Defensive Spin and Free Action

JuliusBorisov

I wonder, how does the Defensive Spin abilitity of blade (bard kit) work with the ring of Free Action in BG:EE? Can you move when this ability is activated and you wear the ring (or cast a spell)?

And one more thing: the ring of Free Action and the Boots of Speed. How do they work together in BG:EE?

Tanthalas

The Ring of Free Action will no longer allow you move when Defensive Spin is active.

Not really sure what happens with Haste and the Ring of Free Action, but I think that exploit wasn't easy to fix.

Evinfuilt

Sad Blade is sad to hear.. I loved mowing down everyone with a solo untouchable bard. Now I have to wait for them to walk into my swirling blades of death.

Miloch

@Tanthalas et al.
They should really just implement this in all its strict canon correctness:
http://www.shsforums.net/files/file/888-pnp-free-action-v2/

JuliusBorisov

@Miloch
Well, they had to decide whether that was an exploit or not. While they decided to restrict the movement for the blade during the defensive spin, it means disapproval of pnp-free-action.

moody_mage

@Miloch - that looks great. It always grated on me that Free Action would penalise your positive movement increases when it is designed to prevent you being impeded.

Tanthalas

@Miloch

Technically, I think BGEE follows everything in there (I'm pretty sure Free Action isn't disabling Haste despite the description) except being able to be Slowed and Hasted at the same time.

Not sure if you're disagreeing with Free Action not letting you move while using Defensive Spin. My logic for this choice is that getting stuck in place while performing defensive spin isn't a magical effect, but a conscious decision of the Blade to improve his defenses.

moody_mage

@Tanthalas
I think your interpretation of why a Defensive Spin should be locked in place is plausible. The issue is just how the engine enforces this. I assume it does a quick and dirty magical hold thing on you which in turn can be bypassed by free action. This was unintended by the Devs I'm sure.

Miloch

As I understand it (from a technical perspective), the free action effect negates any negative movement modifier; spcl522.spl (defensive spin) is just one of many spells that applies such a modifier.

Edit: the issue was that in the unmodded game, free action also negated any *positive* movement modifier, which is what my mod intended to fix (and if the devs already incorporated it, great, they could've told me at least though :P).

Tanthalas

@Miloch

I can't guarantee those effects are all there. I'm almost positive that its still possible to have Free Action and haste from Boots of Speed since it was a mess to prevent that, but its possible that the Haste spell doesn't work.

Miloch

Boots of Speed have a haste modifier instead of a movement modifier now, as does the Haste spell in vanilla. But there were a number of other issues with free action and movement modifiers, so if that's (basically) all they changed, it's a quick hack rather than a total solution.

AndreaColombo

@Miloch - If the devs made BG:EE behave in the way your mod does, it was certainly not an intentional rip-off (i.e. they made it so on their own without grabbing or copying your code). They would always ask modders permission to use their work, and a signature on a document that clearly states said permission. If BG:EE does not behave like that and you would like it to, try PMming Cameron and Trent about your mod and see if and how it can be implemented (being the rules lawyer I am, I would be totally in favor of that)

CamDawg

Miloch's mod is not included. Free action follows Fixpack conventions.

Whether the devs intended for free action to preclude positive effects is unclear. The spell description is neutral, whereas the ring of free action's description explicitly states that haste is prevented.

CamDawg

I should clarify--the BG2 RoFA states that haste is prevented. The BG RoFA is contradictory--it states that beneficial effects such as speed increases from the boots of speed are prevented, but that haste is not.

bob_veng

i think that haste shouldn't be prevented and that the BG version should be implemented.
IWD also works like that (along with a proper description of ring of freedom that mentions boots of speed and doesn't mention haste), so that might clarify things a bit.
And of course, boots of speed shouldn't give haste in BG:EE because it makes no sense really.

Nuin

Actually, it makes sense - you can still be Hasted, you simply do not gain the benefits of the Haste spell because the RoFA suppresses these effects. Removing the RoFA would bring you back the benefits of Haste, assuming the duration hasn't expired yet. That would make it consistent with my thoughts on Offensive Spin in the other thread and supports my example on how things seem to work in the game (ie, the Full Plate Mail +3 and Barkskin example). I guess actually implementing it was the tricky part.

I believe that Defensive Spin should trump RoFA, which is why Defensive Spin's "immobilized" effect should also trump RoFA's "free movement" effect. Sure RoFA can still work with Defensive Spin (ie, you can't be slowed/held while using Defensive Spin if you have RoFA) but you should still be immobilized. Innates should trump friendly spell/item effects, because when it all comes down to it a person can try to resist (or "make a save against") even friendly spell/item effects, unless we're talking about a particularly powerful spell/item effect. In order to perform Defensive Spin, the Blade must stand still. That is a *requirement*. So movement = no Defensive Spin.

Miloch

CamDawg said:

Whether the devs intended for free action to preclude positive effects is unclear. The spell description is neutral, whereas the ring of free action's description explicitly states that haste is prevented.

From the looks of it, I would gather that they tacked this on to the description at the last minute, after realising "whoops, we can't get it to work like we want it to" [i.e. as in PnP]. Also, the BG1 spell Free Action (sppr403.spl) merely says "While under the effects of this spell, the recipient becomes immune to anything that limits his movement." It would be a bit asinine if the spell itself limited the movement of, say, someone wearing boots of speed. And if that's still the case in BG:EE, looks like they need to do more work on descriptions, because it's pretty much the same

Abel

From the description @Miloch provided it seems only negative effects on movement were to be prevented. Otherwise the description would state: « anything that affects his movement » or something alike. To limit is like to hinder, to prevent. To increase one's movement is rather to improve it, to make it easier.

CamDawg

Miloch said:

From the looks of it, I would gather that they tacked this on to the description at the last minute, after realising "whoops, we can't get it to work like we want it to" [i.e. as in PnP]. Also, the BG1 spell Free Action (sppr403.spl) merely says "While under the effects of this spell, the recipient becomes immune to anything that limits his movement." It would be a bit asinine if the spell itself limited the movement of, say, someone wearing boots of speed. And if that's still the case in BG:EE, looks like they need to do more work on descriptions, because it's pretty much the same

BG already has multiple, identical movement change opcodes, so getting it to ignore positive bonuses would have been trivial.

Free action is, in general, a huge mess. It's one of the few rules I asked Gaider about since it was so inconsistent throughout BG2.

CrevsDaak

Defensive Spin + re-equiping Amulet of Cheetah Speed gives you 2 to movement rate, so you'll move VERY slowly, and using the Thief HLA Greater Evasion does the same (I was only trying to get Greater Action to Haer'Dalis, but sometimes, without light you confuse a F3 with F2 :P, after Defensive Spin, I casted Greater Evasion, uncaring, and laughed MINUTES after seeing his SOOOO slow movement rate).