Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

New Premium Module: Tyrants of the Moonsea! Read More
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

[Known 9769] Farsight/Wizard Eye visibility (STATE_NONDETECTION)

GalactygonGalactygon Member, Developer Posts: 378
edited September 2014 in BGII:EE Bugs (v1.2.2030)
Reposting this as suggested by @Gate70. See original post here:
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/comment/532077/#Comment_532077
NOTE: This might qualify as a feature request rather than a bug report.

Existing behavior1: Creatures under STATE_NONDETECTION are revealed by farsight.

Existing behavior2: Also, wizard eye (.cre with stat 148 EXPLORE set to 1) reveals creatures under STATE_NONDETECTION

Expected behaviors: STATE_NONDETECTION should hide creatures from farsight and wizard eye.

EDIT Suggested method to test this: Cast Non Detection on any NPC or enemy, walk away to make sure they are not in your LOS and then try casting Farsight and/or Wizard Eye and you should be able to see them.

Suggested implementation of opcode 239 (farsight): is blocked by STATE_NONDETECTION by default

Suggested implementation of stat 148 EXPLORE:
- when stat 148=1, then it is not blockable by STATE_NONDETECTION (default behavior)
- when stat 148=2, then it is blockable by STATE_NONDETECTION
(and then set Wizard Eye to use stat 148 EXPLORE = 2)

(possible expansion; is more like a feature request):

Suggested implementation of stat 81 SEEINVISIBLE
- When stat 81 SEEINVISIBLE is set to 1, it is not blockable by STATE_NONDETECTION (default behavior)
- When stat 81 SEEINVISIBLE is set to 2, it is blockable by STATE_NONDETECTION

Post edited by Galactygon on
CrevsDaak

Comments

  • CrevsDaakCrevsDaak Member Posts: 7,141
    I'd say Wizard Eye should be able to see creatures under Non-detection that are in their LOS (this might bring some arguing, but they aren't actually invisible, and Wizard Eye is just like an extra eye of the wizard, and [PC]s are able to see creatures under Non-Detection without any Invisibility effects), but not invisible creatures nor invisible creatures under Non-Detection.

    Suggested implementation of stat 148 EXPLORE:
    - when stat 148=2, then it is blockable by STATE_NONDETECTION (default behavior)
    - when stat 148=1, then it is not blockable by STATE_NONDETECTION
    (and then set Wizard Eye to use stat 148 EXPLORE = 2)

    I think you confused 1 with 2 there & which one is the default behavior.

  • GalactygonGalactygon Member, Developer Posts: 378
    @CrevsDaak

    Thanks for noticing the mixup, I meant not blocking stat 148 EXPLORE by default (as status quo) and an optional setting that allows it to be blockable by STATE_NONDETECTION.

    It's more of a conceptual debate whether Wizard Eye should be blocked by STATE_NONDETECTION. The Non Detection spell description is quite vague and is up to loose interpretation:

    "By casting this spell, the wizard makes the creature or object touched undetectable by divination spells such as Clairaudience, Clairvoyance, Locate Object, ESP, and detect spells including Invisibility Purge. It also prevents location by such magical items as crystal balls and ESP medallions. It does not affect the Know Alignment spell."

    I am moreso on the side of letting Non Detection block a bit more but with an optional blockable setting for stat 148 EXPLORE it would pass the burden of this decision to the modders.

  • CrevsDaakCrevsDaak Member Posts: 7,141
    edited September 2014

    I am moreso on the side of letting Non Detection block a bit more but with an optional blockable setting for stat 148 EXPLORE it would pass the burden of this decision to the modders.

    I have nothing against the implementation of the change to Stat 148, actually, I encourage it.

    yeah, the description in Non-Detection is a bit sucky. When you read it looks like it also protects against spells like True Sight-and-the-like, which it actually doesn't.

  • MathsorcererMathsorcerer Member Posts: 2,728
    CrevsDaak said:


    yeah, the description in Non-Detection is a bit sucky. When you read it looks like it also protects against spells like True Sight-and-the-like, which it actually doesn't.

    That is why I added Protection from Spell Type (205) with a type of 5 for "divination attack". It is funny to watch someone protected this way walk up invisibly to someone who can detect invisibility and watch them cast True Sight over and over but it always fails.

    Of course, it wasn't so funny that one time I forgot to remove Yoshimo's Cloak of Non-Detection before he turned. I had a devil of a time killing him since I couldn't dispel his invisibility....

    CrevsDaak
Sign In or Register to comment.