Jump to content

Protection from effects in items and spells


Recommended Posts

I'm actually studying a lot of items and spells to understand the mechanics around the protections, immunities and exceptions in specific situations. But with all the iterations between the games, the enhanced edition, and EET, it's quite a mess to understand.

So i would llike to understand the basics of protection/immunity here.

Opcode 101 (immunity to effect) should cover the base of those protection. But i see that it gets some sidekicks with it a lot of times

Those are (quite often):

Opcode 169 (prevent portrait icon)

Opcode 267 (disable display string)

Opcode 286 (immunity to specific animation)

and, the one i have difficulties to understand all of its aspects:

opcode 206 (protection from spells)

One example: if i want to protect from gaze attacks: opcode 83 (immunity to projectile) with parameter "xx - Gaze" should be enough, but i see that there are some 206s with specifc spells inside and i don't understand sometimes why. I mean, If some spells didn't have the gaze projectile, i could understand the need to add that 206 because the opcode 83 would not be enough, but if the spell gets that projectile already, why should i add some other opcodes to specify from other effects to protect ? Shouldn't the protection from the projectile be enough then ?

My question is: how do i know what to take into account to apply those specific opcodes ? Because, when i look at all my spells and items in my actual setup, there's seem to be a lot of small differences between the same protections/immunities, like a potion will have one more opcode 206 than another item for example, but the description says it's protecting from the same effects. Is there some convention, or basics to know about all that ?

I don't know if i'm clear enough, english is not my native language, so i apologize for that.

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, ptifab said:

I'm actually studying a lot of items and spells to understand the mechanics around the protections, immunities and exceptions in specific situations. But with all the iterations between the games, the enhanced edition, and EET, it's quite a mess to understand.

So i would llike to understand the basics of protection/immunity here.

Opcode 101 (immunity to effect) should cover the base of those protection. But i see that it gets some sidekicks with it a lot of times

Those are (quite often):

Opcode 169 (prevent portrait icon)

Opcode 267 (disable display string)

Opcode 286 (immunity to specific animation)

and, the one i have difficulties to understand all of its aspects:

opcode 206 (protection from spells)

One example: if i want to protect from gaze attacks: opcode 83 (immunity to projectile) with parameter "xx - Gaze" should be enough, but i see that there are some 206s with specifc spells inside and i don't understand sometimes why. I mean, If some spells didn't have the gaze projectile, i could understand the need to add that 206 because the opcode 83 would not be enough, but if the spell gets that projectile already, why should i add some other opcodes to specify from other effects to protect ? Shouldn't the protection from the projectile be enough then ?

My question is: how do i know what to take into account to apply those specific opcodes ? Because, when i look at all my spells and items in my actual setup, there's seem to be a lot of small differences between the same protections/immunities, like a potion will have one more opcode 206 than another item for example, but the description says it's protecting from the same effects. Is there some convention, or basics to know about all that ?

I don't know if i'm clear enough, english is not my native language, so i apologize for that.

Protection from Opcode 101 is the big one, the one that does what you want. The others are complimentary, to enhance and embellish what 101 does.

Let's say you're immune to the Panic effect. It's offputting to see the Panic icon in your character portrait, because you're immune to it and you're not in panic, but there it is. So, you use opcode 169.

Keeping the same example, you're protected and your portrait is crystal clear, but the dialogue screen reads "YOUR PLAYER CHARACTER - Panic". Yeah, no. So, you use 267 to prevent that.

In the same line, the panic animation effect would run over your character's head if you didn't use opcode 286.

Opcode 206 could be a shorter way to do all the above, if all the effects were contained in the spell in question. However, sometimes effects are not cointained in spells but in separate effects (like on hit via item, for example), or in spells with a different name than the one you're protecting from (this happens even in vanilla, there are several versions). It's basically like using a net with a hole, some things are going to get past your filter. Also, some spells might have another effect besides the opcode you're protecting from, and you'd rather block that too, so you add 206 to the list even if you're already using 101.

Hope that clears things up a bit. You can check the mod in my sig for items with immunity to effects, I believe I tried to be thorough. 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Daulmakan said:

Opcode 206 could be a shorter way to do all the above, if all the effects were contained in the spell in question. However, sometimes effects are not cointained in spells but in separate effects (like on hit via item, for example), or in spells with a different name than the one you're protecting from (this happens even in vanilla, there are several versions). It's basically like using a net with a hole, some things are going to get past your filter. Also, some spells might have another effect besides the opcode you're protecting from, and you'd rather block that too, so you add 206 to the list even if you're already using 101.

Hope that clears things up a bit. You can check the mod in my sig for items with immunity to effects, I believe I tried to be thorough. 

Thank you for that explanation, that makes things a little bit clearer. It's just really hard to tell when one effect is relevant to add via opcode 206 notably, because, in that case why bother ?  I could just add a 206 to every items and spells... I know i'm a little bit frustrated that's all. It's a game after all, i just want to make it stabled and harmonized to my gameplay. And for me that means that items and spells do the same things if possible (yeah i know that's a lot of work, but i've been modding that for more than two years now).

