Jump to content

Future tweak ideas - post 'em here


Recommended Posts

Is the enemies ignoring that condition something that could be modded, or only Beamdog can change it? One would think the idea of an invisible rogue ruining your day because it plays by other rules and doesn't care about your face would merit a bit of attention. (Or maybe it's because AI rogues can't grok how to position behind someone's back and this was the best compromise to make them work).

Link to comment
On 2/16/2023 at 9:17 AM, polytope said:

A small d4 die for damage removes some of the suspense from a backstab*, regardless of allowing a x5 multiplier, because the maximum damage is at most 15 points above the minimum

15 points above the minimum is still a lot better, for rogues who aren’t big bruisers by nature. 

It would be reasonable to give all daggers a passive +1 backstab bonus, up to x6 (x8 for assasins). 

I also increase dagger damage to 1d5, since honestly a max-damage hit from an 18-inch long dagger should be very close to a max damage hit from a 24-in long short sword. 

Put those together and now the max backstab damage is 24 higher than the minimum, adding some drama. Limit big weapons like longswords to a x4 multiplier, and you are helping daggers shine. 

On 2/16/2023 at 1:41 PM, jmerry said:

There's actually a hidden option for 3E-style sneak attacks in BGEE/BG2EE, and the tables to support it are there. Drop the "invisible" condition on backstabs, replace the multiplier with some number of added d6 damage dice.

It's also deeply flawed; enemies ignore the "behind" condition on backstabs, so enemy rogues with this option would get their sneak attack damage on every melee hit. Not a good idea for these games

I wonder if it could be suppressed? Add a melee hit effect on self that prevents sneak attacks for 5 seconds, or something?

Link to comment
On 2/16/2023 at 2:42 PM, Connelly said:

Is the enemies ignoring that condition something that could be modded, or only Beamdog can change it? One would think the idea of an invisible rogue ruining your day because it plays by other rules and doesn't care about your face would merit a bit of attention.

They don’t even have to be invisible. When 3E sneak attacks are enabled, every AI/red-circle person with a sneak attack modifier does their sneak attack bonus damage on every hit, regardless of any conditions. 

And it’s totally hard-coded. 

Link to comment
On 2/16/2023 at 6:17 AM, polytope said:

A small d4 die for damage removes some of the suspense from a backstab*, regardless of allowing a x5 multiplier, because the maximum damage is at most 15 points above the minimum (and specialization/magic/kit bonuses would usually provide most of this damage anyway).

In my most recent full playthrough "Dorn It", I had Hexxat use the weakest weapon in the game (the Shadow Thief Dagger, 1d4 damage with no strength bonus) to backstab Vulova for that Bodhi mission. Result? Critical hit, maximum damage. He took 80 and exploded into gibs. (4 on 1d4, +4 for an unarmed victim, x5 backstab multiplier, x2 for the critical hit). You can do some pretty spectacular chunks of damage if the conditions are right.

Aside: The mission objective on that one is to frame the Shadow Thieves by leaving that dagger behind at the scene. In this case, it's the actual murder weapon. I can only try to imagine what Athkatla's investigators would think of the scene. "Yes, that's the murder weapon all right - but how did it do that much damage?"

And as for AI creatures ignoring the "behind" condition - you'd need a considerably smarter scripting system if you wanted dropping that to be viable. In the system we have, there just isn't any way to tell a creature to move behind another creature. Tell a rogue to attack someone with a melee weapon, and they'll always just walk to them on the most direct available path before attacking when they arrive. Letting them do backstab damage when that hit is delivered invisibly even if they're in the front is a kindness that lets "backstabbing" AI thieves remain effective threats.

Suppressing sneak attacks after a successful one lands ... there's a "crippling strike" version of that 3E system that does this, or something like it. And it isn't implemented in BGEE/BG2EE, though it might be in IWDEE. Faking it with effects might be possible, at least - you can have spells/effects trigger on backstabs.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, subtledoctor said:

15 points above the minimum is still a lot better, for rogues who aren’t big bruisers by nature. 

It would be reasonable to give all daggers a passive +1 backstab bonus, up to x6 (x8 for assasins). 

I also increase dagger damage to 1d5, since honestly a max-damage hit from an 18-inch long dagger should be very close to a max damage hit from a 24-in long short sword. 

Put those together and now the max backstab damage is 24 higher than the minimum, adding some drama. Limit big weapons like longswords to a x4 multiplier, and you are helping daggers shine.

1) Not really what I was referring to, even though rogues actually can do more damage per hit than anyone except a kensai (and even per round, with Mislead spell or assassination), a narrow window for damage due to the small die removes the suspense from backstabbing and wondering whether your thief will roll high enough.

2) I can understand the rationale behind penalizing the backstab multiplier for large weapons even though it's bad for some kits like the stalker because of the interaction with dual wielding, but granting daggers an actual bonus to backstab multiplier is even worse. Why should daggers in both hands inflict a better backstab on the first hit than a dagger with one hand free? It makes no sense at all, whereas with dual wielding longswords you could at least imagine it makes the character more awkward and genuinely more unlikely to pull of a successful backstab.

3) A d5 isn't a platonic solid... okay neither is a d10, but that's at least symmetrical. I don't like the idea of dice that aren't used in the real world.

 

Link to comment

I have a question:

Is there (in TTA v16) an option "Stackable Rings, Charms, Bracelets, Scrolls" (from Qwinn's Tweak Pack) for PST: EE?

If not, will it be added? ;)

This should not be difficult, since this option works without major modifications from non-EE to EE...

Nevermind, I find it (Convenience Tweaks and/or Cheats).

Edited by szef
Link to comment

Probably not feasible. That stuff is generated by the engine, so the only hook I can see is changing what strings are associated with those actions. And if it's a null string ... all right, zeroing out those entries in enginest.2da does result in no messages at all for those actions. Is that what you wanted?

Note that this is EE-only. That 2DA doesn't exist in the pre-EE games, and I can only assume the feedback text is hardcoded.

Link to comment

The newest BG/IWD EEs massively shorten the range of bard song. I propose a tweak that lets the user choose between:

 

original bard song range (whole map)

some balance between new and old behavior 

user-configurable (integer input)

 

The component would smartly scan bard songs and modify their range, such that (for example) IWDification’s optional change to true class / skald / jester songs can be detected and patched, vanilla and mod-added (rr) bard song HLAs, etc.

 

component would work on BGs and IWDs.

 

 

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...