Thieves

[DrAzTiK]

Currently, I play ToB again and at least in ToB, rogues appears to be definively very weaks...

 

My thief is a true thief so I don't blame RR too much but obviously rogues are so weak and not fun at all. (RR HLA remain weak) I think The more you have experience (SoA/ToB) , the more thiefs sucks.

 

Especially in ToB the disarming trap ability/ lock picking/pickpoket?(sick) is not so usefull. (many spell do the same and there is not a lot of big loots in chests in ToB). The only usefull ability of my thief is the detect illusion ability. (even better than true sight)

 

As many said before, the big problem is the lack of fighting skills. I really do think that backstab and setting trap should be revisited and allow thiefs to do something else after made his one shoot/one round with a bow...

 

 

Backstab is a good way for thief to be usefull in fight but the problem is that the more you have experience and hight level characters, the more it's boring to micro a backstab : you must be invisible and take care of positioning requirement and wtf, you have 2 archimages and Minsc dealing 40 dmg per hit (5 or 6 or 10 ApR)... Yes you have better things to do.

 

I think a good way to make backstab appealing again in SoA/ToB is to cancel the positioning requirement. (possible with ToBEx)

 

In BG1, it's funny to make/micro a backstab coz you have time (your only one mage have already used his only one magic missile and you don't need to micro yours five archers too much) but in SoA/ToB, it's not the same.

 

Of course it need to be tested but I think the positioning requirement is only here to make things more realistic, not for balance. But the fact that is so boring and cost so much time to micro a backstab make this ability not sexy at all and weak! Especially in middle/end SoA and ToB.

 

 

Even with an assassin, I am not sure if I would like to backstab in ToB...

 

 

About backstab with ranged weapons : I must think about it but I don't like it too much, especially with no positioning requirement.

 

 

 

Another way to make thief usefull in fighting is to allow them to set trap even if some ennemy or in sight. (priest/mage already do the same more or less).

Of course damage and casting time should be revisited completely.

 

 

No need to create so much new ability to make thiefs sexy and funny Imo.

 

 

 

 

I also think the Swashbuclker should be able to backstab and not be able to set trap.

Actually I am sure most of players use the Swashbuckler with a two weapons style and so the swashbuckler can't use ranged weapons*** and must stay in first line. (with less HP and AC than a true warrior) So he need to be strong in mele and not just have a good thac0...

 

 

***( very sick coz obviously a warrior fighting with two weapons should be able to use one hand ranged weapons like warriors fighting with shields)

 

 

Maybe the bounty hunter should be specialized in trap and be forbidden to backstab.

 

 

 

 

just my 2cents

[Demivrgvs]

Currently, I play ToB again and at least in ToB, rogues appears to be definively very weaks...

Well, KR will add quite a few tricks to help single class thieves to shine at mid-high lvls (my latest idea is to implement Pathfinder's Dirty Trick to offer them more combat options), but I'd like to point out one thing: thieves are supposed to be "relatively weak" in a fight. While fighters and warriors shine in battle, thieves are only supposed to play "supporting, flanking or ambushing" tasks, not to steadily stay in the middle of the fight. Thieves can do plenty of things out of battle (setting/disarming traps, scouting, etc.), while fighters and to a lesser extent all warriors can almost only fight, thus I think it's natural for thieves not being able to play a role as relevant as warriors in terms of combat.

 

I think a good way to make backstab appealing again in SoA/ToB is to cancel the positioning requirement. (possible with ToBEx).

Once you are invisible removing the positioning requirement makes a difference only for ranged backstabs imo. It's worth discussing considering the AI already works like that, but I fear ranged backstabs would then be too exploitable. Mmm...

 

Furthermore, later on you should be able to perform tons of backstabs anyway brewing Potions of Invisibility, reading Invisibility scrolls or using the Assassinate HLA. Am I wrong?

 

Even with an assassin, I am not sure if I would like to backstab in ToB...

Poison Weapon and Death Attack will make up for that imo.

 

Another way to make thief usefull in fighting is to allow them to set trap even if some ennemy or in sight.

