Alatos “Ravenscar� Thuibuld

[Salk]

But it's hard to script them to do this intentionally, and also to get them to sneak properly, set snares and so forth.

It's easier to do than you'd think. NPC thieves basically don't have to worry about angle, all they need to do is quaff an invisibility potion and attack. This is already in the SCS/SCS2 scripts, though you don't in practice see it much in SCS1 (fewer thieves, and they get given potions less often).

Well, I meant difficult to do without resorting to engine cheese, heh.

 

This particular cheese doesn't bother me: manifestly it's there because the designers knew the scripting engine couldn't handle backstabbing without it.

 

True.

 

But in this case, Miloch's solution seems more realistic and less "cheesy".

[DavidW]

But it's hard to script them to do this intentionally, and also to get them to sneak properly, set snares and so forth.

It's easier to do than you'd think. NPC thieves basically don't have to worry about angle, all they need to do is quaff an invisibility potion and attack. This is already in the SCS/SCS2 scripts, though you don't in practice see it much in SCS1 (fewer thieves, and they get given potions less often).

Well, I meant difficult to do without resorting to engine cheese, heh.

 

This particular cheese doesn't bother me: manifestly it's there because the designers knew the scripting engine couldn't handle backstabbing without it.

 

True.

 

But in this case, Miloch's solution seems more realistic and less "cheesy".

 

Define realism. A PC thief can easily down an invisibility potion, dodge round the other side of a foe, and backstab him, all in the space of three seconds; the developers' engine "cheese" just lets NPC thieves do the same.

[Salk]

With realism I would define a less degree of Invisibility potions dependancy for thieves (or Potions of Giant Strenght for Fighters, same thing) since they, as thieves, should more often than not rely on their thieving skills abilities to surprise and backstab opponents more than items.

 

I don't know if you'd agree?

[Miloch]

This particular cheese doesn't bother me: manifestly it's there because the designers knew the scripting engine couldn't handle backstabbing without it.

Or they were lazy . I'm with Salk on the "realism" and cirrerek's method is a decent workaround. As he says, it might not work 100% of the time, but in a way that's good, because neither does sneaking or backstabbing. And the scripting is minimal - maybe 10 or 20 lines? Probably takes more to do the potion-chugging.

[DavidW]

With realism I would define a less degree of Invisibility potions dependancy for thieves (or Potions of Giant Strenght for Fighters, same thing) since they, as thieves, should more often than not rely on their thieving skills abilities to surprise and backstab opponents more than items.

 

I don't know if you'd agree?

 

Not really. Why shouldn't they use the items? Potions are not terribly difficult for high-level characters to purchase. Remember that NPCs facing your party are in a "pull out all the stops" situation: it's a very difficult fight for them (obviously: they usually lose!) and they'd be wise to use what resources they have. That's just what the PCs do, after all.

 

@Miloch: obviously, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with your method! Scripting length doesn't bother me either way (a few hundred lines here or there won't bother the engine).

[DavidW]

This particular cheese doesn't bother me: manifestly it's there because the designers knew the scripting engine couldn't handle backstabbing without it.

Or they were lazy .

 

I don't think so: the engine just doesn't have facilities to do most spatial functions (if there was a MoveBehind() command, that would be different). The Follow trick is a clever workaround but it's a workaround (and I'd guess quite unreliable, in terms of delivering "legal" backstabs).

[Salk]

With realism I would define a less degree of Invisibility potions dependancy for thieves (or Potions of Giant Strenght for Fighters, same thing) since they, as thieves, should more often than not rely on their thieving skills abilities to surprise and backstab opponents more than items.

 

I don't know if you'd agree?

 

Not really. Why shouldn't they use the items? Potions are not terribly difficult for high-level characters to purchase. Remember that NPCs facing your party are in a "pull out all the stops" situation: it's a very difficult fight for them (obviously: they usually lose!) and they'd be wise to use what resources they have. That's just what the PCs do, after all.

 

Well,

 

it doesn't strike me as particularly realistic that so many encounters against thieves or warriors result in them using their items to challenge us. I really like SCS' idea of making enemies use potions and read scrolls or use wands. But if it becomes a routine strategy it loses some of its charm. My 2 cents.

[Bursk]

Some variety, where possible, is always welcome.

[aVENGER_(RR)]

With realism I would define a less degree of Invisibility potions dependancy for thieves (or Potions of Giant Strenght for Fighters, same thing) since they, as thieves, should more often than not rely on their thieving skills abilities to surprise and backstab opponents more than items.

