Community Patch discussion and development thread

[Legacy_Bogdanov89]

               

Good morning (or good evening) ShadoOoW '>

 

Great news that the deadly Continuous Flame spell is going to be under control!

 

 

On a serious note, did you perhaps decide about the "all items/feats merging for all shapes/polymorphs/forms"?

 

It would probably be better off as a switch for the reasons other people mentioned earlier in the thread - but i am really looking forward to switching that ON for my games!

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

On a serious note, did you perhaps decide about the "all items/feats merging for all shapes/polymorphs/forms"?

 

It would probably be better off as a switch for the reasons other people mentioned earlier in the thread - but i am really looking forward to switching that ON for my games!

Yes, I am going to include this as a module switch inside PC Widget Tool. To add this doesn't harm anything and while players could get this externally and put this into override - that way if anything changed in polymorph.2da in future CPP versions, the version they added into override would overwrote that.

 

Also, when trying this I added also a new feature (which is automatical) to merge weapon item properties onto skin if weapon is allowed to merge. This issue raised when I allowed to merge everything since most shapes are unarmed. While the combat abilities wont be of course functional, it will merge every defensive properties from the weapon such as ability bonuses, bonus feats, spell slots etc. - simply the properties that are expected on a magic staff for example.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Bogdanov89]

               

Okay, how about an enhancement on a weapon (greatsword +5, for example)?

Would that +5 work in shape/polymoprh even if your current form is unarmed?

 

I do not understand what the phrase "merge onto skin if weapon is allowed to merge" means.

 

First, what does merging with the skin mean?

 

Second, which weapons are allowed to merge? I thought all weapons would be able to merge?

 

I do not fully understand the shapeshift/polymorph mechanics, but in your future update of the CPP (with the "all merge" switch on) how would a druid/shifter (or wizard) increase his damage/attack and damage-reduction penetration while in a form that is "unarmed"?

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

Okay, how about an enhancement on a weapon (greatsword +5, for example)?

Would that +5 work in shape/polymoprh even if your current form is unarmed?

 

I do not understand what the phrase "merge onto skin if weapon is allowed to merge".

 

First, what does merging with the skin mean?

 

Second, which weapons are allowed to merge? I thought all weapons would be able to merge?

 

I do not fully understand the shapeshift/polymorph mechanics, but in your future update of the CPP (with the "all merge" switch on) how would a druid/shifter (or wizard) increase his damage/attack and damage-reduction penetration while in a form that is "unarmed"?

no

 

Okay. By default every shape has a creature skin that you receive. This is just like an armor but its not visible to player, but it might have some properties such as elemental immunities. And the merging process is copying the normal item properties onto this skin. Weapon is however different, weapon item properties are merged onto new shape weapon which unarmed shapes doesnt have so it fails. There is where I applied my adjustion - if the shape doesnt possess weapon, then weapon is merged onto skin just as any other items.

 

Not sure what you mean, by default the weapon is allowed to merge only on a shapes that has a new weapon (minotaur, cobold, drow... but not tenser (tenser is magical polymorph that is not that advanced as druids so it shouldnt merge anything)). So the issue above doesnt happen. Now, with the switch I am going to include, weapon will be allowed to merge even for shapes without weapon.

Or if you ask on what type of weapon etc. its actually any object you are holding in right hand except that if its ranged weapon then it will be allowed to merge only if new weapon from shape is also ranged (which is none by default so this fails with ranged weapons - standard feature and intent). Off-hand weapon is never merged and CPP didnt changed this.

 

Well, the damage reduction is the part which is very weird concepted on polymorph. The unarmed shapes aren't actually unarmed, they possess a creature weapon(s) - invisible weapons which might have some properties such as damage. But creature weapons do not function in regards to damage reduction as their normal counterparts. Instead the creature (or sometimes called natural) weapon's penetration ability is determined by the character's own damage reduction.

 

In other words. You are druid without any items or buffs and you polymorph into bear - your attacks are treated as +0. Now, you cast a stoneskin spell on yourself and repolymorph into bear - suddently your attacks are treated as +5!!! This is especially weird with Epic Warding and mages' polymorphs (its one of the tricks how to kill demilich btw). To increase damage, only spell buffs and itemproperties adding strength will help. And I don't plan to allow gloves/weapon to merge onto creature weapons - that would need a new switch because this could bring some balance issues - the damage of the unarmed shapes really aint that bad - as long as you haver a damage reduction on your gear or as buff so your attacks penetrate enemies' damage reduction.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

BTW, White Tiger posted me a shifter system he is using to me to find out if CPP can replace it. Thought I share this observation to everyone following this thread.

