Non-magic HLAs should not be removable by antimagic spells and effects

[morpheus562]

Hahaha, fair enough

[Guest RoyalProtector]

7 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

1. It doesn't fucking matter because no enemies will ever cast Breach at your warrior with Hardiness.

Yes, unless you are a fighter mage with protections, or a druid with iron skins, no? Or have any breachable thing through any other means. I mean if that makes you eligible target for breach and hardiness remains reachable, I would think it would remain a problem.

[polytope]

15 hours ago, morpheus562 said:

This consensus was not reached for Assassination. Either it is dispellable like the other items mentioned, or it was intentional like the other items mentioned. You are welcome to rehash in the main thread, but consensus was not reached.

My mistake, no consensus then, but even so, Assassination is clearly not a combat protection and the fixpack has a history of addressing obvious copyvover bugs (from cloning and cosmetically polishing a file but leaving a few important things unchanged).

The protective HLAs have some commonality with wizard & priest spells classed as combat protections, i.e. immunity to instant death effects or damage resistance.

There is not one other instance where a special ability that exclusively enhances a character's performance when attacking, rather than their defensive potential, has the combat protection sectype, neither a HLA (like Whirlwind or Smite) nor a special class/kit ability (Quivering Palm, Poison Weapon) nor even a wizard or cleric spell (Shocking Grasp, Slay Living etc., which usually have either the combination or "offensive damage" sectypes).

Quite separate to the issue of whether abjuration spells like Breach should be able to strip a fighter or thief's HLAs is that Assasination is a really extreme outlier in terms of its sectype compared to the in game function of this HLA in any case.

17 hours ago, RoyalProtector said:

Yeah, I would concede that that magic resistance and detect invisibility cases are a bit more tricky, and probably ambiguous (and thus 'compromise' is the only thing you can get). However! I think they should not be affected by Dispel Magic for example (i don't know if they are).

Changing Assassination makes sense to me too. But other cases such as Evasion seem pretty clear to me too, so I'm not sure why there's consensus only with that one. Ah well. It can always be put in a tweak mod, so it's up to preference.

Stealth from rangers or thieves isn't dispellable, but the description of the Detect Invisibility makes it pretty clear how it's supposed to work:

"When the wizard casts a detect invisibility spell, he is able to see clearly any objects or beings that are invisible, as well as any that are astral, ethereal, or out of phase. In addition, it enables the wizard to detect hidden or concealed creatures (e.g., thieves in shadows, halflings in underbrush, and so on)"

I.e, anyone in the area who is trying to hide from the caster (magically or not) is revealed unless warded by Spell Immunity etc.

It's a mystery how it works, just like the Identify spell (shouldn't it be harder to identify items made by different species? by those you don't share a language with?) but that's how it is.

[RoyalProtector]

6 hours ago, polytope said:

Stealth from rangers or thieves isn't dispellable, but the description of the Detect Invisibility makes it pretty clear how it's supposed to work:

"When the wizard casts a detect invisibility spell, he is able to see clearly any objects or beings that are invisible, as well as any that are astral, ethereal, or out of phase. In addition, it enables the wizard to detect hidden or concealed creatures (e.g., thieves in shadows, halflings in underbrush, and so on)"

I.e, anyone in the area who is trying to hide from the caster (magically or not) is revealed unless warded by Spell Immunity etc.

It's a mystery how it works, just like the Identify spell (shouldn't it be harder to identify items made by different species? by those you don't share a language with?) but that's how it is.

Ah, fair enough. Well, even if it seems to defy common sense, at least going by the spell's name, I'm satisfied if it's clear it was the intention. At least as far as this mod is concerned. I imagine anyway that changing that would be pretty close to impossible, since the game's code probably doesn't make any distinction between invisibility from spells or skills.

8 hours ago, Guest RoyalProtector said:

...if that makes you eligible target for breach and hardiness remains reachable, I would think it would remain a problem.

Breachable.

Edited April 18, 2023 by RoyalProtector