Community Patch discussion and development thread

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

Oh and btw. If any PW admin would like to install CPP on his server, I am willing to help .

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Pstemarie]

               

"Light" is, as far as I can discern from the reference link below, a descriptor applied to spells that do one (or more) of several things:

1. Cast light (i.e. continual flame, light, etc.)

   
2. Cause blindness via a burst of light or flame (i.e. blinding breath)

   
3. Counter spells with the "Darkness" descriptor (i.e. light)

   
4. Cause damage through the channeling of positive energy

Note: This is not an "official" interpretation of the "Light" descriptor - it is compiled by examining the list of "Light" spells found at http://dndtools.eu/s...criptors/light/

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

"Light" is, as far as I can discern from the reference link below, a descriptor applied to spells that do one (or more) of several things:

1. Cast light (i.e. continual flame, light, etc.)

   
2. Cause blindness via a burst of light or flame (i.e. blinding breath)

   
3. Counter spells with the "Darkness" descriptor (i.e. light)

   
4. Cause damage through the channeling of positive energy

Note: This is not an "official" interpretation of the "Light" descriptor - it is compiled by examining the list of "Light" spells found at http://dndtools.eu/s...criptors/light/

Oukay, can you elaborate that? What you mean with this? '>

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Pstemarie]

               

Oukay, can you elaborate that? What you mean with this? '>

 

Wow, so this is where that post landed. I posted this early this morning in reference to a comment about tweaking spells and some confusion over the "light" descriptor to add some info I had found. I'm not even sure this is the thread I saw the original post in that spawned my comment. 

 

The original post I was commenting on was proposing changes to spells light daylight and sunbeam, changing them from "Fire" spells to "Light" spells. The poster was still uncertain that changing the descriptor was the way to go. Henesua had also responded to the comment, advocating for using the "fire" descriptor.

 

Next question is - since I'm sure I was reading another thread - how'd the comment get here instead??? 

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

Wow, so this is where that post landed. I posted this early this morning in reference to a comment about tweaking spells and some confusion over the "light" descriptor to add some info I had found. I'm not even sure this is the thread I saw the original post in that spawned my comment. 

 

The original post I was commenting on was proposing changes to spells light daylight and sunbeam, changing them from "Fire" spells to "Light" spells. The poster was still uncertain that changing the descriptor was the way to go. Henesua had also responded to the comment, advocating for using the "fire" descriptor.

 

Next question is - since I'm sure I was reading another thread - how'd the comment get here instead??? 

hmm this,

 

I think its in this thread actually just on page 5 or something, long ago.

 

It was within 1.71beta where I changed the damage type of sunburst fom magical to positive to unite both spells. I still think this is a proper damage type (and I changed it in my own module) but the change itself might significally change the spell usefulness (because builder might grant an immmunity to positive damage but not magical so sunburst would no longer do any damage). Since henesua was against that and since there is actually no reason why it have to be changed (since both are irresistable and work just fine in generic environment) I reverted that change and restored original damage type. So sunburst in 1.71 final does still magical damage now.

 

But yes I think that correct damage type should be positive (another choice is an unique damage type, as light spells usually doesn't mention damage type at all)

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Bogdanov89]

               

Super patch! Thank you for making it, shadooow!

With all the changes in the latest cpp beta, would it be now possible to create a feat "strength archery" that makes ranged weapons and projectiles use strength instead of dexterity for attack rolls?

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

Super patch! Thank you for making it, shadooow!

With all the changes in the latest cpp beta, would it be now possible to create a feat "strength archery" that makes ranged weapons and projectiles use strength instead of dexterity for attack rolls?

still no '> but maybe I could provide thAt in future...

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_R_TEAM]

               

Hi,

 

i musst agree - very nice patch - an definit bonus for the NWN community '>

btw - i miss in NWN (besides the 2 points i already said - level > 40 and weapon wear) the ability to display an Map.

Not the actual aera Map - but an picture that show the know world as map.

If you need this ATM - you musst quit NWN and DL the picture from the world website (or it was in the archive with the module) and show it on the desktop .. it would be much nicer, can i show this IN NWN ....

 

Regards

R-TEAM

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Pstemarie]

               

hmm this,

 

I think its in this thread actually just on page 5 or something, long ago.

 

 

Yup, it was loooooooong ago. I've got to remember to look at the page number before I reply to something - talk about resurrecting OLD posts...

 

In any event, I like what you're doing with this - good solid work.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Bogdanov89]

               

still no '> but maybe I could provide thAt in future...

 

Great! '>

 

It would be absolutely amazing if you could implement a "Mighty/Strength Archery" feat!

 

I always liked the "Zen Archery" feat on my Strength Cleric - but a full strength archer would be even more awesome!!!

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

Great! '>

 

It would be absolutely amazing if you could implement a "Mighty/Strength Archery" feat!

 

I always liked the "Zen Archery" feat on my Strength Cleric - but a full strength archer would be even more awesome!!!

All I can do is to provide a way for builders to make this feat. I cannot add any new feat in CPP at all as its not in the scope of this project. But I can provide a way to do that so someone else might make a mod that will add such feat.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

Its been a while, get disrupted by the LoL .

 

So far I have only several fixes to illithid interior fixing visibility issues, polygon gaps and door issues, all that was reported here and some more.

REQUEST: the cell tile group has still some polygon gaps. I wasnt able to fix all of them because the tile is badly designed and the meshes are not connected but overlayed. Much like in beholder tileset which has the same issue. I need help with this one.

