Skip to content

Assassin with Staff of the Magi vs. Shadowdancer

In the original BG2, of course, the at-will invisibility doesn't work without the fixpack mod.

Do you think they'll fix it for BG2:EE, and if so, will there be any reason to play a Shadowdancer once you get HLAs?
«1

Comments

  • Lord_TansheronLord_Tansheron Member Posts: 4,212
    It depends on how define that "reason to play". From a powergaming perspective, you'd play neither. If you discount optimal play, there's no real argument; just play what you find cool to play.

    Backstabs are relevant only against fairly weak enemies anyway, as anything remotely dangerous is immune (all liches, beholders, mind flayers, golems...). Staff of the Magi can do silly things to be sure, but I'm not sure it's enough of a reason to push balance either way. Also keep in mind that it's very micro-intensive, as you can't actually backstab with the staff; the equipping/unequipping alone takes so much time you'd probably have killed the enemy already if you just right-clicked and went afk...
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,317
    Seems more worth it to leave the staff with one of your mage NPC's.
  • JoeyJoey Member Posts: 201
    IIRC the staff isn't that useful for spellcasters. Invisibility on demand isn't that handy, and the spells it casts are pretty meh.
  • LuigirulesLuigirules Member Posts: 419
    I'm tired of hearing how backstabbing is useless. Sure, some big enemies are immune to it, but not all of them.

    Take mages. Enemy mages in BG2 are SUPREMELY annoying. So, send your thief in there and chunk them before they have a chance to cast any spells. Boom. Fight just got a lot easier.
  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    @Luigirules - that is my strategy as well. Unfortunately, later in the game (round about TOB) all of the mages have supreme defense against that tactic in the form of Contingency PfMW which fires regardless of if the enemy can detect you or not. All of the sudden, the first strike is much better used against something that will actually take the damage.
  • Lord_TansheronLord_Tansheron Member Posts: 4,212
    Backstab can certainly cheesed in certain situations in the vanilla game. I guess part of the reason people complain about BS being so useless is the ubiquity of SCS, which gives mages pre-buffed Stoneskin (among other things) to prevent just that.
  • PugPugPugPug Member Posts: 560

    @Luigirules - that is my strategy as well. Unfortunately, later in the game (round about TOB) all of the mages have supreme defense against that tactic in the form of Contingency PfMW which fires regardless of if the enemy can detect you or not. All of the sudden, the first strike is much better used against something that will actually take the damage.

    Use a normal weapon...?
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,317
    Joey said:

    IIRC the staff isn't that useful for spellcasters. Invisibility on demand isn't that handy, and the spells it casts are pretty meh.

    Invisibility on demand is very handy, particularly for causing enemies to fizzle on their targeted spellcasting and for using it as a means of scouting. Even if enemies cast true sight you can just go invisible right after it checks, which is very useful (obviously this is less of a benefit in ToB but there only a few enemies in SoA like the Kuo-toa that will ignore invisibility). The damage spells are decent but the Spell trap is very useful as a free way of rejuvenating spells.
  • ZanathKariashiZanathKariashi Member Posts: 2,869
    @the_spyder

    CC doesn't fire against stealthed characters unless you've modded it to do so (several difficulty mods include that as a "feature"), or they can see through invisibility/stealth by some means anyway (I mean it's already cheese enough that they start spamming scripted TS if someone stealthed gets within a screen of them, even though in pretty much every case, there's no logical reason for them to know you're coming).

    Though ToB areas have an annoying habit of de-stealth/de-cloaking everyone before a fight, even though it's logical that you might want someone to scout ahead or hang back to flank in case some bad happens.

    I mean sure...something like a dragon is fine, since they actually have the ability to perceive everything within 60ft of themselves, regardless of visibility or invisibility, due to finely tuned senses. But most other examples of those are just arbitrary deus ex machina.
  • kamuizinkamuizin Member Posts: 3,704

    It depends on how define that "reason to play". From a powergaming perspective, you'd play neither. If you discount optimal play, there's no real argument; just play what you find cool to play.

