Feature Request: pickpocketing Drizzt

Gallowglass

Observed behaviour: in BG:EE you can pickpocket Drizzt for BOTH his scimitars (although you still have to kill him to get his armour).

Expected behaviour: in original BG1 (with Baldurdash and Dudleyfix) you could pickpocket him for Icingdeath (Frostbrand +3), but could only get Twinkle (Defender +5) and his armour by killing him.

Commentary: even though the pickpocketability of Icingdeath in the original was regarded by some as a bug, it's a sufficiently significant weapon (gamechanging if your party includes a Druid or Fighter/Druid - it's the main difference between Jaheira being a mediocre NPC or a real keep-throughout-the-game asset) that it now ought to be regarded as part of the "original content" which ought not to be changed. However, making Twinkle also pickpocketable is going too far - making such a uniquely-powerful weapon available to a Good-aligned party (i.e. a party which doesn't kill Drizzt) changes the logical character-development strategy for Lawful Good characters (the only ones who can use Twinkle) so as to include scimitar proficiencies (which otherwise would have been spent, and in roleplaying terms ought to be spent, on other weapons instead).

Riolathel

And stealing from people is good how?

Also this is not a bug

Gallowglass

@Riolathel: in game terms, pickpocketing is neither good nor evil since it doesn't affect your reputation etc. The game allows good-aligned thieves, which may not correspond to real-life morality but is definitely part of the Forgotten Realms culture.

@Riolathel: I think it's a bug that Twinkle is pickpocketable, that's why I reported it as such. It's a change from the original content, quite a significant change in some circumstances, and I doubt that it's intended. IF (but only if) the devs respond to say that they've deliberately changed the original behaviour for some reason, then in that case it wouldn't be a bug, but I await their response.

moopy

@Gallowglass

Twinkle isn't only for good aligned parties

My evil F/M/T <3s using Twinkle

Helm of opposite alignment FTW

Riolathel

"making Twinkle also pickpocketable is going too far - making such a uniquely-powerful weapon available to a Good-aligned party (i.e. a party which doesn't kill Drizzt) changes the logical character-development strategy for Lawful Good characters"

If youre playing a lawful good character you're not gonna pickpocket a good guy - especially one who just helped you.

chaotic good is where it starts to become a gray area but even then if you're big into the RP aspect you won't pickpocket people.. you'd let your thief do it, and in RP terms your thief isn't exactly being robin hood by stealing Drizzt's hard earned and much needed weapons

Tanthalas

Honestly, neither of them should be pickpocketable because Drizzt has them both in his hands while fighting.

moopy

@Tanthalas

Maybe Drizzt is way too trusting.

Your charismatic thief is all, "Hey Drizzt, let me take a look at that..."
quaffs invisibility potion and leaves.

bigdogchris

Tanthalas said:

Honestly, neither of them should be pickpocketable because Drizzt has them both in his hands while fighting.

Are you speaking philosophically or factually? He has them in his hands on the sprite but they are not really equipped. Does that make a difference?

Tanthalas

Philosophically

ZanathKariashi

He does in mine...though that's cause I fixed him up. He doesn't have them equipped in BG1, cause dual-wielding didn't exist. When they ported him to BG:EE they should've modded him to actually use his weapons (and get rid of that extra crap he isn't supposed to have).

Gallowglass

@moopy:

moopy said:

My evil F/M/T <3s using Twinkle

Helm of opposite alignment FTW</p>

Well okay, but you're still only getting Twinkle to work for you by "appearing" to be good-aligned!

@Riolathel:

Riolathel said:

... you'd let your thief do it ...

Exactly. Then obviously your thief gives it to your Paladin (or other Lawful Good character who can use it), and it's such a great weapon (arguably best in the game) that the latter will logically spend his proficiencies on being able to use it effectively, instead of spending his proficiencies on the things he'd normally be equipping instead, so it changes the character-development strategy for the rest of the game. I reckon this is quite a significant effect, and if it's not deliberate then it's a bug.

