Not Dispel vs No Dispel

[JediMindTrix]

AKA 0 and 2.

 

"Not Dispel/bypass resistance" (0)

 

and

 

"No Dispel/bypass resistance" (2)

 

 

Is there even a difference between these functionally?

[Mike1072]

"No Dispel/bypass resistance" (0)

"Dispel/Not bypass resistance" (1)

"Not Dispel/bypass resistance" (2)

"Dispel/Bypass resistance" (3)

Going by the IESDP, I think they're identical.

 

Resistance

 

The default behaviour is that effects cannot be dispelled and ignore resistance. [emphasis added]

bit 0: Can be dispelled, affected by resistance

bit 1: Ignores resistance (when used in combination with bit 0)

 

This can also be presented in the more traditional way:

0=Nonmagical

1=Can be dispelled/Affected by resistance

2=Cannot be dispelled/Ignores resistance

3=Can be dispelled/Ignores resistance

I don't test these out too often, so someone else may be able to provide confirmation.

[lynx]

This was REd for bg2, so it may be different in other engines (doesn't make that much sense).

[Fiann of the Silver Hand]

Probably on the Bio devs to-do list to differentiate them, then never found a need to. The (0) and (2) spells are mostly self targeting, that or psionic-y type spells.

[Grammarsalad]

AKA 0 and 2.

 

"Not Dispel/bypass resistance" (0)

 

and

 

"No Dispel/bypass resistance" (2)

 

 

Is there even a difference between these functionally?

Maybe 2 is subject to wild/dead magic? (Are there dead magic zones? I don't remember any, but I've heard talk)

[Fiann of the Silver Hand]

Maybe 2 is subject to wild/dead magic? (Are there dead magic zones? I don't remember any, but I've heard talk)

 

That's a separate flag on its own in the spl file. Are effects treated differently?

[Avenger]

I don't think there is any difference. But i still use 0 for absolutely nonmagical effects. And 2 for unavoidable magical effects.