Clubs and Backstabbing

[erik]

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.

 

Not entirely.

 

Consider the case of a dagger in the left hand and a long sword in the right hand. First, equipped effect #1 takes effect (set backstab mult to, say, x5-2=x3 for the long sword). Then, equipped effect #2 takes effect (set backstab mult to, say, x5+1=x6 for the dagger). Only the latest one applies. So we have a longsword backstabber with dagger multiplier.

[lac]

Idea:

 

Make it only possible to BS when you are single wielding.

 

Other thought:

 

In general I think that daggers ought to be better at backstabbing than short swords. But

what about the Short Sword of Backstabbing? Special case, I think. Unless we want to

turn it into 'The really sharp dagger of backstabbing' or something.

[Salk]

Idea:

 

Make it only possible to BS when you are single wielding.

 

Other thought:

 

In general I think that daggers ought to be better at backstabbing than short swords. But

what about the Short Sword of Backstabbing? Special case, I think. Unless we want to

turn it into 'The really sharp dagger of backstabbing' or something.

 

I am not so fond of that idea, as it would put a too heavy toll to dual wielding for thieves.

 

But for the SSoB, I suggest to give the sword the same multiplier bonus that daggers have according to the Alternate Table.

[Salk]

...

What about spears?

And if it goes to the speed factor, the + weapons are better than the normal so the +2 Short sword(speed factor 1) need to have better backstabbing modifier than the normal dagger(speed factor 2).

 

I forgot to reply to the second part of this.

 

First of all, it goes not only to speed factor. Melee factor (the distance at which the weapon strike + maneuvrability) is the most important, together with accuracy.

 

Also, daggers can also be enchanted and even if the Speed Factor doesn't improve accordingly because it's already at its lowest, you can imagine such daggers to be even faster.

 

Said that,

 

I would like to have people express opinions about my proposed Table at page 3. I have tried to use my logic to justify each change made.

 

Does everything seem sensible to you?

 

Do you agree or is there something you think is not consistent?

 

If we can agree about it, that table might be used by Demivrgvs as reference for the upcoming "Modify backstab multiplier by weapons" component...

[Mike1072]

I would like to have people express opinions about my proposed Table at page 3. I have tried to use my logic to justify each change made.

 

Does everything seem sensible to you?

 

Do you agree or is there something you think is not consistent?

 

If we can agree about it, that table might be used by Demivrgvs as reference for the upcoming "Modify backstab multiplier by weapons" component...

I prefer my table.

 

I think the +1 to daggers is the most important thing to decide on. I like that it would give thieves a good reason to think about choosing a dagger over the other weapons in their arsenal. I don't like that it would bring about unrealistic scenarios, where holding a nonmagical weapon in your off-hand would somehow make you better at stabbing/slashing/conking someone with your main weapon.

 

Idea:

 

Make it only possible to BS when you are single wielding.

Unfortunately, this suggestion and some of the others are either not possible or not able to solve our problems. The discussion and enthusiasm generated by this topic is appreciated, though.

[Ardanis]

Does everything seem sensible to you?

 

Do you agree or is there something you think is not consistent?

That's quite okay with me. Meanwhile, I wonder if one can BS with 2h sword at all ("your weapon is not suitable for backstab" or like that), same for spears, etc.

 

 

As for dualwielding issue - I vote for leaving it where it is now, to test so to speak, and see if there'll be any actual complaints about unrealism.

[Salk]

Mike1072,

 

"I prefer my table" is a bit too generic. We can't understand why if you don't support it with fact and compare it with my own, which comes with my own (possible faulty) reasoning.

 

What I personally like better in your table is only one thing: that it is consistent with the dual-wiedling table that IR comes with. For all the rest, no... I think it is too arbitrary in grouping weapons under the same category.

 

About daggers, I don't share your same view about "unrealism". The backstabbing quality of a weapon should not depend on the enchantment level of the weapon itself. A non-magical dagger having a better backstabbing factor than an axe +3 (to say one) does not seem at all illogical to me. A dagger, magical or not, is still better than any axe for backstabbing purpouse.

 

Ardanis,

 

in fact, in my table no 2-handed weapons can be used for backstabbing. Also I agree with you about leaving the dual-wielding as it is now to test how it works in-game.

[J Beau]

Salk, if I sneak up behind you and swing an ax into your back with everything I have and you don't know its coming. Well, I think it will leave a mark.

[Mike1072]

Mike1072,

 

"I prefer my table" is a bit too generic. We can't understand why if you don't support it with fact and compare it with my own, which comes with my own (possible faulty) reasoning.