 

Was thinking about some more features I might add:

1) dynamic crafting levels, ie. the max level of the spells you can brew/wand-alize could be overriden by a variable on module and even on player (that would allowed to make a custom feat say "Alchemist +1" that would allowed to brew potions of level 4 etc. etc. many possibilities there

 

2) add event handling into my nwn©x_patch plugin. While this is handled by the nwnx_events or nwnx_cool it would be better choice for those who dont want to solve conflicts in these plugins and nwnx_patch (they are not working properly together), also it would allow to use this in singleplayer modules (no client version for nwnx_events yet)

 

3) another improvement into spell engine, rewrite RoundsToSeconds / TurnsToSeconds and HoursToSeconds by a new function which would look like this:

 

"ApplyEffectToObject(oTarget,eEffect,CalculateSpellDuration(nDuration,spell.Time));"

 

not sure about the function and ".Time" names but the point and advantage of this is that it would allowed to dynamically modify the duration of the spells. For example it would allow to make a metamagic like feat that would changed 1round/level into 1turn/level or to add +1round into duration of all spells. All dynamically from the spellhook without need to modify any spell script.

 

4) same with range ie.:

 

    object oTarget = GetFirstObjectInShape(SHAPE_SPHERE, spell.Range, spell.Loc, TRUE, OBJECT_TYPE_CREATURE | OBJECT_TYPE_DOOR | OBJECT_TYPE_PLACEABLE);

 

that would allowed to dynamically change the radius range for spells, for example a meta-magic like feat that would turn RADIUS_SIZE_HUGE into RADIUS_SIZE_COLOSSAL etc.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

Okay, I think I abadon the idea. For interest the spellscripts would then look like this: http://pastebin.com/VURiGY0J (modified color spray spell script)

 

ir. defining spell.Range and spell.Shape at top (and must be above spellsDeclareMajorVariables();

 

and using DuarionToSeconds(int nDuration, object oTarget, int nDurationType) instead of RoundsToSeconds

 

As much positives it has, CPP also aim for readability and easy to (re)use which this kind of feature makes much harder, also while this method should work on all default spellscripts, there is a flaw in the concept and thats if the spell does two different area of effects like a spell that harm everyone in a line but if it hits five targets then it bursts into shere area of effect. In such case this concept would fail to modify one or another aoe. I dont recally anything like this in vanilla spells nor even PRC but its not globally applicable, so I guess that those who would want this should rather replace all GetFirst/NextObjectInShape by custom calls instead - just like PRC does that.

 

btw in my list of unsolved issues there is still this:

 

- nonverbal spells shouldn't have existed at all, all these spells: clarity, ethereal visage, lesser dispel, and ray of enfeeblement should either have verbal component by rules, or they are non-existant in any srd manual - logically, if the caster speaking some words when casting (and this is true for all these spells except lesser dispell) there should be verbal component

Problem is that while these spells provide a chants, they do have correct metamagic set, ie. not possible to use silent metamagic which implies it is intented. Also in NWN2 this has not been fixed (except Lesser Dispel). On the contrary except of the Ray of Enfeeblement, these spells doesn't exists in DnD and are "invented" by Bioware. So its possible they just badly designed it because they didn't have time to study the reasons behind, assumption but we dont get any official clarification anymore.

 

So far, I decided to add verbal component and chants into Lesser Dispel Magic which appeared this way in NWN2. I am not so certain about the rest, specifically when both clarity and ethereal visage are on bard's list who can therefore cast them silenced now (common tactic of silence yourself), so changing this might be treated negatively by those who uses these spells in this way - on the other way, if I change this both spells will be possible to cast with silent metamagic...

 

Not sure if its worth it.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Gruftlord]

               As a non-builder i can not comment on your additions since i lack the indepth knowledge about these topics. Though i think inn theory, what you outline sounds nice.


Something i saw brought up on a pw forum recently was death-attack duration of assassin. Npcs. A party managed to kill the assassin quickly but lacking the appropriate spells and potions had to wait ten minutes for the paralysis of one of their team mates to run out. And it repeated a lot during a dungeon crawl.

Is there an option to add a toggle to shorten the duration for npcs, or better yet make it so the effect wears off quickly only after an encounter is finished?
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

Something i saw brought up on a pw forum recently was death-attack duration of assassin. Npcs. A party managed to kill the assassin quickly but lacking the appropriate spells and potions had to wait ten minutes for the paralysis of one of their team mates to run out. And it repeated a lot during a dungeon crawl.

Is there an option to add a toggle to shorten the duration for npcs, or better yet make it so the effect wears off quickly only after an encounter is finished?

This is already there in 1.72beta but it requires NWN©X_Patch. With nwnx_patch, death attack now triggers 70_s2_dthattk spellscript which defines the duration of the paralyse to 1round/assassin level instead 1minute/assassin level (and where builder can modify this). And IIRC this is further modified by the Effect Duration Scaling nwn feature - which shortens duration based on game difficulty (and in CPP this can be used to toggle 3-rounds duration).

 

but it needs the nwnx_patch from 1.72beta to work.

 

Maybe alternatively, PWs could solve that differently using (pseudo)heartbeat on a PC which would loop all effects and remove those whose creator is not valid (but this solution has one side effect, sometimes desired sometimes not) - not a solution that CPP can use though.