[BUG] Free Action (potion/spell/item) + Speed (potion/spell)

sunset00

Tested BG2EE /v1.2.2030 (and can be applied to BG1EE v1.2).
Well.. much easier to explain than http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/26146/bug-bard-blades-defensive-spins-free-action-potion-spell-ring?new=1 . Easier to observe too..

Observed behaviour:
1. You use your FA potion/spell/item(equiped) FIRST.. you launch your Speed boost (potion/spell)... you loose/waste your Speed Boost (potion/spell)... (no speed effects added, FA prioritory, only FA icon on portrait - SP bypassed by FA effect first : ok).
2. You launch your Speed boost (potion/spell) FIRST.. you launch FA potion/spell/item(equiped)... eveything is working perfectly together.. (FA+SP icons on portrait ok) ...

Expected behaviour:
Well.. seems obvious.. 2. is not right/logical if 1. is considered 'normal' (or the reverse)... one or the other..


Easy exemple to get it :
Keldorn armor with Free Action (FA).
1. You let Keldorn armor on him, launch a spell haste(group)/imp.haste(he only) or make him drink a speed potion : potion/spells are waisted. (similar to http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/26146/bug-bard-blades-defensive-spins-free-action-potion-spell-ring?new=1 1. ).
2. You remove Keldorn armor FIRST.. launch a spell haste/imp.haste or make him drink a speed potion .. put back his armor.. you got both effects, SP+FA ok.. (same with the FA ring of course).
..of course, in combat, you can't remove armors (case 1.)..so you will loose everytime SP (if you had forgotten that) .. ^

Fardragon

Actually, 1. is correct behaviour, 2. is a known bug/exploit. Free Action is supposed to nullify any speed boost effect.

Cuv

FA/Speed boost has been fixed. What you are describing is, indeed, an exploit and workaround for that fix. If you want to speed boost Keldorn legally, give him different armour. Or, if you really want to workaround the fix, do what you described. This is not an issue.

sunset00

@Fardragon @Cuv
Thx for your answers. Yes, i thought too 1. was correct; seems at least logical with the BG2EE Free Action Ring description ("The wearer is immune to everything, magical and otherwise, that affects mobility in any way. This includes haste and slow spells."); the ring FA do affect speed and slow, well anything affecting movement so; 1. correct then. A thing that was not as clear in the usual FA priest spell descriptions etc too (only mentionning the benefices to free from anti-mvt spells..). Neither was it on the FA potion descriptions. As for 2. .. yes, what i imagined too then; a kind of exploit / should not be normal too. K.. thx for the clarification on that point.

.. in the meantimes, i started to fool around a little with NI/DLTCEP.. seems VERY easy to fix such things (in a way or another, according to tastes..total cumulation..OR one excluding for good the other once launched first..) ... here, could be very easy to add the command line to the armor/potions/spells..avoiding that 2. exploit ('remove haste' command line to add, if there is a previous haste active..etc)..if you want to be strictly legit even on that. Or the reverse; totally removing the incompatibility FA+speed later (apart only for the ring of course..). (Right now, as such, even if 2. , _that_ FA is really a pain.._that_ FA becomes kinda an indirect plague in itself, especially the potions with that 2h duration^..but as such, that is apparently the goal so^)...


Now.. the problem is more complex with The Bard Blade spins... it seems FA do work perfectly with Offensive Spins (do NOT block the +hit/dam and +ATT..but do remove the speed boost - EXCEPT if you launch your OS before the FA, then you similarily keep again your mvt boost..but the rest is perfectly ok.. AND of course, at least you don't waste like that the Offensive Spin available stock left, without warning..tiny number very precious for a BLade^).
Things are much less clear with Defensive Spins (DS) though... here, real problems :
- FA do avoid DS AND waste them even...-1 number left, no warnings..not normal.
... and we get also exactly the same 'exploit' (not right) ; if you launch DS first, you can do FA.. dumb too.
I already found a fix with NI/DLTCEP for that.. but would be good you do it yourself too.. not normal to waste the precious DS charges to get no effects at all too (and no warnings^) ; at minimum, just block the DS, but no charges wastes. ^
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/26146/bug-bard-blades-defensive-spins-free-action-potion-spell-ring?new=1

(nota; a similar thing happens with Speed/Offensive Spins (OS) too..but with Haste that time..if you launch Hastes _first_..you waste similarily your precious OS numbers..with no warning too..similarily, you should at least keep the +hit/max.dam too, even if not, of course, not the haste additional +ATT (aka OS not wasted, just not improved by Haste..).. on the other hand, if you similarily drink the haste potions first, you can do your OS and cumulate both; not normal too..happily, that apparently could be fixed that with DLTCEP too, if wanted..just a question of fine-tuning the interactions..at least not to waste the OS/DS charges (even if keeping the most important known thing from the rules; no cumulative +ATT from haste when both active..haste wasted when both together..but at least could go on when OS finish after only 4 rounds.._that_ would be perfectly ok imo..)..but would be good to have an official clarification on that too..if not simply a fix not to prevent the waste of the OS/DS charges^).

I could not 'so simply' find (so far) a way to remove the movement lock on DS with FA though... as it was allowed in the first BGs..that one would be logical too, even if just only the 'abnormal' movement boosts/locks are concerned/erased with FA (as that was too in the original BGs, that one).. any idea on that too, how to remove that, fix that (for DS lock to be removed with FA) ? ..

Cuv

Yes, seeing how to fix something in DLTCEP is only part of the solution. The problem we face is that fixing one thing often causes problems with something else. Your other bug report link sounds like it needs to be looked at carefully... as a player too, I hate wasting spells or abilities also

sunset00

@Cuv Thx a lot Cuv.. yes, i did not totally dream so
I will going on on my part to see if i can do a 'personal fix' (personal satisfying but all the same legit compromise on all that) with DLTCEP..especially the 'no waste' part, yes^..that was much less obscure/hard than i thought initially (DLTCEP coupled with EEKepper to quickly identify the involved ressources spells/potions/items/abilities/etc names!)..even kinda funny too;a lot of intricated effects here it seems, but could be rationally polished imo..just need to be.. very careful/precise in the comandline priorities, but should be possible imo),.. i think i found how to correct like that some of the troubles observed..and i begin to imagine a kind of personal 'finetuning' allowing the haste/FA effects to not be totally exclusive on the others (aka during their effects, both icons allowed..just not all the effects cumulated -some removed when the other is always activated -ex; FA effects priority, Speed/OS not using hastes when activated -totally according to the rules so- especially true /ring/spells/potions variating durations..no need to totally waste the spells/OS/DS..; i mean an OS able to coexist with a Haste..but with no haste boost at all of course..but allowing the haste effects to be (re)ativated (alone now) again when the OS disappear after 4 rounds..nothing wasted like that..and perfectly legit too/ )..just not wasting OS/DS/etc at the same time (just removing the effects of the ones or the others when necessary so). But of course a more global fix would be better..especially when there are sometimes no possible simple tricks like that with DLTCEP (or that i did not find so far), for exemple with the DS movement lock/unlock with FA, the MAgic Flutes durations before disappearance (should be 24h..but where to change that:?^), the UI icons not disabled when should be (items no more available..but the central UI did not register that^), etc..
Anyway, thx for the answer.
I thought i just add to try to 'expose'/notify that at least. /

later