Was there ever any MOD that allows USE ANY ITEM to lift back-stab weapon restrictions for thieves?

Debaser

I'm curious,

I think it's sort of odd that weapons like Staff of the Magi won't work for backstabbing at that point.

Also I think it'd be really fun to be able to back-stab with two-handed swords if you're a fighter thief who's gotten to that point in BG2.

Tactically it could open a lot of doors, and feels sort of like a near miss in the fun department.

Especially since assassination with grand mastery in staves using a fighter dualed to the thief can be so devastating anyway, it kind of makes the whole point of USE ANY ITEM to me to be a bit moot.

Chow

Use Any Item was always a bit of rubbish, anyway. And to me two-handed swords and their sort seem a little too clumsy to swing behind your enemy's back without him noticing you, no matter how high-level you are.

Debaser

Chow said:

Use Any Item was always a bit of rubbish, anyway. And to me two-handed swords and their sort seem a little too clumsy to swing behind your enemy's back without him noticing you, no matter how high-level you are.

@Chow

I see it more like...striking someone with the pommel to the mid section of their spine knocking them down...or dragging it low to the ground slashing at their ankles from an alley.

you can back-stab with a staff which would be as long or longer depending...it just doesn't make sense to me that USE ANY ITEM doesn't lift the restriction.

Especially in cases where the item is of a weapon type that should work already (Staff of the Magi falls into a weird loophole since it's restricted to mages initially, as if it's not a staff...which sucks since it can cast invisibility, etc.)

I wish there was more information as to why it's not coded to let you have more access to weapons in a practical sense.

Chow

Using your staff is much easier even from behind, in spite of its length, because you can hold it from any point and swing it however you like and it is just as effective. A two-handed sword being used by striking with its pommel, though, would do little to nothing of use: might as well switch to a short sword or a dagger, no?

Debaser

Chow said:

Using your staff is much easier even from behind, in spite of its length, because you can hold it from any point and swing it however you like and it is just as effective. A two-handed sword being used by striking with its pommel, though, would do little to nothing of use: might as well switch to a short sword or a dagger, no?

@Chow

You may be right...but we're talking about people with superhuman strength a lot of the time...if you got hit with an 18/00 STR wielding a butter knife it'd hurt.

What about if you were just insanely quiet? (200+ in move silently) I don't see you not being able to creep up with a two-handed sword then.

Chow

It's not about being quiet: you can sneak behind someone just fine. It's just that wielding a sword like that and trying to damage someone is going to take a lot of moving around and maneuvering, as well as time, and there's no way he would be blind enough to not notice.

High strength is irrelevant: it may increase the damage of your pommel attack, but it would increase it even more if you used the blade end.

Debaser

@Chow

It's the same reason I don't agree with some cleric weapon restrictions depending on Alignment / God you worship, you should be able to use a dagger for instance. It just doesn't seem practical to me.

Chow

Gods tend to forbid you from shedding blood, especially the good ones. This is an actual historical fact, something that was added to D&D. Hence, no swords for priests.

Debaser

Chow said:

It's not about being quiet: you can sneak behind someone just fine. It's just that wielding a sword like that and trying to damage someone is going to take a lot of moving around and maneuvering, as well as time, and there's no way he would be blind enough to not notice.

High strength is irrelevant: it may increase the damage of your pommel attack, but it would increase it even more if you used the blade end.

OK but with that logic the staff wouldn't get the same kind of torque and inertia from wielding it at full length Vs gripping it differently for a back-stab attempt.

Debaser

Chow said:

Gods tend to forbid you from shedding blood, especially the good ones. This is an actual historical fact, something that was added to D&D. Hence, no swords for priests.

Oh I agree with that, I'm talking about an evil or a neutral god who demands sacrifice, etc. I don't see priests using swords...but daggers depending on alignment...I can see that.

Debaser

@Chow

In Dragon Age Origins for instance you actually get Pommel Strike as a fast attack.

TJ_Hooker

Chow said:

Use Any Item was always a bit of rubbish, anyway. And to me two-handed swords and their sort seem a little too clumsy to swing behind your enemy's back without him noticing you, no matter how high-level you are.