It's just that sometimes it seems that there is a 206 for a spell, but not for another one that has the same parameters, and can't explain if that's just the author has forgot to add that specific other spell, or there's something that i don't understand here...

Quote

Let's say you're immune to the Panic effect. It's offputting to see the Panic icon in your character portrait, because you're immune to it and you're not in panic, but there it is. So, you use opcode 169.

Is there a way to know if an  opcode has specific flaws (that needs to be complemented with a 206 or other) ? 

Edited by ptifab
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, ptifab said:

It's just really hard to tell when one effect is relevant to add via opcode 206 notably, because, in that case why bother ?  I could just add a 206 to every items and spells...

As I said, some effects are NOT applied via a spell, and some spells using that very effect (by a mod, for example) you don't know the resource's name, so using 206 won't protect you in these cases. I'm at work now so I can't access DLTCEP to provide a more concrete example, but suppose you use 206 to block the spell Horror, a weapon that used a custom effect to inflict Horror would bypass your opcode 206 barrier. Using 206 instead of 101 IS the more bother and the less optimal choice. You should use 101 and then think to complement it with 206 when appropriate.

13 minutes ago, ptifab said:

It's just that sometimes it seems that there is a 206 for a spell, but not for another one that has the same parameters, and can't explain if that's just the author has forgot to add that specific other spell, or there's something that i don't understand here...

Yes, indeed. Making a game is more often than not, a race again time, and sometimes the quicker way is preferred, even though it's suboptimal (and even buggy in certain scenarios). Also, it is very likely that many people made items, and that they didn't share the same conventions when using the available effects. Plus, the developers certainly didn't have modding in mind.

16 minutes ago, ptifab said:

Is there a way to know if an  opcode has specific flaws (that needs to be complemented with a 206 or other) ? 

I wouldn't think of it as a flaw, but rather a complement, if that was the case in question. And no, there's nothing a priori to do that. You can do it if you'd like to be extra careful, some mods modify spells, adding effects to them, this would be a way to catch that. Of course, if the spell is changed in a totally different way, now you have a conceptual incompatibility in your hands. Modding is teh fun, heh.

Link to comment

Well, thanks for taking the time to answer and give me some more insight about all that. I'll test some things in game, and will follow your advices, that's seems to be the way to go.

Modding is fun, but sometimes it's also a little bit frustrating too. I think i need a drink ->

Link to comment

And sometimes the system just doesn't work properly unless you mod it right. For example, take polymorph immunity - demons and a few other creatures have that. You start with immunity to the polymorph opcode, of course. But that's not enough. Every polymorph spell also comes with an effect that creates an attack for the creature in the magic weapon slot; actually, the polymorph opcode is usually one of the equip effects of that weapon rather than being directly part of the spell. Can you add immunity to that weapon creation effect? No. There are spells that create weapons that aren't polymorphs, and this immunity shouldn't apply there. So instead, you have to add a 206 effect for every polymorph spell in order to make polymorph immunity work properly. And even that isn't enough, as there are some polymorph effects (notably, a wand) that aren't spells. You can externalize those to spells with a mod (that's one of my tweak collection) to patch the system, or you can overhaul it all to a different model where the immunity is handled with a marker effect on the defense and a 318 on the offense (possibly in the EE Fixpack, if that ever gets off the ground). But if you don't do something, you get silliness like being able to wreck Aec'Letec with a wand of polymorphing even though he's supposed to be immune.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, jmerry said:

And even that isn't enough, as there are some polymorph effects (notably, a wand) that aren't spells. You can externalize those to spells with a mod

I’m pretty sure op206 can block ITMs as well as SPLs. 

Link to comment

Not according to the IESDP or the editing options of NI. Opcode 206 doesn't block ITM sources. (Of course, the obvious choice if you're externalizing there is to just use the same resource name for the ITM and SPL so it looks like you're blocking the item, but you still have to externalize to make it work)

Opcode 318 does handle ITM sources directly, but it's generally done from the other end.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, jmerry said:

Not according to the IESDP or the editing options of NI. Opcode 206 doesn't block ITM sources. (Of course, the obvious choice if you're externalizing there is to just use the same resource name for the ITM and SPL so it looks like you're blocking the item, but you still have to externalize to make it work)

Opcode 318 does handle ITM sources directly, but it's generally done from the other end.

I'm vaguely recalling someone saying what subtledoctor just mentioned as well (even before reading his post, I was thinking "didn't someone once upon a time detail a method to do this...?"), but I'm struggling to recall the particulars of how to make it work or whether I ever tested it myself to make sure that it did in fact work, or whether it was or wasn't even an EE-only thing. I can't seem to dig up anything about it after searching for it, so maybe I'm just imagining the whole thing.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...