Hardiness Targeted by Breach

[polytope]

Honestly, I thought I was done arguing with morpheus in this thread, but, since subtledoctor insists...

38 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

Well if that's the case then by your logic not only should Breach affect Defenstive Stance and Defensive Spin, it should also remove the Swashbuckler's and Kensai's natural AC bonus.

No, because those are not temporary protections but bonuses continuously operative while awake and alert. Same applies to the basic dexterity modifier, along with that of eg. bracers of defence compared to Ghost Armor spell, magical rings etc, this AC is lost only if the character is completely disabled.

43 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

Are you kidding? When's the last time you heard anyone talk about how great the Berserker kit is because of that sweet +2 damage bonus? The entirety of what makes Rage valuable in this game is that it combines Chaotic Commands (a specific protection removable by Breach) with a form of SI:Abjuration. "Not a protection." You lose all sorts of credibility with an assertion like that.

I'm losing credibility? You're literally the only poster trying to hyperextend the analogy and argue that Assassination and a berserker's rage should be breachable, seemingly for the sake of contrariness.

Rage is a substantial combat boost for the berserker and especially the barbarian, a +2 to hit is not minor in the early game (c.f. offensive spin), and still less is +4 strength which is what you'd get from DUHM at 12th level. Breach specifically removes temporary effects that are exclusively protective, but will not quell a berserker's battle rage (whereas PnP-wise Emotion:Fear could...), even though that rage incidentally provides him with useful immunities, it may or may not have been intended to strip other short duration circumstantial protections deriving from a character's inborn skill rather than magic (my belief is that it was).

Your argument sounds like this; If anti-tank missiles are useful against:

• Armored main battle tanks
• Armored light tanks
• Armored personnel carriers
• Armored self-propelled artillery

Why aren't these also useful against armored battleships? Well, because that's not what anti-tank missiles designed for, and it's a very different type of target, even if having some commonalities in being a military vehicle that has armor.

49 minutes ago, subtledoctor said:

But... not to beat a dead horse, but if that's your position, then I don't see how it could possibly justify changing Assassination...

We have been over this before, there is absolutely nothing protective in Assassination's function and since it has both the same sectype and same school as Hardiness and (Greater)Evasion, unlike every other melee enhancing HLA (and melee enhancing special ability generally), it's a pretty obvious copyover bug.

[Bartimaeus]

2 minutes ago, polytope said:

I'm losing credibility? You're literally the only poster trying to hyperextend the analogy and argue that Assassination and a berserker's rage should be breachable, seemingly for the sake of contrariness.

The crime of someone is approaching an issue from a slightly different angle than me is great indeed, and surely worthy of attacks on one's integrity, impartiality, and/or intelligence.

[morpheus562]

I'm most interested in hearing the opinion of @DavidWon this. I'll be honest and say I did not know these HLAs we're removable, and SCS doesn't seem to take that into account either. To me, it seems like it was a copy paste error that never got caught, but if they should be removable, we need ai to react accordingly.

[polytope]

1 hour ago, Bartimaeus said:

The concepts of these spells and abilities do matter: while Clairvoyance also gives combat protection-like bonuses a la Shield, Breach doesn't do anything against it because it would make zero sense for Clairvoyance's concept of simply being a type of foreknowledge (likewise for the bonuses of Emotion: Courage being the result of one's enhanced emotional state). One could possibly stretch a similar kind of explanation for Berserker's Rage ability as well as some other edge cases.

It gets even stranger though, because Breach in vanilla specifically lists Resist Fear as a protection it targets, clearly it can "debuff" a state of emotional fortitude, but in the vanilla game casting Emotion, besides the hopelessness effect on enemies gives the caster a personal resist fear buff for the spell duration, which is not a strippable protection. The cavalier's innate Remove Fear ability (SPCL222) didn't count either.

Personally I have far more difficulty reconciling Resist Fear and Stoneskin as the same types of protections (which the cavalier innate isn't) than grouping Hardiness with Stoneskin.