The thing is you're applying real world logic to a skill that isn't actually realistic. We're talking about a skill that, as long as it's high enough, allows you to stand directly in front of someone in broad daylight and not be seen. I think if you can manage that, swinging a sword without making noise would certainly be in the realm of possibility.

Chow

I'm not talking about noise, I never was, but rather motion. You may be quite silent at how you use the sword, but the enemy will see you all the same, because it would be hard to not see the buffoon behind you trying to arrange the giant sword he's wielding around the same way as your back.

Debaser

TJ_Hooker said:

Chow said:

Use Any Item was always a bit of rubbish, anyway. And to me two-handed swords and their sort seem a little too clumsy to swing behind your enemy's back without him noticing you, no matter how high-level you are.

The thing is you're applying real world logic to a skill that isn't actually realistic. We're talking about a skill that, as long as it's high enough, allows you to stand directly in front of someone in broad daylight and not be seen. I think if you can manage that, swinging a sword without making noise would certainly be in the realm of possibility.

@TJ_Hooker - I TOTALLY AGREE!!!! I'm not even asking for game changes to mechanics, though I feel they're warranted with this kind of hindsight. I'm just asking if a good MOD exists. If not I'll wait for BG2 and try to get someone who knows better than I into the idea of making one. =/

Debaser

Chow said:

I'm not talking about noise, I never was, but rather motion. You may be quite silent at how you use the sword, but the enemy will see you all the same, because it would be hard to not see the buffoon behind you trying to arrange the giant sword he's wielding around the same way as your back.

@Chow

Yeah, that doesn't work for me. You're striking fast from behind right? That means speed is a factor. They'd see you out of the corner of their eye...but too late. I don't agree with that respectfully.

TJ_Hooker

Chow said:

I'm not talking about noise, I never was, but rather motion. You may be quite silent at how you use the sword, but the enemy will see you all the same, because it would be hard to not see the buffoon behind you trying to arrange the giant sword he's wielding around the same way as your back.

You mentioned being behind your enemy, so I guess I just figured you were talking about noise rather than sight. It doesn't actually make much difference to my argument, as my point was that the thief's abilities in the game already exceed what's possible in real life anyways, so saying that a thief shouldn't be able to do something simply because it would be unrealistic in the real world isn't really valid.

Lord_Tansheron

2h weapons, especially swords, are not actually as unwieldy as you'd think. The ones that are actually the clumsiest to use are the ones relying on momentum, i.e. sledgehammers and similar weapons. The difference between a 1h and a 2h blade can actually be very small (katana for example are 1h in BG1, yet are in actuality mostly wielded as 2h). Even with the biggest, meanest 2h sword, it's not like you need a running start to hit someone - you can just keep it drawn, step into a shadowy corner, and wait. When you swing it, it won't be a huge difference from a smaller weapon.

In fact, you could argue that big, relatively unwieldy weapons are BETTER for sneak attacks - after all, that sort of move takes a whole lot of reaction and maneuvering out of the equation. A dagger or similar small weapon on the other hand may be better suited for fast-paced combat with a lot of movement where a clunky 2h might slow you down unnecessarily.

But I suppose you could argue that "hide in shadows" can be interpreted in a number of ways - including, perhaps, blending into a crowd. In that case what would matter would be how concealable the weapon is, another big plus for daggers/short swords. Though who knows, someone running around openly with a 7-foot cleaver of doom may not be as conspicuous in some settings as you'd think...

Yeah, RP talk is like dating; an awkward mess from start to end, and you don't really get anywhere...

AHF

Chow said:

Gods tend to forbid you from shedding blood, especially the good ones. This is an actual historical fact, something that was added to D&D. Hence, no swords for priests.

Yeah, nothing that would shed any blood. So use this:

Chow

I'm not sure if that sort of flails were okay, at least with that kind of ridiculous spikes, but blunt weaponry was commonly used as a loophole.