Riolathel

That is all the character's choice..

That is like saying Holy avenger is a bug because it will make everyone put proficiencies in longswords so they can use it..

I've played through BG:ee twice so far and neither time did i pickpocket/kill drizzt..

I am planning to do it on my evil playthrough but there is no real NEED to do it everytime you play

Gallowglass

@Riolathel:

Riolathel said:

That is all the character's choice..

That is like saying Holy avenger is a bug because it will make everyone put proficiencies in longswords so they can use it..

No, this isn't the same issue at all. The Holy Avenger is definitely intended by the designers to be available (in BG2) and the consequent character-development choices are an intended part of the game. (Btw, I think you mean proficiencies in two-handed swords, not in longswords - the longsword version of the Holy Avenger was in IWD, not BG. However, I agree that this isn't relevant to the current debate.)

My point is that in (original) BG1, Twinkle is not available unless you're an evil-aligned party which is willing to kill Drizzt (and lose a heap of reputation) to get it (and evil parties then can't use it unless they have at least one LG character along, or use a helm of opposite alignment), so in most playthroughs it isn't relevant. On the other hand, BG:EE is making it easily available to other types of party, including those which can actually make use of this gamechanging weapon. Unless the devs have deliberately introduced this change for some (as yet unexplained) reason, this must have been an error, i.e. a bug.

One consequence is that the new character Rasaad (LG Monk) can use Twinkle while he's still too low-level for his unarmed attack (and his AC) to be any use, and it turns him into a usable secondary melee character instead of a feeble liability. This is a conceivable reason why the BG:EE devs might have deliberately decided to make Twinkle available to good-aligned parties, but if so then I'd like them to confirm this as a decision rather than just a bug.

Pantalion

The Lord British Postulate

If a theoretically unbeatable NPC is in the game, players will spend an inordinate amount of time trying to kill them.

By making Drizzt killable, the designers explicitly and intentionally made it so that his scimitars were available to all players of the game.

As the scimitars were already available to all players of the game, making it so that he need not be murdered to do so (as so many players were simply killing him out of turn anyway) does not alter the ultimate fact that the player was able to receive them.

Also of note is that Drizzt himself isn't Lawful Good, so having a sword restricted to only Lawful Good individuals would be rather counterproductive.

Riolathel

@gallowglass i was referring to IWD btw.. I don't believe i mentioned BG2 in my post. It is just as relevant because your argument is that the weapons shouldn't be available to good classes because they will allocate weapon prof into scimitars instead of other weapons (so what?).

IchigoRXC

It would only be considered a bug if the dev's didn't intend for both to be stealable. Until one of them pops down and says so, I will consider this a slight change in the game, one which is exceedingly non intrusive, you have to actively do something for it to have an effect on you

Gallowglass

@Pantalion:

Pantalion said:

By making Drizzt killable, the designers explicitly and intentionally made it so that his scimitars were available to all players of the game.

The Icingdeath scimitar has always been available by pickpocketing, but a good-aligned party could only get hold of Twinkle (and Drizzt's armour) by breaking role and at a huge reputation cost, so there was a considerable disincentive to doing it. Making the second (and even more powerful) scimitar also available without breaking role and at no reputation cost is a significant change.

@IchigoRXC:

IchigoRXC said:

It would only be considered a bug if the dev's didn't intend for both to be stealable.

Agreed! And since I doubt that the devs intended to make the second one stealable, I therefore reported it as a bug.

@IchigoRXC:

IchigoRXC said:

... I will consider this a slight change in the game ...

I'd agree if it were some relatively ordinary item, but Twinkle is arguably the best weapon in the whole game, and therefore making it easily-available is bound to affect the strategies and gameplay for a lot of players. That's more than a "slight change".

@Riolathel:

Riolathel said:

@gallowglass i was referring to IWD btw..

Oh, okay. Wasn't clear.

@Riolathel:

Riolathel said:

... (so what?).

