Connelly Posted February 16, 2023 Share Posted February 16, 2023 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). Quote Link to comment
subtledoctor Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 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? Quote Link to comment
subtledoctor Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 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. Quote Link to comment
jmerry Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 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. Quote Link to comment
polytope Posted February 19, 2023 Share Posted February 19, 2023 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. Quote Link to comment
subtledoctor Posted February 19, 2023 Share Posted February 19, 2023 30 minutes ago, polytope said: 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, No, of course you would not double the bonus for wielding two. If anything I would cancel the extra bonus when dual-wielding. Quote Link to comment
szef Posted March 3, 2023 Share Posted March 3, 2023 (edited) 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 March 4, 2023 by szef Quote Link to comment
subtledoctor Posted March 3, 2023 Share Posted March 3, 2023 (edited) Mentioned elsewhere, courtesy of @Baptor: how about a component to just remove HLAs from players? Just set the required level to 99 in LUNUMAB.2da. Edited March 3, 2023 by subtledoctor Quote Link to comment
szef Posted March 7, 2023 Share Posted March 7, 2023 Is there any plan to implement the Scale of Souls mod into PST:EE? There is partial re-implementation: https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/79303/partial-re-implementation-of-scale-of-souls-tweak I wonder what, and how to find out about (that) morale for companions... Is there some in-game/scripts(?) clues? Quote Link to comment
Morgoth Posted March 10, 2023 Share Posted March 10, 2023 Any chance of introducing a tweak to allow this to happen? I guess it mostly belongs to Unfinished Bussiness. Quote Link to comment
Guest Tomekku Posted March 15, 2023 Share Posted March 15, 2023 Hello CamDawg, hello everyone. Any chance of adding a bard spell progression table from Icewind Dale II? Quote Link to comment
StummvonBordwehr Posted March 31, 2023 Share Posted March 31, 2023 I would like a restoration of the Bioware ioun stones… Aka “equipped ioun stones protects against critical hits”. Quote Link to comment
zelazko Posted April 1, 2023 Share Posted April 1, 2023 (edited) Less Console Output Spam for Hide in Shadows/Find Traps/Singing Bard Songs actions. Edited April 1, 2023 by zelazko Quote Link to comment
jmerry Posted April 1, 2023 Share Posted April 1, 2023 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. Quote Link to comment
agris Posted April 3, 2023 Share Posted April 3, 2023 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. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.