I felt that some of the reasons given for making an item have an X penalty could have been used just as easily to support an (X+1) or (X-1) penalty. Also, ninja-tos are ninja swords, I'm sure they're pretty sneaky with them. Demi may have another table to post soon.

 

About daggers, I don't share your same view about "unrealism". The backstabbing quality of a weapon should not depend on the enchantment level of the weapon itself. A non-magical dagger having a better backstabbing factor than an axe +3 (to say one) does not seem at all illogical to me. A dagger, magical or not, is still better than any axe for backstabbing purpouse.

I wasn't referring to enchantment level - I meant that it would be very strange that carrying a mundane piece of equipment would make you better at doing something that doesn't involve it at all (compare: backstabbing using a short sword with and without holding a dagger in the other hand). Anyway, perhaps the bonus could be worded in a way that would allow us to call anyone who abuses it a dirty cheater.

[Demivrgvs]

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.

Not entirely.

 

Consider the case of a dagger in the left hand and a long sword in the right hand. First, equipped effect #1 takes effect (set backstab mult to, say, x5-2=x3 for the long sword). Then, equipped effect #2 takes effect (set backstab mult to, say, x5+1=x6 for the dagger). Only the latest one applies. So we have a longsword backstabber with dagger multiplier.

Thanks for explaining it, as I was trying to say, the "set" system is far from being of any help.

 

I wonder if one can BS with 2h sword at all ("your weapon is not suitable for backstab" or like that), same for spears, etc.

Well, getting a -3 penalty or being unsuable is pretty much the same imo. We are currently investigating the "your weapon is not suitable for backstab" issue, as what's the point on putting a -2 penalty to maces if they can't be used to backstab at all?

 

As for dualwielding issue - I vote for leaving it where it is now, to test so to speak, and see if there'll be any actual complaints about unrealism.

Well, many people doesn't complain about keeping Belm in the off hand to gain an additional attack with the primary weapon (while it should be Belm hitting one more time), and I suppose it's more or less the same issue.

 

About daggers, I don't share your same view about "unrealism". The backstabbing quality of a weapon should not depend on the enchantment level of the weapon itself. A non-magical dagger having a better backstabbing factor than an axe +3 (to say one) does not seem at all illogical to me. A dagger, magical or not, is still better than any axe for backstabbing purpouse.

I think you misunderstood Mike's statement. He wasn't talking about enchantments at all, and he does agree on having daggers with a better backstabbing factor than any other weapon (we both like the idea very much, that's why we're still trying to do it despite all the issues). What probably bothers him the most, and surely bothers me the most, is the possible exploit of keeping a dagger in the off-hand and then backstabbing with a short sword gaining the +1 multiplier from the dagger.

 

That being said you may have noticed that I've tried to make most magical daggers much more suited to stealth attacks and backstabbing than any other weapon type. I guess we may have to improve this trend if we ever decide the +1 multiplier isn't "doable".

[lac]

Salk, if I sneak up behind you and swing an ax into your back with everything I have and you don't know its coming. Well, I think it will leave a mark.

 

And I don't. Or at least no better mark than if I don't sneak up on you and just whack you with an axe. I suppose this

depends on where one is willing to suspend one's disbelief. I'm unwilling to believe that you can make a precision

strike with an axe. But the notion that you can receive 3 or 4 blows of an axe and still be fighting, yes, that one

I can disbelieve. Odd world.

 

Laura

[Salk]

Salk, if I sneak up behind you and swing an ax into your back with everything I have and you don't know its coming. Well, I think it will leave a mark.

 

I don't understand what this has to do with what I was saying.

 

The penalty to the Axe is to its backstab factor, not to the damage it deals in normal circumstances.

 

The -3 is to indicate that it's more difficult to produce an accurate backstabbing hit.

 

Else, we could say that if you sneak up behind me with a two handed sword and swing it with everything you have and I don't know it's coming, the mark should be bigger...

 

I am speaking of attitude of certain weapons to backstabbing.

 

The penalty includes the difficulty that a player would find at dealing an accurate damage at strike range for that weapon.

[Salk]

Also, ninja-tos are ninja swords, I'm sure they're pretty sneaky with them. Demi may have another table to post soon.

 

Mike1072,

 

there is a consistency in that -1 to ninjatos.

 

A wakizashi is actually a specific kind of ninjato (small dimension - similar to a short sword in size).

 

But a ninjato can be almost as long as a katana.

 

The fact that Bioware came with two different weapons make me think that a ninjato shouldn't be even considered a "light weapon" (this is a remark that would be true also for your own "dual wielding" table).