    Backstabs are relevant only against fairly weak enemies anyway, as anything remotely dangerous is immune (all liches, beholders, mind flayers, golems...). Staff of the Magi can do silly things to be sure, but I'm not sure it's enough of a reason to push balance either way. Also keep in mind that it's very micro-intensive, as you can't actually backstab with the staff; the equipping/unequipping alone takes so much time you'd probably have killed the enemy already if you just right-clicked and went afk...

    Lichs and mind flayers aren't immunte to backstab.
  • Lord_TansheronLord_Tansheron Member Posts: 4,212
    @kamuizin: You sure? I thought they were, since they naturally see through invisibility. I might have to test it, not that there's a ton of situations where you can place a proper backstab on a lich anyway...
  • dibdib Member Posts: 384
    @Lord_Tansheron They don't see through invisibility either (without casting the proper spell).
  • Lord_TansheronLord_Tansheron Member Posts: 4,212
    WHAT IS THIS? My world is crumbling around me!
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,317
    Most liches (not all) do have the script that lets them see through invisibility and they will cast spells at you if you are invisible. I don't think mind flayers do however.
  • DKnightDKnight Member Posts: 307
    Shadowdancers are the best backstabbing class in the game. Make no mistake, I fought sarevok with 3 backstabs back to back (lol) that took all of 10 seconds to bring him down. My party was playing monopoly back at the fort while this was happening. The class is grossly overpowered because of this.
  • Lord_TansheronLord_Tansheron Member Posts: 4,212
    How can a boss not be immune to backstab? That sounds like a serious design flaw to me, just screaming for abuse.
  • kamuizinkamuizin Member Posts: 3,704
    edited September 2013
    elminster said:

    Most liches (not all) do have the script that lets them see through invisibility and they will cast spells at you if you are invisible. I don't think mind flayers do however.

    This is also innacurrated @Elminster, almost every lich in the game will cast true sight if you approach them with an invisible thief. The only difference is that they apparently feel invisible cos even in blue circles (before their battle banters) they cast true sight.

    Normally most of the lichs in the game i kill with an sequence of 2-3 backstabs, give the first one and before the lich turns red i hit hide in shadows button, give the second and before their contingency can be activated i swallow an invisibile potion (if needed) give the third and they hardly will be alive for a fourth.

    Lich's have 3 contingency spells (yes, they cheese and spoil the rules) one for enemy on sight, other after passing an low HP % check and a spell Tatoo that the player don't have access but works like a contingency or spell sequence of shorts.

    If PnP use different rules i don't know, but ingame they don't see invisible naturally (unlike dragons) and they can be backstabed (unlike most of te dragons in the game).
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,317
    edited September 2013
    Funny because I just tested Lich01 in-game and it immediately cast a trigger/contingency upon being created and then proceeded to cast spells at my mage who remained invisible (despite him being invisible only through a 2nd level invisibility spell). Had he cast true sight my mage should have been fully revealed.

    Then I tried the same thing with Viconia while she had sanctuary active. Same thing. The sanctuary remained active but the lich first used cast time stop and was casting symbol:stun, the death spell, and others at her.

    Tried it with a thief while the thief was hidden and the same result.

    Edit: For the record I'm not saying Lich's are immune to backstab but most of them can ignore invisibility.
  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    @ZanathKariashi- maybe I am confused. I have had several instances where simply stealthing into the area has caused mage contingencies to fire, and I play a mainly unmodified game. Maybe they had some method of detecting invisibility? Or maybe I failed my stealth role? In any case, I usually simply break out a deck of cards and play a hand until the protections fail.

    In any event, particularly in TOB, but sometimes before, the ability to sneak attack Mages hasn't always worked out as my #1 strategy. And considering that they are the main PITA that high level (time stop followed by Symbol spells followed by Wail of the Banshee can really mess up your day), you have to have some kind of strategy to deal with them.

  • kamuizinkamuizin Member Posts: 3,704
    edited September 2013
    elminster said:

    Funny because I just tested Lich01 in-game and it immediately cast a trigger/contingency upon being created and then proceeded to cast spells at my mage who remained invisible (despite him being invisible only through a 2nd level invisibility spell). Had he cast true sight my mage should have been fully revealed.

