Hardiness Targeted by Breach

[morpheus562]

I'm not sure if this has been covered yet, but Hardiness is effected by Breach. Looking at Hardiness and the Breach spell, Hardiness should not be removed from a Breach; however, the secondary type on Hardiness is COMBATPROTECTIONS - 7 which does cause it to be removed by Breach. My recommendation is to change this to NONE - 0 instead.

[morpheus562]

Code is pretty straightforward if someone wants to add this into the fixpack:

// Update Hardiness/Resist Magic so they do NOT get dispelled
  ACTION_FOR_EACH hardi IN
        SPCL907  // Hardiness
        SPWISH12 // Hardiness
	SPCL904  // Resist Magic
      BEGIN
        ACTION_IF FILE_EXISTS_IN_GAME ~%hardi%.SPL~ BEGIN
          COPY_EXISTING ~%hardi%.SPL~ ~override~
            WRITE_BYTE 0x25 0
            WRITE_BYTE 0x27 0
        END 
  END

 

Edited November 1, 2022 by morpheus562

[jmerry]

The "complete list" is not complete. Quite a few priest spells, like Defensive Harmony, Iron Skins, and Armor of Faith, are combat protections that Breach removes but aren't listed in Breach's description.

The argument for not having Hardiness affected here is that it's not really a spell by flavor but instead a nonmagical warrior ability. And for a similar effect, the Dwarven Defender's "Defensive Stance" ability SPDWD02 already lacks a secondary type. Either both of these should be removed by Breach or neither should be.

[morpheus562]

43 minutes ago, jmerry said:

The "complete list" is not complete. Quite a few priest spells, like Defensive Harmony, Iron Skins, and Armor of Faith, are combat protections that Breach removes but aren't listed in Breach's description.

The argument for not having Hardiness affected here is that it's not really a spell by flavor but instead a nonmagical warrior ability. And for a similar effect, the Dwarven Defender's "Defensive Stance" ability SPDWD02 already lacks a secondary type. Either both of these should be removed by Breach or neither should be.

Agreed. As a warrior innate ability, it should be immune to breach similar to defensive stance.

[polytope]

I would be against this change as a global fix, for two reasons.

Firstly, some people's AI scripts have assumed for a while that Hardiness can be breached, some mod encounters, too, appear to be designed around this aspect.

Secondly, basically every temporary duration spell or spell like ability (except the EE Dwarven Defender's stance) that increases resistance to any form of damage is classed as a "specific protection" or a "combat protection" and hence stripped by Breach. Hardiness is similar enough in its functionality to Armor of Faith, although granting a higher value of physical resistance and no resistance against elemental or pure magical damage.

This is more generally true of any spell or ability that makes the recipient harder to injure by attacks. Whether it sets a creature's minimum armor class (like Ghost Armor), improves a creature's armor class (Defensive Harmony), gives the ability to soak hits (Stoneskin) or provides immunity to certain weapons (the Mantle/ProMW line of spells), there is a pretty clear pattern regarding the Breach spell's purview and Hardiness seems to me to fall under it.

The argument that, as an innate, Hardiness should ignore protection removal spells like Breach is unconvincing to me because the priest of Talos's innate Storm Shield (SPCL721) is also considered a specific protection, thus breachable.

ETA: I think there is a stronger case for the change of Blade Barrier and Globe of Blades from "combat protections" to "offensive damage" or "battleground" secondary types, these spells aren't protective of the user at all, but purely damaging.

Edited November 1, 2022 by polytope

[polytope]

Another thing which I just thought of, the Resist Magic HLA of warriors (SPCL904, I think no one likes it...), has the secondary type of spell protections and is thus removable by Spell Thrust etc.

Even though some spells & abilities clearly did use the wrong secondary type in the game as shipped it's too unlikely that the Resist Magic HLA was accidentally coded as a spell protection, but Hardiness as a combat protection.

[subtledoctor]

14 hours ago, jmerry said:

The "complete list" is not complete. Quite a few priest spells, like Defensive Harmony, Iron Skins, and Armor of Faith, are combat protections that Breach removes but aren't listed in Breach's description.

This. The static Breach spell description should not be a guidepost as to what spells are breachable. Better is the organic question "does this spell or spell-like ability fall into the category of combat protections or specific protections?" The effects of Hardiness pretty obviously make it a combat protection by nature, IMHO.

3 hours ago, polytope said:

The argument that, as an innate, Hardiness should ignore protection removal spells like Breach is unconvincing to me because the priest of Talos's innate Storm Shield (SPCL721) is also considered a specific protection, thus breachable.

But that is an overtly magical effect, given as divine favor by a deity who literally spends all day granting magical spells to people. Warriors' Hardiness is by description supposed to be born of skill or willpower or somesuch. Warriors are not magic users.

