Hardiness Targeted by Breach

[subtledoctor]

5 hours ago, polytope said:

don't put words in my mouth

Dude.

I said:

On 11/3/2022 at 10:53 AM, subtledoctor said:

You think the thief HLAs having wizard casting animations is clearly a bug, but the fighter HLAs having wizard casting animations is clearly intentional?

You said "that's not my argument at all!" and then in the same post said:

5 hours ago, polytope said:

The casting animation and SCHOOL, WHICH IS A DIFFERENT FIELD IN THE HEADER of Hardiness and Resist Magic probably were inherited from some wizard or cleric spell turned to innate. And yet, regardless of which one was converted first, they have different sectypes, which seems to have been either a deliberate choice

...

Assassination isn't a combat protection, it's too suspicious that it shares both sectype and an extraneous wizard school with Hardiness, Evasion etc, despite being an offensive ability, and this seems a pretty clear case of a copyover bug

My point is that based on the same visible evidence - non-caster innate abilities having wizard casting animations and schools, and also having particular sectypes - you somehow infer clear evidence of intentionality for some and clear evidence of a copyover mistake for others.

And by some wonderful coincidence - total coincidence, I'm sure - this perfectly aligns with your opinion that Hardiness being Breachable is right and Assassination being Breachable is wrong.   But, you're better off just arguing that! You're picking fights with me, when I'm the only one in the thread who is taking the same position as you! The pretzel logic involved in trying to make claims about what might or might not be a copyover bug is useless IMHO, just rank speculation. (If anything these arguments push me to the other side - these warrior innates having magic school and casting animation is quite weird, and kind of makes all their metadata suspect, sectype included.)

5 hours ago, polytope said:

I've already explained what the difference is, to me, a berserker or barbarian's rage grants him a lot of immunities but also better offense, thus is not purely a protective buff and doesn't fall under the purview of things removed by Breach.

But that's just you're very personal interpretation of where the boundaries of breach should be. Others pointed out that Hardiness is non-magical in nature - an extraordinary skill or ability or technique, rather than a magical protection, and the Breach spell specifically claims to "dispel protections." And you say no no, the nature of the defensive benefit doesn't matter, Breach is just supposed to make you more vulnerable. I point out that Breach claims to dispel all specific protections. Berserk Rage is basically a bunch of specific protections put together, with a minor combat bonus sprinkled on top. And you say no no, Breach can't make that guy more vulnerable. I mean, it seems like you are arguing against the basic language of the Breach spell description.

What if Hardiness came with a small offensive buff, like +1 to thac0? Then Breach wouldn't be able to touch it, even if it still functions identically as a combat protection?

5 hours ago, polytope said:

The Defensive Stance of the DD kit... They wanted an extra tough fighter kit and this is the result, that's all.

But... isn't that precisely what the point of the Hardiness ability is? When Fighters get to epic levels, they can make themselves extra tough. I still see zero daylight between these two.

Look, the Breach spell was created out of whole cloth by Bioware and I don't think we can just ignore the way they wrote it. That is the developer intent. Either:

• Breach dispels all specific and combat protections and the tacked-on list is incorrect/incomplete - in this case it could be extended to remove Hardiness and Defensive Stance, and honestly maybe Berserk Rage should be split into two subspells and the part with specific protections should be Breachable

Or...

• Breach is designed very specifically to counter only the defenses in the "complete list" and the earlier part of the description is basically fluff - in this case Hardiness is not on the list

Edited November 4, 2022 by subtledoctor

[morpheus562]

2 hours ago, polytope said:

The scenario of spell protection removal vs a fighter/mage with Resist Magic in addition to Spell Turning, Spell Immunity, Globes etc. is a scenario I've just never seen happen in game. Anyone capable of casting arcane spells has better ways of protecting themselves than the Resist Magic HLA with its 4 round duration and magic resistant set to 50%, not even incremented but rather set. Even most single class high level fighters pass on that HLA as a choice.

Except it is a smart scenario now if we make it dispellable. If Resist Magic should be taken down by Ruby Ray, as you're arguing was intended, then it needs to be taken down as a level 9 power level to reflect it's HLA status. As a F/M I'd be more prone to then picking it so that it can get gobbled up in case I'm Ruby Rayd instead of Spell Trap.

[CamDawg]

Be careful not to conflate two distinct questions. "Is the secondary type on HLA X correct?" and "should HLA X have a secondary type at all?" both lead you to Assassination as a combat protection is nonsense, but doesn't necessarily answer what should be done about it.