I thought about allowing lesser "traps" (e.g. throwing on the ground spiked metallic spheres to create difficult terrain) to be used in sight, but I'm not sure. The other traps really shouldn't be usable in sight imo, it makes little sense.

 

I also think the Swashbuclker should be able to backstab and not be able to set trap.

Mmm...I'm not sure I like it, probably not.

 

Maybe the bounty hunter should be specialized in trap and be forbidden to backstab.

It makes sense, but it's a very drastical change. I'll think about it, but only if we BH's advantages will scream for additional hindrances.

[DrAzTiK]

yes I agree that that thieves are supposed to be "relatively weak" in a fight. I just find that backstab become too much weak at mid-hight level (only coz of positioning requirement) and setting traps really cheesy.

Maybe traps shoud at least cost some amount of gold .

 

I don't play with ranged backstab though, surely it makes thief more usefull in a fight.

[Jarno Mikkola]

I think a good way to make backstab appealing again in SoA/ToB is to cancel the positioning requirement. (possible with ToBEx).

Once you are invisible removing the positioning requirement makes a difference only for ranged backstabs imo. It's worth discussing considering the AI already works like that, but I fear ranged backstabs would then be too exploitable. Mmm...

In my opinion, the position requirement is totally wrongly done in the game... as you cannot make the thief have wider angle of (backstab)attack, and it's a huge hassle to backstab someone already in combat.

The ToB with SCSII or other high level mods makes the backstab not even worth a cent.

 

What the theives need is party friendly area of effect abilities that don't rely on the enemy AI walking accross a line with 1000 bombs placed on it.

[DavidW]

The ToB with SCSII or other high level mods makes the backstab not even worth a cent.

 

Why do you say that? I don't do anything in particular in SCSII to disable PC backstabs.

[Jarno Mikkola]

The ToB with SCSII or other high level mods makes the backstab not even worth a cent.

Why do you say that? I don't do anything in particular in SCSII to disable PC backstabs.

Well, adding effects to creatures that makes them immune to the backstab...

But that's not to say that you shouldn't.

[DavidW]

The ToB with SCSII or other high level mods makes the backstab not even worth a cent.

Why do you say that? I don't do anything in particular in SCSII to disable PC backstabs.

Well, adding effects to creatures that makes them immune to the backstab...

But that's not to say that you shouldn't.

 

Do I do that much? I think I do it with fiends (though I'm not sure I ought to) and I probably enforce it for undead and golems and the odd barbarian, but anything else? (I'm not saying you're wrong, it's a sprawling mod and I may be forgetting something.)

[Demivrgvs]

Backstabbing

The ToB with SCSII or other high level mods makes the backstab not even worth a cent.

Why do you say that? I don't do anything in particular in SCSII to disable PC backstabs.

Well, adding effects to creatures that makes them immune to the backstab...

But that's not to say that you shouldn't.

Do I do that much? I think I do it with fiends (though I'm not sure I ought to) and I probably enforce it for undead and golems and the odd barbarian, but anything else? (I'm not saying you're wrong, it's a sprawling mod and I may be forgetting something.)

If you want my 2 cents, very very few creatures should be totally immune to backstabs/sneak attacks. I do like what Pathfinder did on this matter (see here).

 

Regarding what you did...

 

FIENDS: if you want to just follow PnP, keep in mind that not all fiends are immune to it, actually very few afaik (would you like me to look for it and write a list?). Even those probably aren't outright immune, they are simply affected by a permanent "detect invisibility", and thus can deny thieves their "conventional backstab". Still I do think they should be vulnerable to Assassination HLA.

 

UNDEAD: please no! Don't make all undead immune to it!! Only incorporeal ones should be immune to it imo (and to critical hits). I always liked vanilla BG for allowing most undead to be backstabbed.

 

GOLEMS: I'm not 100% convinced, but even golems may have a weak spot, don't they? On this matter I'm less convinced though, and if there was a consensus behind golems being immune fine with me. Btw, in terms of balance their physical resistance should keep backstab's damage reasonable imo.

 

BARBARIAN: roleplaying wise their immunity should simulate a a mix of supernatural six sense and lightning reflexes.