[Bartimaeus]

17 minutes ago, polytope said:

It gets even stranger though, because Breach in vanilla specifically lists Resist Fear as a protection it targets, clearly it can "debuff" a state of emotional fortitude, but in the vanilla game casting Emotion, besides the hopelessness effect on enemies gives the caster a personal resist fear buff for the spell duration, which is not a strippable protection. The cavalier's innate Remove Fear ability (SPCL222) didn't count either.

Personally I have far more difficulty reconciling Resist Fear and Stoneskin as the same types of protections (which the cavalier innate isn't) than grouping Hardiness with Stoneskin.

Yeah, another case like potions that just does not sit squarely with me, particularly because the spell description literally says that it works by "instilling courage" in them. Anyone who wants to say that it isn't consistent either way can certainly do so without complaint from me. It seems like too much of a quagmire for a fixpack to really be able to handle on anything but a very limited basis, more along the lines of "does the community want Hardiness (and possible other similar edge cases) to be breachable, regardless of logical reasoning for or against it?". That's probably a lot more straightforward and beneficial.

Edited November 7, 2022 by Bartimaeus

[jmerry]

Resist Fear/Remove Fear, as they are now:

Wizard Resist Fear: breachable

Priest Remove Fear: not breachable

Cavalier Remove Fear: not breachable

I'd say that all three of those should be the same; Breach doesn't care about the difference between arcane and divine protections, and these spells all do the exact same thing. Also, removing these protections won't do anything about the instant panic-removing effects; it'll only make it possible to panic the targets with further effects.

The type used for Resist Fear is "specific protections" rather than "combat protections". It's not the same type as Stoneskin; it's just that both types are subject to Breach.

[subtledoctor]

4 hours ago, polytope said:

Personally I have far more difficulty reconciling Resist Fear and Stoneskin as the same types of protections (which the cavalier innate isn't) than grouping Hardiness with Stoneskin.

Resist Fear and Stoneskin are not the same type of protections. Resist Fear is a specific protection. Breach works against two distinct categories of protection. Jmerry’s list is incomplete: 

Wizard Resist Fear: breachable

Cleric Remove Fear: not breachable

Paladin Remove Fear: not breachable

IWD Emotion Courage: breachable (notwithstanding it grants substantial offensive bonuses that far outweigh its protective effect)

Berserk Rage: not breachable (not even the portion of it that behaves precisely like Resist Fear)

Now, I suspect the reason divine Remove Fear is not a specific protection is because it was originally designed solely to cancel fear, not provide immunity. This is suggested by the description IIRC and by the spell name and the lower spell level. Maybe it was adjusted to also provide immunity for balance reasons, but they forgot to set its sectype. (But of course like any talk of copyover bugs, this is just speculation.) 

I’m more interested in the issue of Emotion Courage vs. Berserk Rage. These seem the same to me? I’m really not sure how to legitimately draw a line between them that defines one as a specific protection and the other as typeless. 

And no I’m not raising these things to be contrary, I’m trying to probe the logic of your position where it seems faulty to me. Because doing so can reassure or, especially if one is willing to adjust one’s position, strengthen one’s logical footing. But you still avoid the question, instead talking about anti-tank missiles? (Sorry but the point of that analogy went right by me.)

Again: addressing the seemingly inconsistent treatment of, say, Emotion Courage versus Berserk Rage might lead to clearer definitions of how these categories are used, and that in turn might provide conceptual guidance for the question of whether Hardiness should or should not be changed. (And even if not, it might address a bug on the specific protections side of things!) That seems obviously useful to me… so I can’t fathom why you keep avoiding the question. 

[Bartimaeus]

1 hour ago, jmerry said:

Resist Fear/Remove Fear, as they are now:

Wizard Resist Fear: breachable

Priest Remove Fear: not breachable

Cavalier Remove Fear: not breachable

I'd say that all three of those should be the same; Breach doesn't care about the difference between arcane and divine protections, and these spells all do the exact same thing. Also, removing these protections won't do anything about the instant panic-removing effects; it'll only make it possible to panic the targets with further effects.

The type used for Resist Fear is "specific protections" rather than "combat protections". It's not the same type as Stoneskin; it's just that both types are subject to Breach.