Lord_Tansheron

Chow said:

Gods tend to forbid you from shedding blood, especially the good ones. This is an actual historical fact, something that was added to D&D. Hence, no swords for priests.

Actually, it wasn't so much historical fact that inspired D&D as the contemporary image of "kickass clerics" at the time. The whole idea of "if you live by the sword you will die by the sword" was popular back then and inspired Gygax & Co. during their creation of D&D. Simply put: it was just a cool idea they liked and so they rolled with it.

Historical "fighting clerics" were largely without such reservations, mainly because at that time you couldn't really afford not to use the best tool for the job. The Knights Templar and other crusaders definitely used swords and other bladed weapons, for example.

That being said, D&D seems to be moving away from a strict dogma these days. Several faiths allow their priests the use of "non-clerical" weapons now, which makes a lot of sense as you said. After all, it's a bit difficult to cut out someone's heart for the glory of Lolth with a spoon, eh?

the_spyder

The point of the matter is the ability is supposed to be 'Back Stabbing', not sneak attack. The original text indicated that a thief had the ability to place a blade in exactly the right spot to cause extra damage. I assume it has something to do with knowing how to slip a small blade between the ribs such that it would do maximum damage. that is why it pretty much only worked with knives and short swords. Even a long sword would be hard pressed to strike with that level of precision.

Later editions of the game turned the ability into 'Sneak Attack', which was a surprise attack that caught the opponent off guard and therefore did more damage. This is NOT the same as the original, merely an interpretation of it.

AHF

Chow said:

I'm not sure if that sort of flails were okay, at least with that kind of ridiculous spikes, but blunt weaponry was commonly used as a loophole.

All the BG1 flails look pretty much exactly like that.

the_spyder

Lord_Tansheron said:

After all, it's a bit difficult to cut out someone's heart for the glory of Lolth with a spoon, eh?

But it is ever so much fun to do so.

Debaser

the_spyder said:

The point of the matter is the ability is supposed to be 'Back Stabbing', not sneak attack. The original text indicated that a thief had the ability to place a blade in exactly the right spot to cause extra damage. I assume it has something to do with knowing how to slip a small blade between the ribs such that it would do maximum damage. that is why it pretty much only worked with knives and short swords. Even a long sword would be hard pressed to strike with that level of precision.

Later editions of the game turned the ability into 'Sneak Attack', which was a surprise attack that caught the opponent off guard and therefore did more damage. This is NOT the same as the original, merely an interpretation of it.

Think maybe a Mod where you can backstab with anything after obtaining the USE ANY ITEM ability would be a cool one to sorta find a middle ground?

ReadingRambo

Chow said:

Gods tend to forbid you from shedding blood, especially the good ones. This is an actual historical fact, something that was added to D&D. Hence, no swords for priests.

This is rubbish, blunt weapons cause massive bleeding, including internal. One of the most ridiculous restrictions in 2nd edition.

Chow

ReadingRambo said:

This is rubbish, blunt weapons cause massive bleeding, including internal. One of the most ridiculous restrictions in 2nd edition.

It is rubbish, but it is still a historical fact. Religion's never made much sense anyway.

Lord_Tansheron

Chow said:

It is rubbish, but it is still a historical fact. Religion's never made much sense anyway.

It is not, in fact, historical fact. Most of the stories originated as rumors from the 19th century, centered around stories of Odo, Bishop of Bayeux and Turpin, Archbishop of Rheims. They were prominently depicted wielding blunt weapons, but there is just as much documentation of them using bladed/pointed weapons. The whole notion became a popular device in fiction however, and that was what inspired the creators of D&D. None of it is rooted in any form of substantiated historical fact.

the_spyder

I think the restrictions were invented merely to make clerics less combat ready than fighters, pure and simple.

And loads of lore are predicated on spurious and inconsistent historical facts.

Lord_Tansheron

According to a statement from a member of the original Gygax play group, it really was just something they found unique and cool. Balance concerns were not a major concern at the beginning of the game.

Debaser

Maybe a mod concerning class weapon restrictions in general? I just feel there should be something. But I know it should be a mod, NOT cannon.