 

Its named Improved Shifter and Druid Wildshape by Iznoghoud

 

it has several features, will dismantle all:

 

1. fix for damage calculation in wyrmling breaths (outdated, 1.69 fixed that, the script in there actually has its own issue as it doesnt apply "versus" part for the save)

2. fix for damage calculation in azer stream ability (fixed in 1.70)

3. stacking merged ability bonuses, skill bonuses, saving throw bonuses, damage immunity bonuses and penalties (first added in 1.71, skills and saving throwns added recently in 1.72beta, damage immunity missing in CPP - didnt know about this if this doesnt really stack I will add this in next 1.72beta)

Though, got to say that CPP does that in better fashion - this system adds everything as a effect together with polymorph so player see all those effects in effect list - CPP doest this invisibly.

4. stacking AC bonuses, that is every AC bonus applies with its original type, this is normally transfered all to deflection so only highest applies (CPP doesn't offer this feature)

5. merging offensive weapon (or gloves) properties onto creature weapons, disabled by default toggleable (CPP doesn't offer this feature)

6. merging PC skin properties into polymorph (CPP doesn't have this feature but I will add this into next 1.72beta, very nice idea)

7. remerging item properties after character is saved. - this is very bad, cannot recommend, the way it works it needs builder to incorporate code into every script using ExportSingleCharacter function, then it reapply the polymorph completely = cancel all current actions, cast polymorph spell again (even if player no longer has it), reinitiate attack action. Very very bad, for example, player can (unintentionally cancel this).The new polymorph engine offers this feature, is partially independant on module scripting (works as long as module uses default module event scripts), automatic and doesn't recast polymorph (which prolongs the duration). Except that it actually solves the prolonged duration and works also anytime a player initiate saving character on his own (where this package does nothing).

8. A message is given to PC as which items merged (CPP doesn't offer this feature).

9. Some ranged weapon support for custom polymorph. Haven't tried to make such polymorph so I don't know what issues they suffer. Will look into that and it its real I add it into CPP.

 

BTW this system is a it outdated as it doesn't have a horse mount check to disallow polymorphing - which is the reason that White Tiger contacted me in first place - resulted in issues with "permanent horse".

 

Anyway, overally this system is nice and was probably the top back then, but the new polymorph engine I made outshines this even without the extra merging features. The additional CPP polymorph features:

- better re-merging handling

- fixing prolonged duration after repolymorph

- fixing temp HP stacking and replenish

- fixes losing spell slots from ability bonuses

- fixes the casting in polymorph exploit

- dying after unpolymorph (but this is something this system solves - couldnt verify but probably yes)

- OnPolymorph event for builders

 

Conclusion: as long as you don't want to merge weapon properties into unarmed shapes and don't want to stack AC, you are better using new polymorph system from 1.72beta.

If you do need these features, well take this. Or convince someone to modify CPP polymorphing and add these features for you so you can have the best from both worlds.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Gruftlord]

               I do think 4 and 5 are really nice options. The non propper merging/stacking of ac is one of the most annoying things with shifters. (Ac is still way too high because of monk exploit, but that is a separate question)


I am not sure immunities stack at all when unpolymorphed, so i do not know if it is needed for polymorph.


PC skin is sometimes used for subrace systems to apply racial features. It would be illogical to have them merge into other shapes (because they include a race change). Something to keep in mind.


Creature weapon damage penetration being linked to creatures own damage resistance: that one sounds like a bug to me. Or maybe it was something done on purpose because they didn't want to or couldn't merge weapon features. Not sure about it.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

I do think 4 and 5 are really nice options. The non propper merging/stacking of ac is one of the most annoying things with shifters. (Ac is still way too high because of monk exploit, but that is a separate question)

I didnt included these because I personally feel they are not needed and are overpowered. AC sucks, but if you add one level of monk you are at 50 with cobold, 70 with rakshasa and 85 with dragon. If you get even shield ac on top of that... But whatever you or I think about monk ac in polymorph this is something a CPP mustnt touch. Any kind of monk ac decrease in polymorph would seriously affected already existing characters and their gameplay.