I am not certain that polytope was looking at Stoneskin and Resist Fear as being the "same type of protection" in the sense of them being specific or combat protections, but rather the fact that Resist Fear should be classified as a type of protection at all particularly with regards to me having just mentioned Clairvoyance not being considered one (well, a combat protection, that is) - when the concepts of both make it pretty clear that they're all mental...and likewise with IWD's Emotion: Courage. I wouldn't have any of them breachable.

Edited November 7, 2022 by Bartimaeus

[subtledoctor]

5 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

I am not certain that polytope was looking at Stoneskin and Resist Fear as being the "same type of protection" in the sense of them being specific or combat protections, but rather the fact that Resist Fear should be classified as a type of protection at all particularly with regards to me having just mentioned Clairvoyance not being considered one (well, a combat protection, that is) - when the concepts of both make it pretty clear that they're all mental...and likewise with IWD's Emotion: Courage. I wouldn't have any of them breachable.

Ah well he phrased it oddly then. Seems odd to be surprised that Resist Fear is breachable when almost all spells that protect against mental attacks are classified as specific protections. If you asked me to define specific protections I would say "protections against mental attacks and protections against elemental damage." It includes Chaotic Commands, Exaltation, Resist Fear, Emotion Courage, Emotion Hope, and ProEvil. Remove Fear and Berserk Rage are very much exceptions to what otherwise seems like a very clear rule. (And Clairvoyance is, no offense, of very little import here, since it is a mod-added spell. Demi's vision, like yours, was that protection not directly stemming from a magical effect should not be breachable. Presumably he would agree with Morpheus et al. that Hardiness should therefore not be breachable. While I think that is very coherent and sensible, it doesn't me Demi is right and Polytope is wrong.)

[Bartimaeus]

I'm not going to lie, I completely forgot the function of Clairvoyance in vanilla: literally had no clue it just revealed the map. Whoops, that's on me. Why are the two Emotion spells breachable again? Functionally, Courage just sounds like Mass Aid, while Hope sounds like Greater Bless, and neither Bless or Aid are breachable, so I'm not really seeing why those should be breached. Also, I have an alternative explanation for why polytope isn't responding about Emotion: every time you mention it, my immediate inclination is to say "who give a crap about IWD's terrible spells, who were also designed by a completely different developer: we're talking about Baldur's Gate here". I might be biased because of my dislike for IWD though, .

2 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

Demi's vision, like yours, was that protection not directly stemming from a magical effect should not be breachable.

Are you saying he actually said that? That seems at odds with IR, as the effects of potions are considered alchemical (i.e. not magic, not dispellable) but are specifically given sectypes that make them breachable.

Edited November 7, 2022 by Bartimaeus

[subtledoctor]

1 hour ago, Bartimaeus said:

who give a crap about IWD's terrible spells, who were also designed by a completely different developer: we're talking about Baldur's Gate here

Well, this FP is supposed to apply to IWDEE so this is relevant. Further, in old IWD there was no Breach spell; it appears that Beamdog quite intentionally set this sectype for IWDEE spells, so it is a pretty good indicator of recent dev intent. 

[polytope]

16 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

If you asked me to define specific protections I would say "protections against mental attacks and protections against elemental damage."

That doesn't precisely mirror the game's list though, because Protection from Evil is a specific protection but it penalizes attack rolls of evil creatures, thus would seem to fall under combat protections... possibly a moot point as Breach removes both, a Fallen Solar's arrows (FINSOL01.itm) dispel combat protections, but not specific, that's the only case I'm aware of in the original game where one can be removed by sectype, but not the other.

My point about wizard Resist Fear was that it's already rather arcane, figuratively and literally, in that it has more in common for the purposes of a Breach spell with Stoneskin - which does something completely different - than with the cavalier innate that does the same job.

13 hours ago, Bartimaeus said:

Functionally, Courage just sounds like Mass Aid, while Hope sounds like Greater Bless, and neither Bless or Aid are breachable, so I'm not really seeing why those should be breached. Also, I have an alternative explanation for why polytope isn't responding about Emotion: every time you mention it, my immediate inclination is to say "who give a crap about IWD's terrible spells, who were also designed by a completely different developer: we're talking about Baldur's Gate here". I might be biased because of my dislike for IWD though, .

You're right, I don't want to branch into a discussion of IWD spells if we can't come to an agreement on BG spells and abilities.