 

The thief opponents in Rogue Rebalancing attempt to hide in shadows (using the regular skill check) whenever they can't see any party members/summons nearby, and I'm fairly certain that SCS thieves do the same. In RR they also use their Detect Illusions skill (with a regular skill check) whenever a suitable opportunity arises.

 

it doesn't strike me as particularly realistic that so many encounters against thieves or warriors result in them using their items to challenge us.

 

As David, I also think that using potions is a valid strategy for enemy opponents of sufficiently high level. It's evident that even just a few potions can greatly enhance an opponent's combat prowess and staying power. Furthermore, as potions are fairly inexpensive they fit nicely under the guidelines proposed by the PnP treasure tables as described in the DMG so I don't really see why most opponents shouldn't have them.

 

The Follow trick is a clever workaround but it's a workaround (and I'd guess quite unreliable, in terms of delivering "legal" backstabs).

 

I agree. Using the aforementioned workaround would just unnecessarily complicate the scripts and make them even longer (and slower) while the end result would be marginally different at most. In short, it's just not worth it from the AI designer's point of view. It's a shame that the developers didn't properly implement the Backstab() action though.

[DavidW]

it doesn't strike me as particularly realistic that so many encounters against thieves or warriors result in them using their items to challenge us.

 

As David, I also think that using potions is a valid strategy for enemy opponents of sufficiently high level. It's evident that even just a few potions can greatly enhance an opponent's combat prowess and staying power. Furthermore, as potions are fairly inexpensive they fit nicely under the guidelines proposed by the PnP treasure tables as described in the DMG so I don't really see why most opponents shouldn't have them.

 

Quite so (and for people less bothered by PnP issues: in-game, potions are inexpensive and widely available). Why wouldn't most mid-to-high level enemies use them?

 

Of course, in SCS, if you don't agree then just don't install the "potions for NPCs" component.

[Miloch]

The Follow trick is a clever workaround but it's a workaround (and I'd guess quite unreliable, in terms of delivering "legal" backstabs).

I agree. Using the aforementioned workaround would just unnecessarily complicate the scripts and make them even longer (and slower)

Well, no... DavidW didn't say that either...

@Miloch: obviously, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with your method! Scripting length doesn't bother me either way (a few hundred lines here or there won't bother the engine).

In fact there's no reason why a concise, well-designed thief script couldn't have both sneaking/backstabbing and potion-quaffing. Obviously, the potions should be limited whereas innate skills are not.

[aVENGER_(RR)]

The point is, whenever a creature with the Thief class is flagged as a variety of EVILCUTOFF it will always auto-backstab from any direction while invisible. This is hardcoded and can't be changed. Therefore, the only thing that the additional positioning would accomplish (beside lengthening the script) would be a slight delay in this behavior since the pathfinding capabilities for approaching the target from the back (especially while it's moving) are quite meager.

 

BTW, as noted above, RR and SCS make use of both sneaking and potion quaffing in their thief scripts.

[Miloch]

Therefore, the only thing that the additional positioning would accomplish (beside lengthening the script) would be a slight delay in this behavior since the pathfinding capabilities for approaching the target from the back (especially while it's moving) are quite meager.

IIRC, the Follow actions work best when the target is moving. It's when he's standing still where they don't work that well. I think it's the same action used when you make a formation behind your leader (for example to navigate narrow dungeon corridors).

 

And my other point was that enemy thieves shouldn't be able to resort to that particular cheese (invis/backstab from front) unless the modder is resorting to even more cheese, like keeping them invisible after they attack or giving them a vast number of potions.

[DavidW]

And my other point was that enemy thieves shouldn't be able to resort to that particular cheese (invis/backstab from front) unless the modder is resorting to even more cheese, like keeping them invisible after they attack or giving them a vast number of potions.

What do you think a "vast number" is? (I mean, are we talking three, or thirty?)

[Miloch]

What do you think a "vast number" is? (I mean, are we talking three, or thirty?)

I think it depends on the NPC's level. While three might be reasonable, 30 of a single potion is almost certainly out of the question. And while a higher level thief in BG2 might well have 3 or even 5 invisibility potions, a lower level one in BG1 is unlikely to possess such a stash. Certainly, any NPCs would use whatever they have in a life-or-death battle though, which is why I almost always install this component, as I think it does add realism. But as Cam says, there is no mod in the world that can't use a little improvement.