    Then I tried the same thing with Viconia while she had sanctuary active. Same thing. The sanctuary remained active but the lich first used cast time stop and was casting symbol:stun, the death spell, and others at her.

    Tried it with a thief while the thief was hidden and the same result.

    Edit: For the record I'm not saying Lich's are immune to backstab but most of them can ignore invisibility.

    After thousands of BG2 plays i'm totally sure that lichs doesn't see invisible. If you say that one CreateCreature command invoked a special lich with the ability to see invisible i will not deny your statement however.

    But, one thing is area sequence spells, ever lich after become hostile will:

    At sight of char name or anything allied to him (party members, summoned creatures) AND AFTER his banter (as all the lichs have a banter before battle) trigger a chain contingency (normally improved mantle, spell trap that is cheesed cos chain contingency shouldn't allow lvl 9 spells and globe of invulnerability).

    After become hostile will start to cast continuous (3) true sight, that can be denied with non-detection spell or cloak.

    At sight of main char or allies, will cast the following sequence:

    Time stop (inside time stop symbol of stun, symbol of death/fear, gate, and will start a casting of meteor swarm that will conclude after the time stop end).

    If you interrupt his time stop time by leaving the room where he is (charname and party members must leave the AR of the lich for this work, but summons can stay there) he will not cast the symbols of ... or meteor swarm but will randomly cast gate, power word stun, abi- dalzim horrid wilting, summon djinn (more or less, but not always, in this order). Sometimes they cast wail of banshee, but not often with me at least.

    After the time stop, interrupted or not, they cast flesh to stone and desintegrate among other lvl 6/7 spells. after that he will cast other spells that i don't remember anymore.

    Obs: if a lich already saw you once, if you leave and reenter the AR of the lich while invisible (and with non-detection cos he will surelly be with true sight activated), he will always cast area effect spells, these will be handled different, normally he cast outside of time stop meteor swarm, gate, wail of banshee, summon djinn.
  • LuigirulesLuigirules Member Posts: 419
    Also, the cloak of non-detection is essential for backstabbing.

    True sight? I don't think so, buddy...
  • MathsorcererMathsorcerer Member Posts: 3,042
    To maximize the effectiveness of invisibility, you have to make sure that non-detection includes protection from secondary type (effect 205) with type = 5 (divination attack); this way, even when true seeing is cast you cannot be discovered. This also works against creatures that have that awful "detect invisibility by script" ability. Once you correct both the spell and the cloak of non-detection, thieves and assassins have a much easier time of waltzing through things. Using the Staff of the Magi is always a good idea, though, since it dispels magic upon a successful strike but I will need to double-check its effectiveness.

    Shadowdancers? Meh. I prefer straight assassin, myself. My wife enjoyed playing a Shadowdancer in her games but she has a different playing style than I do.
  • lamaroslamaros Member Posts: 139

    How can a boss not be immune to backstab? That sounds like a serious design flaw to me, just screaming for abuse.

    Abuse? How is playing via the game mechanics abuse?

    Is cloaks of non detection and lots of invis potions abuse? It's a game mechanic, it's deliberate and players are meant to make use of them.

    Does it make things easier for certain classes? Yes. But that doesn't make it abuse. Planning to do so is just metagaming in the same way that buying prot from magic scrolls (or Inquisitors, etc) is. Just because something is effective doesn't mean it's abuse.

  • kamuizinkamuizin Member Posts: 3,704
    lamaros said:

    How can a boss not be immune to backstab? That sounds like a serious design flaw to me, just screaming for abuse.

    Abuse? How is playing via the game mechanics abuse?

    Is cloaks of non detection and lots of invis potions abuse? It's a game mechanic, it's deliberate and players are meant to make use of them.

    Does it make things easier for certain classes? Yes. But that doesn't make it abuse. Planning to do so is just metagaming in the same way that buying prot from magic scrolls (or Inquisitors, etc) is. Just because something is effective doesn't mean it's abuse.