So it's changing the strategies of the game, significantly affecting the way in which many players will play, in a section which is original BG content and was therefore not supposed to be significantly changed. That's why I doubt this change was intentional (and is therefore a bug), unless the devs specifically confirm that they deliberately changed this for some reason.

ZanathKariashi

They're only steal able because he doesn't have them actively equipped. Remove the creature weapon and equip his swords properly (and give him the appropriate skills for them) and there's no longer an issue since you can't steal an actively equipped weapon.

Gallowglass

@ZanathKariashi: if the devs were starting from a blank slate, then I'd agree that neither scimitar ought in theory to be pickpocketable. However, the pickpocketability of Icingdeath (Frostbrand +3) was established in the original BG1, and sufficiently significant to gameplay choices that I reckon it ought to be regarded as original content which should not be changed. It's the additional pickpocketability of Twinkle (Defender +5) in BG:EE which I reckon is a bug.

Evidently some moderator has decided to move this thread into "Feature Requests" (and has edited my original subject line accordingly). Well, obviously that's the mod's opinion, but I disagree. I originally reported it as a bug, and I still say it's a bug, not a "feature request".

Madhax

Gallowglass said:

Evidently some moderator has decided to move this thread into "Feature Requests" (and has edited my original subject line accordingly). Well, obviously that's the mod's opinion, but I disagree. I originally reported it as a bug, and I still say it's a bug, not a "feature request".

I don't follow your reasoning. Being able to pickpocket items that Drizzt should have equipped was an oversight in the previous game, necessary because he needed to have his proper loot but dual-wielding wasn't implemented.

If the developers take a look at Drizzt, they should make NEITHER of his swords pickpocketable. Wanting the original off-hand sword to be up for grabs for purity's sake is a valid opinion, I suppose, but it's surely a feature request and not a bug.

Gallowglass

Madhax said:

I don't follow your reasoning.

I thought I'd already explained my reasoning pretty thoroughly above, but okay, I'll try again below.

Madhax said:

Being able to pickpocket items that Drizzt should have equipped was an oversight in the previous game, necessary because he needed to have his proper loot but dual-wielding wasn't implemented.

Not exactly an oversight, more a shortcoming of the original implementation: the original devs were aware of it, but did it anyway because they couldn't see another way to give Drizzt the proper loot in the absence of dual-wielding.

Madhax said:

If the developers take a look at Drizzt, they should make NEITHER of his swords pickpocketable. Wanting the original off-hand sword to be up for grabs for purity's sake is a valid opinion, I suppose ...

... and the latter (which you agree is a valid opinion) is exactly my position.

Madhax said:

... but it's surely a feature request and not a bug.

No. A feature request is when you want the designers to modify their intention, a bug is when something doesn't work the way the designers intended.

The declared (and contractual) intention of BG:EE's designers is to keep original content unchanged except for fixing of pre-existing bugs. Therefore correct operation of the Drizzt encounter is when it works the same way as in the original, unless the designers deliberately change something which they judge to have been a bug in the original.

I reckon that what I've reported (i.e. the additional pickpocketability of Twinkle) is a bug because it's a substantive change in original BG1 content which was probably not intended by the designers. What you've suggested (i.e. removing the original pickpocketability of Icingdeath) is probably a feature request because the designers probably deliberately retained that feature from original BG1 (and on balance I think they should retain it, although you might credibly argue that it was a bug all along and therefore still ought to be fixed).

ZanathKariashi

Then they need to get rid of the kits, since those didn't exist in BG1, and all those new spells that grossly change the original game experience, and get rid of player dual-wielding as well, and restore Algernon's Cloak. It went uncorrected forever, till just a few weeks ago, and was a "Feature" of the original game. The BG2 Drizzt is Identical to this one, except his gear is properly equipped rather then a shoddy work-around, and so he SHOULD be updated properly, which would also prevent you from pickpocketing him since his weapons would be actively equipped.