Also, I think that in terms of defining what constitutes a protection in game we need to consider not only the functionality but the intent of the casting, if only the function of the spell is considered then any beneficial spell could be considered a protection insofar as it helps the recipient or user survive a battle.

Example: Hardiness vs Improved Haste, for a warrior (with 0 base physical resistance) fighting an enemy with purely physical damaging attacks and without special abilities such as regeneration, energy drain on hit, or attribute drain (Mindflayers) etc. the spell is actually more protective than the HLA! Hardiness reduces the damage the warrior takes from blows to 60%, while IH halves the time it would take the warrior to down his enemy, thus resulting in halved damage taken from them on average. Yet nobody has suggested that Improved Haste should count as a combat protection even though it helps to keep your fighters alive.

To be considered a protection, a spell or ability should specifically and exclusively thwart enemy attacks, not generally enhance the recipient even if such enhancement contributes to their chances of survival. The way that a Breach spell operates in stripping these effects must be considered in a kind of abstract sense here in dashing hopes of safety, of undoing failsafes. How does it work exactly? Who knows, it's magic. Like I said, a Knock spell will allow traverse down a corridor with a locked door, not a corridor blocked with boulders from a rockfall, a Disintegrate spell would do both, spells are often both highly specific and seemingly arbitrary.

This is why a berserker's rage should not be breachable, from an in-character perspective the berserk warrior works himself into a battle frenzy (and PnP-wise cares little for his own life) even though he's harder to kill and shrugs of most disabling stuff while berserk, his intent was not to protect himself but to make havoc. The fact that players use berserker's rages as much for their immunities as their combat bonuses is tangential to how it should operate and interact with spells like Breach that remove protections.

Incidentally, looking at the vanilla game Ravager's script, he recasts his Blade Barrier in response to either wizard or cleric Dispel Magic and wizard Remove Magic, Breach seems to have been forgotten. Is Blade Barrier anymore of a protection than Sunfire? The secondary type could have easily been inherited from Fireshield.

Edited November 8, 2022 by polytope

[subtledoctor]

3 hours ago, polytope said:

Resist Fear ... has more in common for the purposes of a Breach spell with Stoneskin than with [Remove Fear]

...

a Breach spell ... must be considered in a kind of abstract sense here

...

even though he's harder to kill and shrugs of most disabling stuff while berserk, his intent was not to protect himself but to make havoc. The fact that players use berserker's rages as much for their immunities as their combat bonuses is tangential to how it should operate and interact with spells like Breach that remove protections

I... I honestly don't even know what to say. I just... you know what, never mind.

Back to regularly scheduled debate:

3 hours ago, polytope said:

I don't want to branch into a discussion of IWD spells if we can't come to an agreement on BG spells and abilities

As I say, IWDEE spells give a pretty clear window on applied developer intent. If people can't come to an agreement then that is in fact a great time to bring in more information from.

Beyond that, there are discrepancies worth addressing. Notably, while I suggested that the the handling of Breach w/r/t both IWD spells and BG2 spells should be squared, I intentionally left out mention of a critical (and obvious) factor: Emotion Courage and Emotion Hope do not exist in BG(2)EE, and Hardiness does not exist in IWDEE. So these apparent discrepancies do not really need to be squared. A simple rule is apparent for each game as they are coded now:

• In BGEE, Breach can remove anything falling in the category of combat or specific protections, whether magical or nonmagical in nature, but cannot remove any such protections if they carry benefits or hindrances that are incidental to the protection. (*But Remove Fear is an unexplained exception to this rule.)
• In IWDEE, Breach can remove anything falling in the category of combat or specific protections, including protections that are paired with separate non-protective benefits and hindrances, but cannot remove such protections when they are nonmagical in nature. (*But Iron Body is an unexplained exception to this rule.)

If that's the decision, that's fine. Spells can work differently in IWD and BG2. BUT if that's the case, then 1) Remove Fear and Iron Body should probably be addressed; and 2) much more importantly, I think the FixPack makers should come out and explicitly adopt that position. Because it's not something players would necessarily expect. Breach is a BG2 spell that was added to IWDEE, and quite unlike the IWD spells that have been separate and different for the last 20 years, I think when players hear "the BG2 Breach spell is now in IWD," it is reasonable for them to expect that is it actually the BG2 Breach spell, and not some version that was modified in arbitrary ways when inserted into the IWD campaign.