 

Weapon properties onto creature weapons are similar case, this is even something I cannot justify personally - how would such flame fangs look like? '> enhancement is one thing but elemental bonuses on claws/bite weapon other.

 

As for PC skin. Yes custom subrace bonuses are what I though of, though I though its actually logical to add them to polymorph. But you are right its nonsense the more I think about it the more I realize this.

 

Well its very weird but its correct per the DnD manual. Whether spell buffs should also count towards this is a question but otherwise speaking of the items - the main reason might be to avoid making dozens of weapon version 1d6 +1 / +2 /+3 / +4 when it can inherit the penetration from the damage reduction on skin. Otherwise they are allowed to have the enhancement bonus and other properties and it is possible to merge them, and to change this behavior is not possible without NWNX at all. The damage reduction buffs will always work this way.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MannyJabrielle]

               

Non direct CPP content edited as per request. 

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MannyJabrielle]

               

Yea, one player that was caught duping items on a PW I used to play used the same excuse. Really not good one '> .

Really not the same thing '>  Selling items and duping them just are not in the same category, even if the CF spell was used in the process of duping somehow.


 

 

 

Got possible solution btw. It is easy to distinguish a multiplayer environment in script so I can reduce the cost only in multiplayer environment.

That sounds brilliant.  How's that work?

 

 

And I found my notes on the other item I considered as a switch candidate.  It was the curse song with invis/GS change.  Reason I considered it was in tabletop, I don't think bard songs break invisibility, or improved invis (at least imp.invis...), but I can't find my DnD books at the moment.  But then again, NWN doesn't implement imp.invis quite like tabletop anyway, so probbaly not worth considering whatsoever.

 

And another couple documentation questions...

 

On the notes on changes to fear aura and other misc. fear effects, says that the effects scale.  What does that mean exactly, those lines in the documentation could probably be clarified a bit.

 

The gt.neverwinter.cz version of the readme.... "Artist feat adds a +2 bonus to the persuade skill as well. Also, prerequisities now list need for a perform skill."  What does that mean about prerequisite for a perform skill?  In-game, it says "perform skill" under the pre-reqs, BUT, it's still selectable with 0 perform skill.


If it's supposed to actually check for perform skill, that might be a bit odd.  It would be the only +2 skill type feat with a requirement.  All the other level 1 only feats with +2 don't have a skill requirement, nor does the stealthy feat (+2 hide/ms).  Plus, making perform a requirement would block non-bard PCs who take artist for the +2 spot bonus.

 

Had another question on UMD style perform check for musical instruments.  Is the switch either one of the possibilities, or could both be set if a builder wanted to really make bards have a rough time?  I haven't quite had time to build a test module with the switches on to test it out.

 

And a polymorph related question... "cured from horse include while retaining the shape shifting horse check"  What does this one mean exactly?  Could be cleared up a bit.

 

And lastly.... Nearly done with the documentation re-write.  You want it in txt form first to look it over before I put it into the PDF format as well, or would you be able to edit PDFs for any possible errors I made in the text?  Not much as changed really, mostly just re-wording of some parts to make it a bit clearer to the average reader, will be adding screenshots as I take them.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

 

That sounds brilliant.  How's that work?

GetPCCDKey returns FALSE is SP - so if that happens I will reduce the cost of the item - making itemproperty temporary cannot be used globally since it could be easily removed as part of the "remove all temp properties" script on PW/SP module.

 

 

And I found my notes on the other item I considered as a switch candidate.  It was the curse song with invis/GS change.  Reason I considered it was in tabletop, I don't think bard songs break invisibility, or improved invis (at least imp.invis...), but I can't find my DnD books at the moment.  But then again, NWN doesn't implement imp.invis quite like tabletop anyway, so probbaly not worth considering whatsoever.

Well but  you know no spell in DnD breaks improved invisibility. And this is actually possible to implement in NWN - it has real improved invisibility that can be turned on, the current improved invisibility is a workaround as the real one was extremely powerful and AI couldnt react on it. The NWN ii is a combination of the normal ii + 50% concealment. And this normal invisibility is lost anytime you do something harmful to anyone - is curse song harmful? no odubt about that.

 

On the notes on changes to fear aura and other misc. fear effects, says that the effects scale.  What does that mean exactly, those lines in the documentation could probably be clarified a bit.