It was originally allowed because dual-wielding didn't exist, it does now, and should be fixed now that it's able to be done.

Communard

OK, people who want to be able to pickpocket his scimitars: describe the process by which a thief would steal a scimitar that Drizzt is holding in his hand. That would have to be some thief. Not to mention how laughable it is that a good character would do it. This was an engine limitation from the original game because of a lack of dual-wielding, it pretty obviously wasn't intended since Drizzt has them properly equipped in BG2. We're using the BG2 engine now so he should use his scimitars properly. Things that don't make any damn sense but were necessary because of an engine limitation that now doesn't exist are "bugs".

Darkfyre

I seem to remember that originally (in the very first version of Baldur's Gate) both scimitars were pickpocketable. It's only after the release of Tales of the Sword Coast was it changed so that the weaker scimitar only could be pickpocketed, the reasoning presumably being that you really had to work (by killing Drizzt) to earn the second scimitar. I believe the pickpocketing was originally allowed so that you could obtain at least one of his weapons without having to kill him, which is extremely difficult. Otherwise it would not have been too awkward to make both of them unavailable to pickpockets. Anyway by allowing both scimitars to be pickpocketed, the designers have in fact stayed true to original content, just content that has been changed before the realease of BG:EE. (I apologise if I've remembered incorrectly.)

Also, the point proficiency assigning tactic has already been drastically altered by making each proficieny weapon specific (like in BG2) unlike the weapon group proficiencies of the original. Thus it's difficult to claim that making both scimitars available without having to kill Drizzt will alter people's proficiency assigning tactics any more than it already has. And like others have said, if you feel as a player that pickpocketing Twinkle unbalances your game, then don't do it. It's doesn't feel like a bug, despite what the designers may have intended.

moopy

@Communard

I described how a thief might take the scimitars he was wielding already above

Gallowglass

ZanathKariashi said:

Then they need to get rid of the kits, since those didn't exist in BG1, and all those new spells that grossly change the original game experience, and get rid of player dual-wielding as well ...

That's just being silly. Switching to the BG2 version of the engine is obviously intentional as a major element of the enhancement, and these changes are deliberate improvements which are part of that switch. That's not at all the same as changes which are accidents or errors.

ZanathKariashi said:

The BG2 Drizzt is Identical to this one, except his gear is properly equipped rather then a shoddy work-around, and so he SHOULD be updated properly, which would also prevent you from pickpocketing him since his weapons would be actively equipped.

I agree that that's a defensible view. I only disagree because the pickpocketability of the offhand scimitar was a fairly significant "feature" of the original, so I wouldn't change it unnecessarily. However, if the only possibilities were "both" or "neither", then I'd join you in saying "neither" (rather than "both" as currently implemented).

Communard said:

Not to mention how laughable it is that a good character would do it.

I disagree, as debated previously in this thread. In the Forgotten Realms, thievery is not incompatible with good alignment.

Communard said:

Things that don't make any damn sense but were necessary because of an engine limitation that now doesn't exist are "bugs".

That's pretty much the classical technical definition (as used in software marketing) of a "feature" rather than a bug! That's what software salesmen actually mean when they say "we have retained the familiar features of the previous version".

Darkfyre said:

I seem to remember that originally (in the very first version of Baldur's Gate) both scimitars were pickpocketable. It's only after the release of Tales of the Sword Coast was it changed so that the weaker scimitar only could be pickpocketed ... by allowing both scimitars to be pickpocketed, the designers have in fact stayed true to original content

It's so long since I played BG1 without TotSC that I can't remember very clearly either. However, even if it was that way in unexpanded BG1, I don't think that's the valid comparison: BG:EE includes TotSC, so the "original content" to be conserved must surely mean the BG1+TotSC content.

Darkfyre said:

Also, the point proficiency assigning tactic has already been drastically altered by making each proficieny weapon specific (like in BG2) unlike the weapon group proficiencies of the original. Thus it's difficult to claim that making both scimitars available without having to kill Drizzt will alter people's proficiency assigning tactics any more than it already has.