    As @Lamaros said @Lord_Tansheron, these are game features. D&D is a game with deep rules, if the boss is a common being there's no reason for him to be immune to backstab, in BG some casual fighters can be harder than end chapter fights, specially if they're not intented to be picked (Drizzt, Shandalar, Gorion...).
  • ZanathKariashiZanathKariashi Member Posts: 2,869
    edited September 2013
    Backstab immunity doesn't care who they are. It's a result of the ability to negate the conditions to allow a backstab.


    Some creatures are innately immune, because they lack any identifiable weak-point to strike for (oozes, golem, incorporeal undead). Others have finely tuned senses (Dragons/some demon or devils/kua-tuo) or can activate spells (casters) that make it impossible or at least much more difficult to sneak up on them, which even if they can't turn to face you, that being on guard makes it impossible to strike accurately enough to land a "backstab", which requires the target to be completely unaware of you so you can line up your attack correctly.

    (of note, unlike 3rd edition, 2nd edition Undead can be backstabbed, as they still have significant structural features that can be attacked to weaken them.


    The part of the game that is Bull%^$& however, is how prevalent crit immunity is. Pretty much nothing outside of oozes, some golem, and incorporeal undead are supposed to be immune crits.

    Everything else is perfectly legit targets for crits, or they're using high level magics to prevent it (8th level spell, or +5 item quality effects that do nothing else).
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,455
    Making things crit/backstab immune "just cuz they're bosses" is silly.
  • taltamirtaltamir Member Posts: 288
    edited September 2013

    I'm tired of hearing how backstabbing is useless. Sure, some big enemies are immune to it, but not all of them.

    Take mages. Enemy mages in BG2 are SUPREMELY annoying. So, send your thief in there and chunk them before they have a chance to cast any spells. Boom. Fight just got a lot easier.

    Enemy mages and thieves are the ONLY humanoid enemies NOT immune to crits... since every enemy cleric/fighter/etc is wearing one (they ARE dirt cheap after all).
    And an enemy mage is killed by a SINGLE tank in 1 round if spell defenses fail (or are dispelled) without any crits.
  • ZanathKariashiZanathKariashi Member Posts: 2,869
    edited September 2013
    Backstabs are not crits....crit immunity has nothing to do with backstab, other then preventing you from landing a critical backstab for even more ludicrous damage then BS already deals (237 crit-BS fresh out of Irenicus's dungeon with a T/M on the mage with the adventurer group in the Den of seven veils).
  • kamuizinkamuizin Member Posts: 3,704
    taltamir said:

    I'm tired of hearing how backstabbing is useless. Sure, some big enemies are immune to it, but not all of them.

    Take mages. Enemy mages in BG2 are SUPREMELY annoying. So, send your thief in there and chunk them before they have a chance to cast any spells. Boom. Fight just got a lot easier.

    Enemy mages and thieves are the ONLY humanoid enemies NOT immune to crits... since every enemy cleric/fighter/etc is wearing one (they ARE dirt cheap after all).
    And an enemy mage is killed by a SINGLE tank in 1 round if spell defenses fail (or are dispelled) without any crits.
    Critical and backstab doesn't share the same group of immunity. Any helmet can block a critical hit, but will not block an backstab. Golems are immune to backstab but susceptible to critical hits.

    By my views, and my personal view i mean, i think helmets shouldn't give immunity to critical, but rather an percentage chance to resist the critical, after all a hit in the head isn't the only place where you can make massive damage.
  • Lord_TansheronLord_Tansheron Member Posts: 4,212
    lamaros said:

    Is cloaks of non detection and lots of invis potions abuse? It's a game mechanic, it's deliberate and players are meant to make use of them.

    Does it make things easier for certain classes? Yes. But that doesn't make it abuse. Planning to do so is just metagaming in the same way that buying prot from magic scrolls (or Inquisitors, etc) is. Just because something is effective doesn't mean it's abuse.

    It was hyperbole, but still: backstabs can be disproportionately powerful, and trivialize encounters. Boss encounters, much less the *final* boss, should never be trivialized. It's fine if you can chunk a random goon every now and then, but killing Sarevok in two seconds with backstabs isn't healthy game design. Of course it's within the game's design space (i.e. not cheating), but that just means that design is faulty.

    Easier is one thing - trivial is quite another.
Sign In or Register to comment.