[Jarno Mikkola]

Well, its my opinion that what the SCSII does, is NOT wrong, what I am saying is that the rogue without the backstab ability is totally useless, in combat, and that matter should be corrected, not the backstab. Especially this backstab with ranged weapons... totally messed up. The ranged(bow, cross bow & throwing & sling) weapons should have the backstab number set at -5... so high level Assassins could try to do that, but no one else, but that's IR's discussion.

 

Anyways, the backstab shouldn't be their only weapon.... that was the point.

Thieves could use a instant escape type(teleport) ability that lets them run out of a trap fireballs range, but not at level 1 or as a HLA.

And perhaps short time combat bonuses(3 spells) at level 10-15 onwards... such as Speed, Precision and Power. One gives half attack per round, one gives +2 to thac0 and last gives +2 or +3 to damage. They are all 1 use per sleep abilities, and short ones at that... but they suit a "trickster" trying to keep alive after the stealth fails... and they should never stack with one another(so the last one dispels the previous), but they are talents making them impossible to dispel with normal means.

And then there could be some "shadow tricks", like say an area of effect damage(10-20) to all enemies, with save vs. breath to not take damage.

[DavidW]

Okay, I continue to be confused about this discussion. I'm not asking whether SCS did anything wrong, I'm asking what SCS actually did. Jarno claims that SCS makes large numbers of creatures immune to backstab. I'm questioning that. I'm aware that as of v21 fiends are immune to backstab. On examination I don't in fact protect golems, but the vanilla game already protects them. I enforce the vanilla-game protection for barbarians. I'm not aware of other examples. I'm asking Jarno for the actual examples he has in mind when I do this.

[Demivrgvs]

Immunity to Backstab

I'm aware that as of v21 fiends are immune to backstab.

ALL fiends? Even lesser ones such as succubus?

 

For greater demons its not a terrible deal because thieves are not supposed to be effective demon slayers, but being a demon/devil shouldn't be the only prerequisite to be fully immune to backstabs.

 

On a side note, why don't you simply opt for the more PnP-esque approach of giving See Invisibility or Truee Seeing to greater fiends?

 

On examination I don't in fact protect golems, but the vanilla game already protects them.

Fine with me.

 

I enforce the vanilla-game protection for barbarians.

Fine with me, especially considering I'll further expand this feature/concept within KR by giving Barbarian the classic Blind-Fight feat.

 

I'm not aware of other examples. I'm asking Jarno for the actual examples he has in mind when I do this.

You said you made undead immune to it too, not sure if you ment ALL undead creatures. Please tell me you didn't.

 

Rogue's combat abilities

Well, its my opinion that what the SCSII does, is NOT wrong, what I am saying is that the rogue without the backstab ability is totally useless, in combat, and that matter should be corrected, not the backstab.

I'm sympathetic to this, indeed, as long as we keep in mind rogues are not meant to really fight. A rogue/thief should never be able to compete with a fighter in a regular 1vs1 duel (except the Swashbuckler). Thieves should ambush, flank (unfortunately I have no idea how to implent a true flanking system) or harass from a safe distance, they should not stay in the middle of the fight for long.

 

Anyways, the backstab shouldn't be their only weapon.... that was the point.

I agree, in fact I planned to give them Pathfinder's Dirty Trick, and abilities such as Crippling Strike (similar to PnP, but applied as an x/day ability instead of via backstab - aka a la Rogue Rebalancing).

 

Thieves could use a instant escape type(teleport) ability that lets them run out of a trap fireballs range, but not at level 1 or as a HLA.

Something like a x/day Evasion ability a la Rogue Rebalancing should work, and I like that's it's still very close to PnP.

 

And perhaps short time combat bonuses(3 spells) at level 10-15 onwards... such as Speed, Precision and Power. One gives half attack per round, one gives +2 to thac0 and last gives +2 or +3 to damage. They are all 1 use per sleep abilities, and short ones at that... but they suit a "trickster" trying to keep alive after the stealth fails...

Not sure about these. Surely I don't agree with the Power Attack-like one. It really doesn't suit the class.

 

And then there could be some "shadow tricks", like say an area of effect damage(10-20) to all enemies, with save vs. breath to not take damage.