[subtledoctor]

Honestly, while I could. argue with Polytope all day   the idea that Assassination is a "combat protection" is so ridiculous, so contrary to the way the game ever uses that sectype in any other context, that I think it's truly and obviously a bug and should be changed. (With the caveat that nobody will ever cast Breach against a thief with Assassination, so it doesn't matter.)

Hardiness... honestly it could go either way. Hardiness is 100% in the bucket of abilities that do things combat protections do. And the intent behind the Breach spell is to make invulnerable opponents vulnerable, right? A mage has PfMW or Absolute Immunity? Hit'em with Breach and now you can hit them. Similarly, if a warrior has the Defender of Easthaven and x, y, z buffs, and uses Hardiness to get 100% damage resistance? Hit'em with Breach and no you can hit them. If the game is supposed to work that way, then that's fine. BUT in this case I think it's tantamount to a bug that Breach wouldn't work equally against Defensive Stance. And, probably, Blades' Defensive Spin. If you make yourself invulnerable, whether by magic, resistance, or armor class, then Breach should make you vulnerable.

Alternatively, if Breach is only supposed to remove magical protections, that's sensible too. In this case the treatment of Defensive Stance and Defensive Spin is already correct, and Hardiness should be changed to conform to that treatment.

To me, it's not the case that one interpretation or the other is invalid or evidence of a bug. Each one could be perfectly valid. To me the bug is in the inconsistency.

[suy]

On 11/2/2022 at 11:23 PM, suy said:

I'm not sure how you see it, but to me, an HLA like Hardiness, Evasion, etc., should have a feeling that it's something non-magical, even though you activate it with an innate ability that for some classes might be a spell (e.g. Lay on Hands, Storm Shield). It should look like Defensive Stance, Enrage, Defensive Spin, etc., but even more powerful.

To me it doesn't make any sense that those abilities:

• Can be stopped by dead/wild magic areas.
• Can be dispelled by Dispel/Remove Magic.
• Can be breached.

One small additional thought/question: the spell description says "specific protection spells" and "specific protection spells". I know that the bit of what is a spell is a bit open to interpretation, but... wouldn't this be the key thing to consider? To me it's just something that reinforces that is shocking that Breach can affect this HLAs. If they are not for caster classes, can't be dispelled, can't be affected by silence/dead/wild magic, etc., then should not be breached. If we assume that the developers intended a somewhat coherent design, then the outliers of that design should be bugs.

[morpheus562]

39 minutes ago, suy said:

One small additional thought/question: the spell description says "specific protection spells" and "specific protection spells". I know that the bit of what is a spell is a bit open to interpretation, but... wouldn't this be the key thing to consider? To me it's just something that reinforces that is shocking that Breach can affect this HLAs. If they are not for caster classes, can't be dispelled, can't be affected by silence/dead/wild magic, etc., then should not be breached. If we assume that the developers intended a somewhat coherent design, then the outliers of that design should be bugs.

Semantically, that is correct. As Hardiness describes: "Calling upon hidden reserves of strength" does not equal a spell.

[polytope]

On 11/3/2022 at 10:53 PM, subtledoctor said:

And you don't think the same couldn't be true of Hardiness? I mean, show me another nonmagical warrior innate ability that has the casting animation of a wizard spell. Resist Magic is the only one. You think the thief HLAs having wizard casting animations is clearly a bug, but the fighter HLAs having wizard casting animations is clearly intentional? That's bonkers. 

4 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

Honestly, while I could. argue with Polytope all day   the idea that Assassination is a "combat protection" is so ridiculous, so contrary to the way the game ever uses that sectype in any other context, that I think it's truly and obviously a bug and should be changed.

Yeah, you clearly do just want to argue with polytope for the sake of it.

13 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

What if Hardiness came with a small offensive buff, like +1 to thac0? Then Breach wouldn't be able to touch it, even if it still functions identically as a combat protection?

It doesn't though, unlike Boon of Lathander and a berserker or barbarian's rage, Hardiness was designed purely as a protective buff rather than a multifactorial combat boost, and is removed by Breach, as other protective buffs consistently are, with the exception of blade's Defensive Spin and dwarven defender's Defensive Stance, both of which detrimentally affect the user's movement rate (the DD's stance being a much more powerful ability with a much less noticeable penalty, and designed by different authors too). Since the latter two do something other than protect these should possibly have the combination sectype, if any (I really don't see a justification for these being updated, typeless is fine).