Clarification: NWN has an effect and duration scaling system. This is a script that reduces duration depending on a game difficulty and swap effects for less harmful ones. This triggers only if a PC is a target of such spell by default. This feature however wasnt brought into every spells - which I correctted. Also the feature had several issues which I fixed, see here (from 170scriptfixes.txt - i think this is not online anymore unfortunately)

GetScaledDuration - removed check if duration is higher than 3, reason is that npc
with 3caster levels had longer spells than npc with 4caster levels
values in parenthesis means how it was before this change
duration / easy / very easy / normal
1        / 1 (1)/ 1 (1)     / 1 (1)
2        / 1 (2)/ 2 (2)     / 1 (2)
3        / 1 (3)/ 3 (3)     / 1 (3)
4        / 1 (1)/ 1 (1)     / 2 (2)
5        / 1 (1)/ 1 (1)     / 2 (2)
6        / 1 (1)/ 1 (1)     / 3 (3)
7        / 1 (1)/ 1 (1)     / 3 (3)
8        / 2 (2)/ 2 (2)     / 4 (4)
9        / 2 (2)/ 2 (2)     / 4 (4)

GetScaledEffect - added immunity check for fear effect, previously at low
difficulty, fear/mind immune PC that should been struck with fear was struct with
attack penalty which bypassed the immunity

In 1.71 I fixed the substitue for fear effect which was coded incorrectly (negative value in the argument resulte in invalid effect) and added a new feature to overwrite the default duration scaling by 3 rounds based on a module switch (which I do personally use every time btw).

 

 

The gt.neverwinter.cz version of the readme.... "Artist feat adds a +2 bonus to the persuade skill as well. Also, prerequisities now list need for a perform skill."  What does that mean about prerequisite for a perform skill?  In-game, it says "perform skill" under the pre-reqs, BUT, it's still selectable with 0 perform skill.

I took this info and exact wording from NWNWiki: http://nwn.wikia.com/wiki/Artist . Yes 0 rank is enough, but nonbards doesnt  possess any rank because this skill is by default available only to bards.

 

Had another question on UMD style perform check for musical instruments.  Is the switch either one of the possibilities, or could both be set if a builder wanted to really make bards have a rough time?  I haven't quite had time to build a test module with the switches on to test it out.

Only one of the option can be active at the same time. Just a note - I wouldnt used the perform check without 3.5 perform skill change that makes this skill available to everyone - ie. no longer needs training. Because normally anyone other than bard can use it via UMD. But once you make such change this feature fits perfecty. The second choice is even worse and I included it only because there is an vanilla item that is dependant on a bard song feature (Lich lyrics). Anyway - it would be possible to rework this to require both, I understand that this would be a nice feature for some epic musical instruments. Will do.

 

 

And a polymorph related question... "cured from horse include while retaining the shape shifting horse check"  What does this one mean exactly?  Could be cleared up a bit.

Clarification: Several 1.69 scripts has been affected and compiled with the x3_inc_skin library. Every spell that was recompiled with this library now creates a PC Skin on a caster or target and this skin then remains in loot. This is something that The Krit fixed, but I took different route to do that and I rewrote the mount check in a way it no longer needs a x3_inc_horse include which I therefore removed from the offended scripts to make it more clean. But basically, from a generic user this line means the only thing: fixed PC Skin issues.

 

 

And lastly.... Nearly done with the documentation re-write.  You want it in txt form first to look it over before I put it into the PDF format as well, or would you be able to edit PDFs for any possible errors I made in the text?  Not much as changed really, mostly just re-wording of some parts to make it a bit clearer to the average reader, will be adding screenshots as I take them.

txt would be nice

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Bogdanov89]

               

Massive text erased (irrelevant to CPP), as requested by ShadoOow.

 

ShadoOow, do you perhaps know how long will the beta of 1.72 last?

Are you guessing a few weeks or maybe even months?

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

Jesus, dont you both want to go back to your posts and edit all this personal stuff? I think that one is certain - nobody there had in intention to pursue or persecute players who are doing whatever others might consider cheating in their own SP gameplay. You are getting this only worse with this post Bogdanov.

 

Now that that ugly business is done with...

 

ShadoOow, do you perhaps know how long will the beta of 1.72 last?

Are you guessing a few weeks or maybe even months?