That does not necessarily mean Hardiness should or should not be breachable! Seems like the fundamental question is, is Breach intended to undo only magical combat protections? (Is it a special-purpose variant of Dispel Magic?) Or is it mean to use its own magic to make the target more vulnerable? (In that case, should it not cancel the protection of shields, and even armor?)

3 hours ago, polytope said:

there is a pretty clear pattern regarding the Breach spell's purview and Hardiness seems to me to fall under it.

At the end of the day I tend to agree, but in this case I fail to see how/why Defensive Stance should escape the same treatment. The fact that these two abilities are nearly identical in both function and description and lore-based explanation means that their deviation from each other in this regard can quite reasonably be seen as a bug. The fact that they were coded years - decades - apart rather than in a single unified effort makes it more likely that the difference was an oversight. They should have the same secondary type, whether that ends up being 'combat protection' or not.

[morpheus562]

@polytopewhich specific AI assumes Hardiness can be breached? Hardiness does not receive the state: BUFF_PRO_DAMAGE nor does Resist Magic receive BUFF_PRO_SPELL to trigger SCS to target them. The Storm Shield you mention does have BUFF_PRO_DAMAGE applied to it, and will trigger SCS to target it, which makes sense because it comes from divine means. Out of the 9000+ ai scripts in my game with 160 references to Hardiness, none of them are because enemy ai is trying to remove Hardiness from the player. As for the Breach spell description, I reviewed both Vanilla and SCS descriptions. SCS was very clear it lists out EVERYTHING it removes, and Hardiness was not included.

To me, Hardiness is a non-magical nor divine ability similar to Defensive Stance and Berserker/Barbarian Rage or even the passive damage resistances received by dwarven defender, barbarian, and monk. None of those can be stripped by combat/spell protection removers as they are derived solely from the intestinal fortitude of the warrior. As such, I think it should be immune to Breach. I'd also argue that the Resist Magic HLA should be updated so as not to be removed too.

Edited November 1, 2022 by morpheus562

[polytope]

18 hours ago, morpheus562 said:

@polytopewhich specific AI assumes Hardiness can be breached?

Improved Anvil of blackwyrmlair.net, which I understand is unpopular on G3 (but the latest versions are EE-only, so it's an issue for any global changes to EE's fix list). A more relevant note for players of G3 mods: Ascension Illasera uses Hardiness and often combos it with her special etheralness ability which grants +50% physical resistance, leaving her at 90%... she's very resilient without a quick breach in the window of visibility, Illasera also by default has 2 uses of Hardiness (3 in the final encounter), which makes little sense if it wasn't expected to be removed somehow.

18 hours ago, morpheus562 said:

To me, Hardiness is a non-magical nor divine ability similar to Defensive Stance and Berserker/Barbarian Rage or even the passive damage resistances received by dwarven defender, barbarian, and monk. None of those can be stripped by combat/spell protection removers as they are derived solely from the intestinal fortitude of the warrior. As such, I think it should be immune to Breach. I'd also argue that the Resist Magic HLA should be updated so as not to be removed too.

If you want to mod it like so that's fine, but in my view more of a tweak than a fix. The coding of Resist Magic as a "spell protection" vs Hardiness as a "combat protection" seems like a deliberate choice by the original developers in order to make it possible for casters to strip these buffs, it's hard to believe that these abilities were assigned specific but different removable secondary types by accident.

20 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

At the end of the day I tend to agree, but in this case I fail to see how/why Defensive Stance should escape the same treatment. The fact that these two abilities are nearly identical in both function and description and lore-based explanation means that their deviation from each other in this regard can quite reasonably be seen as a bug. The fact that they were coded years - decades - apart rather than in a single unified effort makes it more likely that the difference was an oversight.

Not an oversight so much as different intent, the dwarven defender was designed to be even tougher than a barbarian, if only for a short time. I don't think it's a balanced kit, either, ditto blackguard, these are too strong. The shadow dancer on the other hand is quite insipid. The dragon disciple is probably the best EE kit since 1) it's actually less powerful than a vanilla sorcerer, with their massive spell arsenal 2) it has flavorful special abilities that actually distinguish this sorcerer from being an otherwise regular mage who makes up spells as they go along.

Edited November 2, 2022 by polytope

[morpheus562]

@polytope what you describe with improved Anvil sounds like it should mod hardiness to be dispelled, not the other way around. Base game ai nor SCS treat it this way.

For Illasera, she goes down very quick even with 90% physical resistance. I don't have the game in front of me, but is her special etherealness able to be dispelled? Otherwise, it sounds like a design choice to boost her and extend the fight.

[subtledoctor]

3 hours ago, polytope said:

[Dwarven Defender's lack of sectype in defensive stance is] Not an oversight so much as different intent, the dwarven defender was designed to be even tougher than a barbarian, if only for a short time.