12 hours ago, morpheus562 said:

Except it is a smart scenario now if we make it dispellable. If Resist Magic should be taken down by Ruby Ray, as you're arguing was intended, then it needs to be taken down as a level 9 power level to reflect it's HLA status. As a F/M I'd be more prone to then picking it so that it can get gobbled up in case I'm Ruby Rayd instead of Spell Trap.

I see, you're saying that Resist Magic could be used as an additional "Spell Shield" to absorb protection removals... but only if the spell level of this ability is increased to 9, which is not the in-game default. Another thing to consider is that Resist Magic last only 4 rounds, and being a special ability rather than an actual spell can't be called through (Chain)Contingency or stored as part of a Sequencer/Trigger, it eats up a spell equivalent action for a minor buff that can't be cast well in advance.

I'm skeptical about Resist Magic needing to be considered a 9th level equivalent spell protection just because it's a HLA for warriors, it's comparable in power to Minor Globe of Invulnerability, which grants total immunity to level 1-3 spells for 1 round/character level, Resist Magic grants 50% MR for 4 rounds only, but the highest level and most dangerous spells often disregard magic resistance (Imprisonment, Dragon's Breath etc.).

2 hours ago, suy said:

the spell description says "specific protection spells" and "specific protection spells". I know that the bit of what is a spell is a bit open to interpretation, but... wouldn't this be the key thing to consider?

Don't put too much stock in the descriptions of spells referencing other spells, which were clearly written at a different point in development time to the spell system actually being worked upon. The vanilla SoA/ToB description of Breach claims it will remove "Protection Circle", the vanilla description of Khelben's Warding Whip claims it will remove "Spell Invulnerability". As for what is considered a "specific" vs "combat protection" the game is quite consistent.

• Specific protections : Those which grant resistance or immunity to elemental or purely magical damage, and also those which grant immunity to debilitative (Resist Fear, Chaotic Commands) or fatal (Death Ward) effects and attack forms that aren't purely physical (Negative Plane Protection).
• Combat protections: Those which protect the recipient from physical, rather than magical attacks, those which do both (like Armor of Faith) seemingly are classified as combat protections.

There is a much stronger argument for removing the combat protection subtype from Blade Barrier and Globe of Blades than from Hardiness, because those aren't mentioned in the spell description either and are damaging spells that don't actually improve the caster's survivability, but I would not think that such a change rises to the level of fixpack material rather than being a tweak for a spell pack mod.

11 hours ago, CamDawg said:

Be careful not to conflate two distinct questions. "Is the secondary type on HLA X correct?" and "should HLA X have a secondary type at all?" both lead you to Assassination as a combat protection is nonsense, but doesn't necessarily answer what should be done about it.

Other HLA's which modify melee attacks, either in frequency or effects:

• Whirlwind (SPCL900) - typeless and schoolless
• Greater Whirlwind (SPCL901) - typeless and schoolless
• Deathblow (SPCL902) - typeless and schoolless
• Greater Deathblow (SPCL903) - typeless and schoolless
• Critical Strike (SPCL905) - typeless and schoolless
• Power Attack (SPCL906) - typeless and schoolless
• Smite (SPCL909) - typeless and schoolless

Other class/kit special abilities which modify melee attacks as above:

• Kai (SPCL144) -  typeless and schoolless
• Poison Weapon (SPCL423) - typeless and schoolless
• Offensive Spin (SPCL521) - typeless and schoolless
• Stunning Blow (SPCL811) - typeless and schoolless
• Quivering Palm (SPCL820) - typeless and schoolless

Looks to me like Assassination should be typeless and schoolless, the pattern is undeniable.

 

[morpheus562]

28 minutes ago, polytope said:

I see, you're saying that Resist Magic could be used as an additional "Spell Shield" to absorb protection removals... but only if the spell level of this ability is increased to 9, which is not the in-game default. Another thing to consider is that Resist Magic last only 4 rounds, and being a special ability rather than an actual spell can't be called through (Chain)Contingency or stored as part of a Sequencer/Trigger, it eats up a spell equivalent action for a minor buff that can't be cast well in advance.

I'm skeptical about Resist Magic needing to be considered a 9th level equivalent spell protection just because it's a HLA for warriors, it's comparable in power to Minor Globe of Invulnerability, which grants total immunity to level 1-3 spells for 1 round/character level, Resist Magic grants 50% MR for 4 rounds only, but the highest level and most dangerous spells often disregard magic resistance (Imprisonment, Dragon's Breath etc.).