Well I decided that there will be a 1.72 only a week ago. I don't think there are many issues that would need to fix anymore even the hardcoded ones, but I do not intent to do that anytime soon.

 

1) To release a new patch version every two month is not desired. Peoples wants a stability and current development might include things that shouldn't be there and if thats going to be raised I can now remove them while if I released it as a "final" it would be most problematic. Furthermore, builders do not want to remake their spellscripts every 2 months etc., at least I think they don't. While thats not even required, every builder has to at least study the new changes and features and decide whether to turn them on/off or remake. There are few PWs which use 1.71 - decision is up to them .- if they want the new features ASAP, a shorter development cycle can be done.

 

2) This hasn't been tested yet. What I am especially careful about is the quality of my work and ensuring it will be compatible backwards (with 1.69) and also forwards (with custom content). And ensuring there are no new bugs and issues. I think I managed to do that with 1.71 nicely, while I was the only tester (was testing this in PW environment on a PW Arkhalia). At this moment only three issues raised, from that 1 purely visual, second was a duplicate check in script without affection a functionality and third was the issue with healers' kits the MannyJabrielle found (extremely rare issue to say). Current 1.72 beta needs extensive testing especially of all polymorph fixes and features. I am no longer in admin position on Arkhalia PW and the new managment decided they do not need any new CPP (still running on one of the betas actually all the development on module stopped). So I cannot test any of these - furthermore they are running linux anyway and the latest NWNX_Patch is available only for windows so far (and I have no control over linux version, when it will be done and if it will be done at all).

 

3) While there is almost nothing to fix anymore, there is another step that CPP can do if this will be desired and that is to create a better framwork for (starting) builders. To include various scripting system such as advanced walk waypoints etc. I do personally use CPP exactly in this way as a framework that has many of I need in my building attempts, so I would personally like to do that. But the ultimate decisions have a builders building with CPP. If this direction will be approved there is a lot of what can be added into 1.72.

 

Note, while I do discouraging builders from using 1.72, this applies rather to the NWNX_Patch which is optional. This is least tested thing because I wasn't able to test it in multiplayer with other players where I worry how it will behave. The rest of the 1.72 - the scripting improvements such as new polymorph is safe to use. There ,might be little bugs but if anything will be found I will provide fix in very short time.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Bogdanov89]

               

I definitely agree on the quality over speed approach, the 1.71+Addons is great and the 1.72 has a lot of awesome changes - but none of them are urgent.

 

You definitely wrote a large reply - i was merely asking because my younger brother dislikes "betas", and he prefers to wait for 1.72 final to play it...

While i would love to play right now with all the sweet 1.72 changes xD

 

 

While the discussion between me and MannyJabrielle is no longer active, i am not sure what did you mean by your first paragraph:

 

I did not go back and edit any of my posts - what little editing i did after posting were typo errors and similar.

Did you mean we should go back and erase our posts, or at least replace all of the text with something else?

 

I also had absolutely no intention of insulting, pursuing or persecuting anyone - as i have written in my 2nd post, "I really had no ill will towards any players".

Honestly i really do not care what people do on their PW or in their single player campaigns... i have nothing against using cheats or whatever else fancies the player.

 

I do not understand what am i getting worse with this post?

The discussion me and MannyJabrielle had is over... he is free to post whatever he wants, but i will not be responding to his shenanigans.

 

Again, sorry if our squabble annoyed you

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

Did you mean we should go back and erase our posts, or at least replace all of the text with something else?

yes thats what i mean, both of you

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Bogdanov89]

               

yes thats what i mean, both of you

 

I edited out both of my replies to MannyJabrielle, as you have asked of us.

 

I just remembered something weird i saw in Chapter/Act 3 and 4 of original NWN campaign.

 

It happened a couple of times when my wizard casted either a necromancy or an enchantment (dominate) spell on an enemy.

 

My combat log said something like:

Monster rolls a will-save (or fort save) DC of 32 while I roll a DC of 34 - my spell failed!

 

I am no math wizard, but 34 is higher than 32... and unless i am missing something fairly obvious, my spell should not have failed?

 

I checked and the enemy had no immunities to anything - i even casted the big Disjunction spell against the enemy before my necromancy (or enchantment) spell!

 

Would it help if i got a screen shot or a save game of that happening?

Because it happened a few times in acts 3 and 4, and once it almost got me killed '>