[morpheus562]

@polytope IWDEE Spells do need to be discussed because this is a fixpack that encompasses IWDEE.

15 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

Well, this FP is supposed to apply to IWDEE so this is relevant. Further, in old IWD there was no Breach spell; it appears that Beamdog quite intentionally set this sectype for IWDEE spells, so it is a pretty good indicator of recent dev intent. 

Bringing IWDEE Spells into the conversation is a good way at determining dev intent which is what we need for the fixpack to show if or if not the HLAs should be changed to prevent breach.

4 hours ago, polytope said:

Incidentally, looking at the vanilla game Ravager's script, he recasts his Blade Barrier in response to either wizard or cleric Dispel Magic and wizard Remove Magic, Breach seems to have been forgotten. Is Blade Barrier anymore of a protection than Sunfire? The secondary type could have easily been inherited from Fireshield.

Here is the code in question for the Ravager using Blade Barrier:

IF
	OR(3)
		SpellCast([GOODCUTOFF],WIZARD_REMOVE_MAGIC)  // SPWI302.SPL (Remove Magic)
		SpellCast([GOODCUTOFF],WIZARD_TRUE_DISPEL_MAGIC)  // SPWI326.SPL (Dispel Magic)
		SpellCast([GOODCUTOFF],CLERIC_DISPEL_MAGIC)  // SPPR303.SPL (Dispel Magic)
	GlobalTimerNotExpired("BoneBarrier","LOCALS")
THEN
	RESPONSE #100
		SetGlobalTimer("BoneBarrier","LOCALS",0)
END

IF
	See(NearestEnemyOf(Myself))
	!GlobalTimerNotExpired("BoneBarrier","LOCALS")
THEN
	RESPONSE #100
		SetGlobalTimer("BoneBarrier","LOCALS",TEN_ROUNDS)
		ReallyForceSpell(Myself,CLERIC_BLADE_BARRIER)  // SPPR603.SPL (Blade Barrier)
END

I think this is inefficient scripting and can simply be reduced to the following which will cover the gamut of all removals:

IF
	See(NearestEnemyOf(Myself))
	CheckStatLT(Myself,1,CLERIC_BLADE_BARRIER)
THEN
	RESPONSE #100
		ReallyForceSpell(Myself,CLERIC_BLADE_BARRIER)  // SPPR603.SPL (Blade Barrier)
END

 

[polytope]

20 hours ago, morpheus562 said:

@polytope IWDEE Spells do need to be discussed because this is a fixpack that encompasses IWDEE.

Bringing IWDEE Spells into the conversation is a good way at determining dev intent which is what we need for the fixpack to show if or if not the HLAs should be changed to prevent breach.

Yes, but after five pages we still haven't resolved the initial question of Breach vs Hardiness, clearly the topic of general sectype inconsistency in the EEs needs to be submitted for review to Beamdog.

About the Ravager's awkwardly written script, it dates back to original BG before most spells had associated detectable states. I mentioned it only because he doesn't refresh his Blade Barrier in response to a Breach, which raises the question of whether BB should count as a combat protection (besides the obvious fact that it only damages, doesn't improve user's AC, soak hits or anything like that). Some other scripts in vanilla did check: SpellCastOnMe([GOODCUTOFF],WIZARD_BREACH) or something like that, as part of a trigger block to recast defensive spells.

@subtledoctor when it comes to fantasy magic, not real world effects based on the principles of logic and causality, things like intent and mindset clearly do matter sometimes. How else do you explain the function of the Detect Evil spell? Or Detect Invisibility, which reveals both those non magically hiding from the wizard in the shadows, and also those magically invisible from a potion or spell? Even so, Detect Invisibility doesn't counteract blindness by default, although being blind the wizard is equally unable to see his enemies. Similarly, Breach doesn't calm down a raging berserker or barbarian, even though they're harder to kill while in their frenzied state and ignore many disabling effects and charm type magic.

 

Edited November 9, 2022 by polytope