 

That's the rub: breach, ruby ray, etc. state they target spells.

• Breach: "Here is a complete list of all the specific protection spells"
• Ruby Ray: "dispels one spell protection"
• Pierce Shield: "wizard's spell defenses"
• Spellstrike: "dispel all of the magical protections"

We have very clear examples how Hardiness, Resist Magic, etc. are abilities, not spells (which you yourself are admitting to). Per your own observation they cannot be put in sequencers/contingencies because they are not spells. The descriptions are very clear for Breach, Ruby Ray, etc. and Hardiness, Resist Magic, etc. do not meet the criteria for a spell.

There is also massive cognitive disconnect if you are saying Resist Magic should be treated as a spell and dispelled as a spell, but arbitrarily it acts like a level 3 or 4 spell and should be treated like one of those spells even though it is a HLA which sits as a level 9. I cannot follow that train of logic at all, and it is solely designed to fit your very narrow, personal view, of how it should act.

Edited November 5, 2022 by morpheus562

[polytope]

3 minutes ago, morpheus562 said:

We have very clear examples how Hardiness, Resist Magic, etc. are abilities, not spells. Per your own observation they cannot be put in sequencers/contingencies because they are not spells. The descriptions are very clear for Breach, Ruby Ray, etc. and Hardiness, Resist Magic, etc. do not meet the criteria for a spell.

For technical reasons those cannot be contingencied/sequenced which is a different topic as to whether the utility of these abilities is similar enough to protective spells to be stripped by spells supposed to remove specific, combat or spell protections. Storm Shield and Boon of Lathander can't be put in a spell sequencer/contingency either for priests of Talos or Lathander who dual to mage, yet these abilites are clearly magical, hence can be dispelled, with the Storm Shield even considered a specific protection in vanilla, and removable by Breach.

[morpheus562]

1 minute ago, polytope said:

For technical reasons those cannot be contingencied/sequenced which is a different topic as to whether the utility of these abilities is similar enough to protective spells to be stripped by spells supposed to remove specific, combat or spell protections. Storm Shield and Boon of Lathander can't be put in a spell sequencer/contingency either for priests of Talos or Lathander who dual to mage, yet these abilites are clearly magical, hence can be dispelled, with the Storm Shield even considered a specific protection in vanilla, and removable by Breach.

And there is nothing magical or spell like with the HLAs in question. Like all other non-magical abilities in the game, they should remain consistent and not be dispellable.

[Guest Lowman]

I think this is kind of the crux of the argument--which terminology is most operative "spell" or "combat protection" (same could be argued for "spell protection" if you wanted to debate the Resist Magic HLA)?  One of the more "fluffy/RP" points, I tried, and perhaps failed, to make earlier is that in order for breach to do more than reduce spell generated combat protective effects, in terms of its simulated effect (what is this thing supposed to represent/be doing, to do what it does), it would need to become almost incomprehensibly versatile in the range of how it impacted that outcome (a spell that deteriorates magical protective structures, makes nimble thieves more clumsy, makes hardened fighters more soft to the world, etc, ad nauseam, because really this is open to many plausible, but simultaneously divergent concepts for what the spell is doing).  This interpretation defies understanding of what, other than end state, we're actually impacting in the game.  Now, I don't know the first thing about magic--but, I do understand continuity and pattern--and this one tends to break mold--the breach spell has basically become "ultra-limited-focused-nonprotective-wish" when it can disrupt any "solely" (acknowledging provision given to either the limitations or additions beyond combat protection in effects like Defensive Stance, Spin, Rage, Berserk made in some argumentation) combat protections.  And, it seems to me, I don't need to understand magic, to know that this interpretation is only coherent in accepting end state (combat protections=gone), but incoherent in how it actually makes that happen, or what it's breaking down to expose vulnerability.

An example: It could be possible for me to send an Over the Air Digital Signal with a communication or system disrupting package/virus (after battering through a lot of encryptions) to a significantly advanced combat platform--let's say an M1A2; tanks are cool!  And, depending upon what's in that signal, I could effectively nullify the combat power of that tank or maybe many tanks.  If I tried to send my virus through the same method to Mike Tyson while we're in the ring, then it's going to fail.  He's going to introduce me to the sweet science in brutal fashion--my magic holds no sway here (although it might give us all the cancer, well after the fact).