Rogues will never get magical-like abilities within KR, not even shadow-based ones.

 

Ranged Backstab

...backstab with ranged weapons... totally messed up. The ranged(bow, cross bow & throwing & sling) weapons should have the backstab number set at -5... so high level Assassins could try to do that, but no one else, but that's IR's discussion.

May I ask why you think it's "totally messed up"?

[DavidW]

Immunity to Backstab

I'm aware that as of v21 fiends are immune to backstab.

ALL fiends? Even lesser ones such as succubus?

 

For greater demons its not a terrible deal because thieves are not supposed to be effective demon slayers, but being a demon/devil shouldn't be the only prerequisite to be fully immune to backstabs.

I don't actually remember. The only reason I happen to know now is that I'm doing a fairly systematic recoding and happen to be on fiends at the moment. It's unlikely to survive; the point I was making wasn't that it's a good idea, but that it's about the only example I know, so I'm perplexed as to why Jarno thinks "SCSII breaks backstab".

 

On a side note, why don't you simply opt for the more PnP-esque approach of giving See Invisibility or Truee Seeing to greater fiends?

Well, as I say, I'm not actually particularly sold on fiends being backstab-proof in any case. But if I had to guess the rationale, it would probably be time. Dumping the immunity to backstab opcode on a creature takes vastly less time than scripting and testing in-script immunity. Bear in mind that even in its first version SCSII had forty or fifty components. aTweaks fiends are done with far more care and attention to detail, partly because aTweaks has a much more modest scope.

 

I'm not aware of other examples. I'm asking Jarno for the actual examples he has in mind when I do this.

You said you made undead immune to it too, not sure if you ment ALL undead creatures. Please tell me you didn't.

I meant undead creatures that actually got introduced or heavily modified by SCSII. (I don't even know if I actually did give any of them backstab immunity; it's just the kind of thing I might have done.) SCSII doesn't do a systematic patching of undead in the way it does fiends, so you're safe.

[Ardanis]

The more I think about it, the more I like to see a "backstab damage multiplier reduced by X" opcode. It could even be the old 292th one, param2 being used as the X.

 

Undead could be immune to 1-2 multiplier, golems - to 5-7, etc.

 

We also can implement then the Uncanny Dodge as per its DnD 3e version, where only a higher-level rogue is able to sneak attack such a character.

[Ardanis]

Ranged Backstab

Especially this backstab with ranged weapons... totally messed up. The ranged(bow, cross bow & throwing & sling) weapons should have the backstab number set at -5... so high level Assassins could try to do that, but no one else, but that's IR's discussion.

Unless you have playtested it extensively, I'm disinclined to agree. I have completed BG1 part of BGT with multi fighter/assassin, assassin getting +1 extra multiplier on 1st level, as per upcoming change, and I have found IR's new backstab stats to be pretty balanced.

Btw it is not IR-only, but another one of those difficult cases, where content may belong to two Revisions mods.

 

Shadow

Rogues will never get magical-like abilities within KR, not even shadow-based ones.

Shadowdancer would be cool to have around. Let's hope BG2EE will add one, so it becomes official and will fall under KR's scope.

[Demivrgvs]

Shadow Dancer

Rogues will never get magical-like abilities within KR, not even shadow-based ones.

Shadowdancer would be cool to have around. Let's hope BG2EE will add one, so it becomes official and will fall under KR's scope.

Yeah, Shadow Dancers would indeed be really cool, and it would be easy to make them extremely unique with teleport-like abilities and the shadow companion. My point was that True Thieves are not supposed to get magical abilities. I do like them to be able to use wands and learn to read magicl scrolls, but innate magical abilities would not fit this class.

 

Use Scrolls

@Ardanis, speaking of allowing true thieves to read magical scrolls, I had an idea to make it work as per PnP instead of giving such ability at 1st lvl. The plan would be to:

- patch scrolls to be usable by thieves with INT requirement

- add a spl (via clab***.2da) with custom sec type to make all thieves unable to use them

- add a spl to True Thief at 10th lvl to remove the above one

Shouldn't it work?