Well of course that's a fair point, but it's still introducing a significant bias of the optimal proficiency selection towards exotic weapons instead of the "normal" weapon-types of the campaign setting. Scimitar was already a logical melee-proficiency for Druids (and now Monks too), which felt okay because they're slightly "exotic" characters, but now making scimitar also a logical core proficiency for every Warrior class is role-breaking, highly undesirable from a roleplaying perspective. It "ought" to be natural for each class to choose the weapons which you'd "expect" that class to use, not for every warrior to be comparatively gimped unless he's specialised in scimitars.

moopy said:

I described how a thief might take the scimitars he was wielding already above

As a roleplaying justification, yes, good effort. I'm not sure how easily that could translate into a game mechanic, though! I think it'd require custom scripting for each encounter where such a mechanism is intended to apply - which is perhaps do-able for a one-off situation with Drizzt, but too much work for wider use.

Gallowglass

Thinking further on this debate, I think I have a solution which might satisfy all of the views expressed above. Also, it would turn this into an actual feature request instead of a bug report.

Proposal: -

1) EQUIP both of Drizzt's scimitars as in BG2, so none of his equipment is actually pickpocketable.

2) ADD a custom script to the Drizzt encounter, so that IF the party speaks to him with a Bard or a fairly Bard-like Thief (i.e. a Thief with good CHA and good pickpocket skill), THEN there'll be an opportunity through dialogue to persuade Drizzt to hand over Icingdeath (Scimitar +3) without loss of reputation, but NOT to obtain any of his other equipment (unless the party resorts to violence and consequent loss of reputation).

That'd satisfy my concern to have Icingdeath (but only Icingdeath) available to a good-aligned party, and it'd solve the consistency issue with how Drizzt should be properly equipped in the BG2 engine, and for an evil-aligned party there'd remain the existing option of killing him to get the rest of his loot. Would everyone here be happy with this?

Communard

Gallowglass said:

Communard said:

Not to mention how laughable it is that a good character would do it.

I disagree, as debated previously in this thread. In the Forgotten Realms, thievery is not incompatible with good alignment.

That's true *generally*, but there isn't really a case that in this specific case stealing weapons from a good guy just because you like the look of them isn't evil. The "good" thievery is for stuff like stealing from evil people or for Robin Hood type activities, not depriving one of the major forces for good in the Realms of his weapons.

ZanathKariashi

That he is actively shown to be wielding at the time you're speaking to him. Yeah, pickpocketing them has never made any damn sense.

Nor would he part with either of them willingly, especially not Icingdeath, since that one has a lot of sentimental value (and rapes the hell out of Errtu every time he shows up)...Twinkle was more of a, "hey you're cool and all, so here's this funky glowing LotR sword rip-off...now get the F outta my tower".

They've already begun to change a lot of long standing "features" of the original game, and this is just one more that should happen since it's possible to implement him correctly now.

J_L_Seagull

Since these are both +3 weapons, among the best weapons in the game and Drizzt is actually fighting the gnolls with them and holding them in his hands, both of the weapons should be unpickable. In PnP, pickpocketing a weapon from someone would incure so many negative modifier that it would be impossible. And he is holding his weapons in his hands!!!! That must be a masterthief to manage to pick pocket a sword that someone is holding!!!

JTM

If you're going to roleplay, then an evil character 'may' kill or pp/steal from Drizzt his powerful items. Good aligned party and characters would not do either. End of story for roleplayers! Drizzt is not forced on anyone...

If you're going to power game then it's a moot point anyway... for example, you'll play a good alignment character and steal/ kill Drizzt for his weapons if your proficiencies are in scimitars... then go to a church and donate to increase your rep back and so on...

Imo, just leave Drizzt alone. He's fine as he is, pickpocketable weapons and all. The roleplayers can still roleplay... the powergamers can powergame... I would much rather have the devs devote more of their precious time to other more urgent game bug issues...