I do think it's interesting that Emotion: Fear (Power Word: Fear, and Symbol: Fear could work too as I recall in 2E) was brought up as it regards Rage and Berserk--and, in terms of game simulation, allowing these spells to dispel such effects would be a great add in Spell Revisions or even SCS.  I could even get behind Hardiness, Evasion, Avoid Death ceasing to function/dispelled if a character was considered helpless by the game (in a time stop, magically held, stunned, maybe even slowed could do this) because that would make good sense in the simulation for what these effects represent.  To be clear, I'm not pushing for any of these out-of-scope changes here, but trying to highlight, how broad the scope of Breach is, if it could replicate the focused spell-based counters I just enumerated to nullify effects generated by accumulated expertise and might alone.  At that point, could it nullify the "combat protection" from worn armor?

Now, I do think it's possible that this was intentionally done--to offer room to the player to have counter play with these abilities, as we've established the AI will not participate in the transaction of HLAs for Breach other than incidentally (even with significantly more advanced AI scripts, ie SCS).  So, it's possible that these changes are outside the scope of a fix pack.  That said, it definitely feels like you're trying to give Mike Tyson a computer virus while he's beating your head in--and while I'm willing to suspend my disbelief in a world with magic, that one seems pretty far afield to me.

[suy]

4 hours ago, polytope said:

Don't put too much stock in the descriptions of spells referencing other spells, (...)

I think you got me wrong. I wasn't thinking about the fact that it quotes a list of spells, but about the fact that it says that affects spells, and IMHO Hardiness is not a spell. For the reasons that I mentioned (can be put in the group of abilities that can be used when silenced, ignores death/wild magic, is not affected by Dispel Magic, etc.).

To me that's the main deal. Why would an ability, for example, be affected by Breach but not Dispel Magic?

[polytope]

1 hour ago, suy said:

I think you got me wrong. I wasn't thinking about the fact that it quotes a list of spells, but about the fact that it says that affects spells, and IMHO Hardiness is not a spell.

Yes, it says spells not abilities, but the description was written for the SoA version of the game, before HLAs were introduced and any ability could be considered a specific or combat protection, besides ofc. priest of Talos Storm Shield (oh, and a paladin's Protection from Evil). My point was that these descriptions are obviously both incomplete and inaccurate, referencing spells that were never implemented for instance.

1 hour ago, suy said:

To me that's the main deal. Why would an ability, for example, be affected by Breach but not Dispel Magic?

Because Breach and Dispel Magic don't do the same thing, one strips temporary protections, the other dispels magical effects.

Other posters have been saying that it doesn't make sense for an offensive abjuration that normally is used to strip arcane defenses to also worsen a character's inherent talent for protecting themselves - again, in my view that's a tweak rather than a fix - but FWIW I found a counterexample spell from 2ed:

This was vaguely implemented as Pierce Shield in game, but as you can see, not only does it negate Spell Turning, it worsens by 5 points the target's saving throw, which is reflective of skill in staying alive and dependent on class and learned experience (although also usually improved by magic).

It's a similar story with Passwall in PnP, it allows the wizard to pass through both a magically evoked Wall of Stone spell and a wall built out of plain old stones. Why? It's magic.

Edited November 5, 2022 by polytope

[morpheus562]

We already have spells that weaken saving throws. Those exist and it makes sense for specific spells to be able to do that. Pierce Shield is doing nothing special there, so I'm not sure what point is being made by that.

We have also had, since vanilla base game, defensive abilities that do not get dispelled because they are abilities instead of spells. Those are listed frequently above. The most consistent solution, and the one going in line with existing descriptions, would be too ensure the HLAs in question cannot be breached or removed.

[Bartimaeus]

Conceptually, I don't think of Breach as being an anti-magic spell in the same way as Dispel/Remove Magic or Secret Word, Spellstrike et al. are. I think of it more in the vein of Lower Resistance, which will lower a creature's magic resistance regardless of whether that magic resistance comes from a spell, their equipment, or a class/race/other ability. Similarly, Breach punctures a hole straight through all of the temporary protections currently enveloping a target, "breaching" their defenses and leaving them vulnerable...regardless of whether said defenses are magical in nature or not. Now personally, I don't really care that much about it either way, since this is just a meaningless "conceptual" perception of the spell, but having Breach destroy Hardiness does make sense to me. Assassination, on the other hand? No.

Edited November 5, 2022 by Bartimaeus