Light property vanishing from items in Old Stone

[NetherGonnaLetYouDown]

When you use items with light properties in Old Stone, and a torch, you will first lose light property from items permanently, and the torch will remain. It seems only after you've lose light properties from items, will torches begin to vanish.

[MrGrendel]

If this is actually unintentional... I'd ask to please keep it as a feature. It's easy enough to get a permanent light property on an item. And there have been plenty of times I'd wished I could remove an annoying light from items.

[Bonhomie]

^ ... Which is an exploit

Indeed. This happens.

[MrGrendel]

What exactly is an exploit, going into the Old Stones, or getting a caster to put a permanent light source on your item? If you're talking about the "sell light enchanted items" exploit, they're marked plot independently of the light. Also, welcome to the forums, Bonhomie. ;)

AFAIK the functions all require you to define the inventory slot (head, torso, etc) you are removing the property from, unless maybe you are cycling through the entire inventory with GetFirst/GetNextItemInInventory, etc. In other words, the scripter has to be aware in the first place what he's removing the property from, or that he's doing it wholesale. (though he would not necessarily have to differentiate between torches in the hand and weapons in the hand.)

If the order in which it does that is what bothers you, I don't see that as a really big deal, unless you're bringing a bunch of torches in the hope of keeping your gear from losing the light?

And if it only removed light from torches, it would be pretty pathetic. Every other adventurer is usually a Christmas tree with multiple glowing items anyway. No-one uses torches, ever, really. People would rather walk in the dark.

Heck, if anything, it should leave the torches lit, and take light from everything else, so people might actually bring torches there, but of course they still wouldn't, without other motivation...

As an example, this here would remove both temporary and permanent light properties from an item in the PCs right hand, I think you'll get the idea how what's happening is almost certainly intended. At least I don't know of any way to remove a property without being aware of the particular item slot you want it removed from, other than maybe doing an entire inventory (and thus being aware of that).

{
object oPC=GetEnteringObject(); [SIZE="1"]//this is the PC entering[/SIZE]
if (!GetIsPC(oPC)) return; [SIZE="1"]//If it's not a PC, sod right off and cancel[/SIZE]
object oItem=GetItemInSlot(INVENTORY_SLOT_RIGHTHAND, oPC); [SIZE="1"]//This is what the PC has in the right hand[/SIZE]
if (!GetIsObjectValid(oItem)) return; [SIZE="1"]//If nothing is there, sod right off and cancel[/SIZE]
IPRemoveMatchingItemProperties(oItem, ITEM_PROPERTY_LIGHT, -1); [SIZE="1"]//If there's something in the right hand, bye-bye light property[/SIZE]
}

[SecretRangerGirl]

What exactly is an exploit, going into the Old Stones, or getting a caster to put a permanent light source on your item?

I think he meant removing light property from items is the exploit as it benefits stealthers.

[MrGrendel]

That makes as much sense as saying "casting clairvoyance is an exploit, because it hurts stealthers." There's also an underlying assumption that light sources are put on items with the express purpose of hurting stealthers in the first place, which I expect is not the case most of the time. If that were desired, a simple negative to stealth skills would suffice.

[SecretRangerGirl]

No, I meant a stealther finds an equipment s/he likes. However, it emits light (perhaps by design) and therefore would be a detriment to the stealther. So, to use this item without the penalties from the light it casts, s/he goes into the Stones, which removes the light property, allowing the stealther to use the item without penalty.

[MrGrendel]

I understand what you mean.

Going into Old Stones removes light property.
Casting continual flame adds light property.
Casting clairvoyance adds spot and listen.
Casting camouflage adds hide.
Stealthing at night makes you harder to detect.

All of these are intentional.

Why exactly is one of them an "exploit?" I seriously doubt that the DM who was able to come up with the Old Stones scripts was unaware that light levels have an effect on stealth.

[Spiffy Has]

Because a light property on an item reduces your effective stealth score by ten, at least.

In other words, finding an AMAZING item that has light on it, as a stealther, and simply walking into Old Stones to get it removed so you can wear it while stealthing, is an exploit.

[Bonhomie]

SecretRangerGirl got what I was hinting at.

I'll clarify a few points:

If you wear any light source in Old Stones, the area is still pitch black.

Only when you wear a torch, you are able to see (a little).

Normally speaking, items with a light source on them will not have the light source removed. This will happen however if your torch is snuffed out. [edit: torch is destroyed]

Items with a light source on them can't effectively be worn by people sneaking around as it affects their stealth negatively. A lot of potentially great gear cannot be worn by stealthers for that reason (which is probably intentional to some level).

Therefore, people can exploit it!

Ps: heya right back at you man.
Ps2: Peace, NC. xoxo, your exploit sniffer.

[Third Day Sepulchre]

I still don't see why you think removing a light source through an intentional feature of an area is an exploit, when casting continual flame on an item is not, and neither is casting camouflage for +10 hide, nor is stealthing during the day and ignoring any light source penalty.

If you really want to get into this, magical light sources are supposed to be trivial to simply cover up in the first place, thus not being a hindrance at all unless the light is actually desired.

[MrGrendel]

Frankly, all of the arguments so far boil down to, "it helps stealthers, so it must be unintended and/or thus it must also be a cheat/exploit."

I disagree, because 1. it's probably intended, see above, 2. the DM savvy enough to script Old Stones probably knew exactly that light sources effect stealth and 3. there is precedence for many other things in game that also help stealthers, sometimes to the same degree or more, but are not considered exploits, precisely because they do what they are intended to do.

Lastly, consider that you should very easily be able to cover up magical light sources in the first place, so this actually seems a small concession to something that should be possible to begin with, but is limited by the hard-coded engine.

[SIZE="1"]PS: Light source doesn't have a negative effect during the day time, nor does every type of light source penalize stealth, so it's probably not helping as much as you think it is in the first place.[/SIZE]