So A) I don't really see what your perceived intent about the ability's design relative to Barbarians has to do with its having or not having a sectype. And B) taking what you wrote at face value, that is precisely, in both description and effect, identical to what Hardiness is designed to be? And about Hardiness you said:

3 hours ago, polytope said:

The coding of Resist Magic as a "spell protection" vs Hardiness as a "combat protection" seems like a deliberate choice by the original developers in order to make it possible for casters to strip these buffs

I'm just not seeing any daylight between Defensive Stance and Hardiness, as far as what the abilities are, what they do, what their effect on the game is. Defensive Stance is just "this kit gets Hardiness earlier" by another name. Are these things designed to be Breachable or not? Are they intended to differ in that regard?

To me, the fact that the two abilities are designed to be nearly identical in form, function, gameplay context, and background fluff strongly implies that they should be identical in regards to how they interact with Breach. (And Dispel.) Admittedly that is reasoning by inference, but that doesn't mean it is invalid, and I don't see any compelling counterarguments that go beyond the trivially true "it's how they are currently coded."

My suggestion is that making Hardiness breachable and not dispellable seems quite intentional, and Defensive Stance should be made to conform with that.

OTOH I'm not sure how much is riding on this question. I doubt the AI uses Breach to target someone with either of these abilities (and yes we should set aside IA which is practically a TC and can change these systems to however it wants them to behave) and I doubt players will waste a Breach spell on a tough warrior when it will more likely be needed for an invulnerable about-to-wreck-your-day mage. The stakes seem pretty low, here.

[morpheus562]

I personally think making defensive stance breachable would give a lot of players who play dd heartburn. 

I bring up rages because they also act as combat/spell protections. They improve HP, ac, and constitution all while also providing immunities to a number of ailments. As warrior innates, if Hardiness and Resist Magic should be targetable, then all warrior innates should be for consistency.

AI does not target players with Hardiness or Resist Magic. BUFF_PRO_DAMAGE and BUFF_PRO_SPELL are not assigned to either and the game does not have them setup from a tracking perspective as something that can be removed with combat or spell protections. Again, this is solely detection. As such, I think ai happens to target players with other protections up, and these happen to get removed as a consequence. If the decision is made to allow Hardiness and Resist Magic to be targetable by the appropriate counterspells (I do not like this option), then they will need to be updated via opcode 328 for BUFF_PRO_DAMAGE and BUFF_PRO_SPELL so ai reacts accordingly.

Edited November 2, 2022 by morpheus562

[morpheus562]

Thief HLAs Evasion, Greater Evasion, and Avoid Death are all listed as COMBATPROTECTIONS - 7 and appear to be susceptible to Breach. I don't understand the idea of an elite, olympic level athlete who perfected their agility and ability to move to all of a sudden lose it if a Breach is cast. Characters, in my opinion, should not lose their skill nor their physical training because of a Breach.

Edited November 2, 2022 by morpheus562

[Guest Sigmundur]

1. warriors aren't arcane casters, why should abjuration magic dispel martial abilities? hp represents how well you absorb or deflect damage. like a someone will get punched in the face, the wizard will have 0 survival instincts and just flinch and close his eyes, = taking alot of damage, while a fighter will tuck in his chin and not get knocked the fuck out, and a monk will roll with the punch and mitigate the blow. and a high lvl martial class gets hardiness which is like when they are in teh zone and moving perfectly to mitigate the incoming blows.
   dispel magic shouldn't make you stop dodging or performing any skill, why would a dispel magic(breach in this case) spell affect them?
2. [8:08 PM]

   obviously a bug
   and any other active skills, either HLA or otherwise shouldn't be breachable if they're coming from a skill, instead of a magical source, such as enrage or berserk.
   all i have to say on the matter.
   
   VH
   Sigmundur
    

[CamDawg]

Trying to make the above readable by humans:

Quote

 

warriors aren't arcane casters, why should abjuration magic dispel martial abilities? hp represents how well you absorb or deflect damage. like a someone will get punched in the face, the wizard will have 0 survival instincts and just flinch and close his eyes, = taking alot of damage, while a fighter will tuck in his chin and not get knocked the fuck out, and a monk will roll with the punch and mitigate the blow. and a high lvl martial class gets hardiness which is like when they are in teh zone and moving perfectly to mitigate the incoming blows.
dispel magic shouldn't make you stop dodging or performing any skill, why would a dispel magic(breach in this case) spell affect them?
[8:08 PM]
obviously a bug
and any other active skills, either HLA or otherwise shouldn't be breachable if they're coming from a skill, instead of a magical source, such as enrage or berserk.
all i have to say on the matter.

VH
Sigmundur