 

Still, I agree with you that it's meant to be a weapon for stealth attacks and in fact the penalty is -1 and not -2 like for other longer swords.

[Demivrgvs]

Ok, here's my suggested table after some thoughts. Obvioulsy I'm not going to impose it, and I'm glad to discuss it even further.

• +1 bonus for: dagger (if doable)
  
• No penalty for: short sword, wakizashi, ninja-to, club
  
• -1 penalty for: long sword, katana, scimitar
  
• -2 penalty for: axe, bastard sword, mace, morning star, quarterstaff, warhammer
  
• -3 penalty for: two-handed weapons, flails
  

Let's talk about how I've come up to this table. The most important things imo to determine how good a weapon is for sneak attacks are weight, speed factor and size (in no particular order), but there are also some "minor" factors like how the weapon is "supposed to work" (e.g. blunt weapons aren't suited to precise strikes imo).

 

I guess some weapons don't require explanations, but for the most discutible ones I would say:

 

Ninja-To (weight: 3, speed factor: 4, size: small): speed factor is only 1 point slower than short swords and wakizashis, but it has their same weight and share the same low speed factor of clubs, furthermore its design is actually more suited to piercing attacks than wakizashi's one (I have both of them at home being a Japan lover ).

 

Katana (weight: 5, speed factor: 5, size: almost large): only 1lb heavier than long swords, same speed factor, but the blade is actually much more sharper and "thin" compared to the broader long sword.

 

Axe (weight: 6, speed factor: 7, size: medium): 2lb heavier and 2 points slower than the long sword, plus the blade's design isn't suited at all for precise attacks.

 

Mace (weight: 8, speed factor: 7, size: medium): twice as much heavy as a long sword and 2 points slower, plus its a blunt weapon (though the most precise one as its 1D6+1 damage output also indicates). I think it shouldn't go in the same category with long swords.

 

Morning Star (weight: 9, speed factor: 8, size: medium): heavier and slower than maces, it may even be placed in the worst category imo.

 

Quarterstaff (weight: 4, speed factor: 4, size: large): faster than a long sword and just as much heavy, though being a large blunt weapon makes it quite less effective for backstabbing imo.

 

Warhammer (weight: 5, speed factor: 7, size: medium): I was unsure about this one, being the fastest and lightest blunt weapon (except clubs) but it's still comparable to an axe in terms of weight and speed, plus it's a broad blunt weapon unsuited to strike small vital points.

 

Flail (weight: 10, speed factor: 9, size: almost large): the heaviest, slowest and most damaging one handed blunt weapon. I think its properties speak for themselves.

 

 

Now two issues:

1) -3 modifier may just as well be replaced by "unsuitable for backstabbing" as the in-game results would probably be the same;

2) the most crucial issue however remain the one about Dagger's bonus multiplier. One possible "solution" may be allowing two install options for now, one which put them with short swords (no issues at all, the one I would probably use if we don't fix the problems caused by the bonus multiplier) and one which gives them the bonus (sort of beta, with both the "stackable" and "off hand exploit" issues). But as I'm currently rechecking all items for V2 I can assure you that daggers already are extremely suited for sneak attacks due to their abilities, and I've generally been more generous when assigning them powers exactly because I felt they were underused.

 

P.S I have another new component in mind ( ) which will probably need a similar in depth discussion, and I want to thank you all for such a useful contribution.

[Salk]

Hello Demivrgvs!

 

Your table is looking good and it is not so different in concept to my own one.

 

Still, I would go for "No backstabbing" for the worst category, instead of -3.

 

Also in the "-3" section you wrote a generic "Two-handed weapons" which should include also the quarterstaff.

 

If you want to give much importance to the speed factor (I assume you do, since you have placed the quarterstaff under a -2 instead of -3 like all the other two-handed weapons), then I suggest the following:

 

• +1 bonus for: dagger
  
• No penalty for: short sword, wakizashi, ninja-to, club
  
• -1 penalty for: long sword, katana, scimitar
  
• -2 penalty for: axe, mace, warhammer
  
• -3 penalty for: bastard sword, morning star
  
• No bonus: Two-handed weapons, flail
  

 

Reasons for modifications to your own table:

 

(1) All two-handed weapons (quarterstaff included) have such bad melee factor that it shouldn't be possible to deal an accurate wound.

 

(2) The bastard sword and the morning star should have a stronger penalty than axes, maces and warhammers because of very poor melee factor (bastard sword) or because of the bad accuracy and damage type (morning star).

 

Said that, all the rest looks perfectly sensible to me.

 

By the way, I would use the installation option that gives the dagger its deserverd bonus.