Clubs and Backstabbing

[Jarno Mikkola]

Well, you could change the backstap.2da .

[Ardanis]

+1

Afair there aren't many (if any) evil backstabbing stalkers.

[erik]

Since you mentioned it, I just had a bit of fun fooling around with backstab.2da.

 

Have a look at http://forums.gibberlings3.net/index.php?showtopic=15966 for the results...

[Icendoan]

+1

Afair there aren't many (if any) evil backstabbing stalkers.

 

"Speaking..."

 

Icen

[Demivrgvs]

My latest proposed solution has been discarded because it would cause dual wielders to be penalized even when wielding two short swords. Currently the best solution seems to be a revised table quite similar to the one proposed by Salk, though making daggers with a +1 non stacking bonus remains an unsolved problem right now.

[Icendoan]

Can you set the BS to something, or is it always +/- whatever?

 

If so, using spells regarding different levels would be best.

 

Icen

[Salk]

My latest proposed solution has been discarded because it would cause dual wielders to be penalized even when wielding two short swords. Currently the best solution seems to be a revised table quite similar to the one proposed by Salk, though making daggers with a +1 non stacking bonus remains an unsolved problem right now.

 

I have already edited my own table to give a +1 bonus to daggers instead of +2.

 

I think you guys are right about it after all.

[erik]

Can you set the BS to something, or is it always +/- whatever?

 

According to iesdp: +- value, +- percentage, or set flat value. You'd need to be careful in various ways, though. What happens if you modify the multiplier down past 1, or past 0? Does it roll over to 255? Does the character die a sudden death, as when Dex hits 0 ?

 

And the set flat value effect would need to be kit-specific, to account for Stalkers, Assassins and Swashbucklers... and would of course run into the same dualwield mess when you wield two different weapon types.

 

backstab.2da exists in bg1/iwd1/pst, while modifiy backstab multiplier effect is bg2-only.

[Icendoan]

Hmmm, what you say is right.

 

But, you can use #177 (Use EFF) based on kit/class, so it isn't really an issue on that front, so having modifiers for Stalkers, Assassins and Thieves only would probably be best, and you shouldn't get lower than 0, really. It would either wrap to 65535 or stay at 0.

 

Icen

[erik]

And what effect does 0 have in this case? x1 damage? no damage?

 

In any case, the dualwield issue is the deal-breaker, I think.

[Icendoan]

I am not actually sure what x0 would do, it would likely get a CtD though.

 

Perhaps make it so that the formula for the heaviest weapons is this:

(Current BS - 1) /2, and the division can be upped for lighter weapons, so it would be /4 for the next one, and so on.

 

Icen

[Ardanis]

What happens if you modify the multiplier down past 1, or past 0? Does it roll over to 255?

Nothing, I believe. Afaict D0Tweakpack's BS component works just fine.

 

making daggers with a +1 non stacking bonus remains an unsolved problem

Frankly, I'd leave it be as it is now - with stacking.

 

Assuming that rough STR bonus is equal to weapon damage (not something uncommon) we'll have

 

(dmg*7+STR)/(dmg*6+STR)~=11,5%, which is pretty small and will appear only when dual-daggering. And the difference is even smaller for Assassins. And I do think it's okay to have extra +1BS due to tech limitations.

 

Stalkers - they can have no weapon specialization (unlike dualclassed thieves), so the weapon damage won't be too high. Alternatively, they'll probably be fine without giving them dagger's bonus. Though I still see nothiung wrong with Stalker backstabbing for quintiple damage with two daggers.

[Demivrgvs]

Fortunately the minimum backstab multiplier is 0. I've tried to equip a weapon with a -2 penalty to Imoen (a swashbuckler/mage for my tests) and her x1 multiplier become 0. I've tried to backstab and she dealt normal damage as if she had x1 multiplier. The only issue is that despite x0 being correctly displayed in the character informations, the in-game display which lists all the actions taken shows a missing line when there's the backstab attempt with a x0. Only a cosmetic flaw though.

 

In any case, the dualwield issue is the deal-breaker, I think.

Indeed, and using a "set" system instead of a "+-value" would only unnecessarily complicate things imo, I can't see any benefit at least.

 

To complicate things a little more a +1 bonus to dagger should also take into account that Swashbucklers can't backstab, else their x1 multiplier would suddenly become x2 while equipping a dagger! But that is not an unsolvable issue.

 

The +1 bonus to dagger not only have the "stack issue" but also another issue that is even more annoying imo. You could equip a dagger in the off hand and the +1 bonus would be "used" by the primary weapon, which could easily be a katana. Not to mention that I don't particularly like the idea of making dual wielding even more appealing than it already is.

[Icendoan]

The 'set' system is only one method of using the engine to get where we want to go, there are probably others, but that is the most complicated, but theoretically, the only one that works flawlessly.

 

For kits that CAN backstab, simply using #177 will overcome that.

 

I am not sure what you mean by 'used by the primary weapon'. Shouldn't the bonuses counteract each other?

 

Icen

[Ardanis]

You could equip a dagger in the off hand and the +1 bonus would be "used" by the primary weapon, which could easily be a katana.

Possible solution - 232 (Cast spell on condition). What to do with it? Give to all non-daggers immunity to daggerBS.spl and to daggers - 232 which would recast daggerBS.spl on the wielder every round. The drawback would be the hardcoded 'WielderName -' line in textbox every round, which imo is bad.

 

Also there is '183 Item: Apply Effect Itemtype', albeit it's marked as untested. Will see if it works, bye till then.

 

PS Doesn't seem to.