic resistance artificially boosted by an arcane spell would be more suited to resisting arcane magic, but I don't necessarily agree and I don't think that would be reasonably possible in the engine anyway.

[The_Baffled_King]

8 hours ago, DavidW said:

I'm going to suggest a general rule, that I think also captures dev intent:

It's probably obvious that I think that's a good idea. Umm, can I ask if giving schools to innates is consistent specifically for creatures such as the Umber Hulk which are "normal" by the standards of Forgotten Realms? If not, I have a brief point or two to make; if so, well, I guess my earlier comments about ships having sailed apply to Umber Hulk, too.

7 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

It's a supernatural ability/effect, not a magical spell - make it pierce MR instead!

I actually think that would be a great way to treat "normal" creatures in another mod!

[Luke]

On 5/9/2022 at 12:36 AM, Sam. said:

Having protection from level drain (whether from an item, spell, innate ability, etc.) should protect you from having your levels drained, regardless of whether the attack came in the form of a creature's bite, an enemy spell, or an enchanted mechanism like a trap or the Machine of Lum the Mad.  If you have magical immunity to hold and paralysis, you shouldn't be affected by that ability of carrion crawlers just because the effect came from a creature and not a spell.

Yes, I agree.

To sum up, let us consider some random innate ability that is not a copy/clone of an existing arcane / divine spell (f.i. "Safana's Kiss"). IMHO:

• It should be blocked by "Helmet of Charm Protection", "Chaotic Commands", and the like.
• It should not be blocked by "Spell Immunity: Enchantment" and the like.
• It should not be blocked by "(Minor) Spell Deflection" and the like
• It should not be turned by "(Minor) Spell Turning" and the like
• It should not be absorbed by "Spell Trap" and the like
• It should bypass / ignore Magic Resistance
• It should not be dispellable

[subtledoctor]

I think you guys are trying too hard to make bright-line rules here. First, by way of background, I think it is worth remembering that in this world full of magic, there are magical creatures. Not just fantastical creatures - your wyvern and dire wolf and ankheg fall into that category - but creatures that can do magical things. Just because a creature can do something magical innately, doesn't make the result nonmagical. In other words, a creature may have a natural ability to do something supernatural, but that doesn't make the thing it does any less supernatural.

So saying creature special abilities should uniformly bypass MR or be undispellable is a fairly radical thing to propose, and I have seen no indication that it mirrors dev intent, and it would seem to be way beyond the scope of this particular endeavor.

The immediate question is, shoulkd such abilities have a primary type (belong to a "school of magic"). If I'm not mistaken, this only affects two game systems: 1) is the effect blocked by the 5th-level "Spell Immunity" spell, and 2) should specialist wizards have special bonuses when creating or resisting the effect. (If there are other areas where primary type matters for non-player-spellbook spells, please remind my of my omission!)

I am pretty well persuaded by DavdW that the "Spell Immunity" spell might only be intended to block spells, not other instances of magic, mostly because that spell is insane and limiting it to spells is a reasonable nerf. But this may be in tension with how specialists should behave; as someone specializing in a whole are of magical effects might reasonably have advantages when encountering non-spell instances of those effects. Answering those two questions and resolving this tension (if there is any) seems to me to be the only thing necessary to make this kind of call.

Dealing with secondary types is a whole other can of worms. If there are spells/abilities with missing or incorrect secondary types, that should probably get its own thread.

Dealing with magic resistance, dispellability, and whether something can be deflected or turned, is probably yet another conversation.