nwnx_funcs for windows

[Skywing]

[Baaleos]

Im not sure, but didnt bioware specifically make it impossible for player characters to have 'special' abilities (such as monster abilities)

Perhaps the poster who referred to special abilities meant something different, in which case this can be ignored.


Anyhow...

The new addition, AddVFXForPC method thingi...

Does this add a visual effect, that is only visible to certain players from their perspective?


Eg - Would it be possible to apply a red glow to player 1, which is only visible from player 2's perspective?

If so, it gives alot of ideas regarding perception based powers. Detect Evil etc,

Or even feral abilities such as werewolf powers or vampire hunting at night.

[MaxRock]

[Baaleos]

I know bioware made it so that special abilities were no longer stored via bic files. Eg -Impossible to manipulate special abilities via letoscript.

This would suggest that storage of the special abilities is done outside of the bic files.

While the 'granting' of special abilities may be possible via nwnx, it may not be persistant between server instances, meaning it may require database or some sort of persistence engine, to re-add abilities on login for clients.

the
NWNXFuncs_ApplyVisualEffectForPC(object oPC, int nVFX, vector vPos)

Method,
Is it at all possible to make this work for duration effects or is it utterly impossible? If so, will it work on objects as targets? Eg - Apply the Effect (RED GLOW) to all EVIL creatures on the map, but only visible to oPC who has the Detect Evil Perk.

At the minute, it works via vector, which prevents locking on to an object as a target - eg - Locks onto x,y,z opposed to characters, which prevents duration or glow effects working.

[ArielT]

Would it be possible to make NWNXFuncs_AddKnownSpell() not modify the bic? Or maybe a sort of "safety" feature we can toggle that trolls through and deletes any prior instances of the spell when it's added? (Did someone already ask that?)

[Baaleos]

I dont have a full understanding of the way the nwnx functions operate, but from what I DO know, is that it gives the player the spell or feat requested, by triggering the already existing ingame method in the nwnserver executable, which communicates with the client etc.

In other words, the GiveSpell method that is in the nwnx_funcs tricks the nwnserver into giving the player the spell requested, as if they had leveled up or something, or as if they had memorized the spell in a legitamit fashion.


Unfortunately, this legitamit fashion, is probably commited to the bic file.

So in that regards to your question, its not really possible to my knowledge, to do a 'safe' add spell, since the method itself, behaves like a memorize. That and the fact that spells memorized are specifically saved in the bic, so it is something that would be saved anyway when exportbic is called.

[Baaleos]

Will these methods work on npc's?

Eg - To Raise their stats dynamically?

[ArielT]

I may have an include from a version back, but you have a prototype for GetKnownSpells(), but the implementation is for NWNXFuncs_GetKnownSpells(). You should modify your prototype, I think.

[MaxRock]

Visual Effects
The current implementation simply calls a server function - which I stumpbled upon by accident - that takes Effect Number, Client (oPC) and a position as parameters.
Duration type visual effects are "slightly" more complex...

Spells and bic files
Just like Baaleos said, AddKnownSpell simply pushes a new spell id into the regular list of spells for a character. So when the character gets saved, it gets saved.
Are you having problems with duplicate spells?

Methods working on NPCs
Every function that has "object oCreature" as its first parameter should work on NPCs as well as players. (unless I messed up, see next item)

GetKnownSpells vs NWNXFuncs_GetKnownSpells
It's an error in the prototype "declaration" even in the latest include

[ArielT]

[ArielT]

NWNXFuncs_GetKnownSpellCount() seems to just not work. I have a sorcerer that does:

[ArielT]

NWNXFuncs_GetKnownSpells() should really return -1 if there are no spells known for a level rather than the current return of the original sent message including a big mass of spacer.

[MaxRock]

new (small bugfix) version is up:

[ArielT]

Heroic.

[Baaleos]

Just a suggestion, but would it not be wiser to have the return values differ between empty spells, and Error unable to read spells?


Eg - On error return -1

- On No spells found return 0


I usually always try to differentiate between empty and unable to complete.