Are enemies that are immune to backstab also immune to sneak attacks?
wavingbug
Member Posts: 59
Hi!
I read that later in the game stronger enemies like dragons are usually immune to backstab. I wondered whether they are immune to sneak attacks too, if they are enabled?
Thanks and stuff
I read that later in the game stronger enemies like dragons are usually immune to backstab. I wondered whether they are immune to sneak attacks too, if they are enabled?
Thanks and stuff
0
Comments
Also, it should be pretty easy to test. Pick up the +1 staff in the BG2 starting dungeon, then try for a sneak attack on the Jailkeep golem.
Yes I noticed that some enemy mages instantly did cast True Seeing as soon as I entered a room with Valygar. Is it that they could hear Valygar's steps? Does Move Silently affect that somehow? I just thought that it was implemented in order to make encounters with mages harder (as if they were not annoying enough sometimes), because a successful backstab just kills them right away. Thought it is a bit cheesy (rules for thee but not for me) and wondered why they cast it instantly upon entering the room even though I am hidden. Something must trigger that.
And no, they don't cast instantly. True Sight takes around half a round to cast; a backstabber with boots of speed can usually get a stab off before they're finished casting.
It's the creatures that innately see through invisibility with no need for spells that are the real trouble. You're only getting a stab on one of them if they're flanked.
The Move Silently skill does absolutely nothing separate from Hide in Shadows; the two are averaged (and lighting modifiers applied) to determine the chance of success when the character tries to hide.
I know that their average is taken to determine whether you could hide or not. It would have been a cool thing though if Move Silently still would affect being heard, because you'd probably make a sound walking on gravel although invisible. As player you could see that in the chat window e.g. "You are hearing footsteps nearby." and for NPCs that are scripted to cast invisibility-breaking magic it could be one trigger (aside from others like seeing an enemy or engaging combat) to cast True Sight or similar spells.
It's kind of lame that the AI is programmed to cast it right away when a stealthed player is nearby. Of course the AI knows you are there technically but you could make that behaviour more natural using other triggers than just location.
Having two separate skills Hide in Shadows and Move Silently would make more sense then too. Otherwise just having Stealth like it was in BG1 back then would have been clearer.
As a player, you do hear footsteps when an invisible creature is nearby, for example an invisible stalker or ashirukuru. But that's not dependent on their Move Silently skill, it's just a hint to warn the player.
Still, I agree it would be a neat implementation to make the probability of an enemy casting True Sight depend on it, at least theoretically. Practically it would be rather complicated, because only thieves and rangers get that skill in combination with Hide in Shadows, so magical invisibility, unless cast on one of those classes, would suddenly be weaker than Hide in Shadows, or we'd need to assume the spell automatically muffles your steps, too.
Wow, I never heard any footsteps at all in the game. I need to pay attention to that.
That's right it would weaken Invisibility but classes that can cast spells are very versatile anyway and have more tools available than any other. In IWD there is a spell called Cat's Grace which is not available in BG. It raises your dexterity with a dice roll depending on your class. That would be a perfect spell that could also raise your Move Silently score. I know this will never be adjusted, but anyway. I always wondered why the split of Stealth into Move Silently and Hide in Shadows if their value is just averaged and they don't do something on their own. It's just confusing/complicating things without any benefit.
IWD spells like Cat's Grace are available in BG through mods. There's IWDification, and SCS has a component to choose to add them for mages and clerics.
Since, in virtually every case, backstabs deal more damage than sneak attacks, the option is basically a strict nerf to thieves and Stalkers. Sneak attacks keep scaling at higher levels than backstabs do, but backstabs also scale with your weapon's damage. If you just equip a strong weapon, you'll get more out of the stab. And if you really go out of your way (weapon mastery bonuses, kit bonuses, certain shapeshift forms), you can get enormous backstabs in a way that sneak attacks simply can't duplicate.
I guess my question is: Do you get Sneak Attacks when not-stealthed/invisble if another melee combatant is engaged with and on the opposite side of the victim?
Though I have to admit that I really need to play more with Sneak Attacks enabled make a better comparison. Here I also copied some passages from the manual that might be helpful in making a decision. Keep in mind that you can of course just change between the options to use Backstabs or Sneak Attacks for each sitution, although that would be probably tedious.
There is nothing written on whether you would always get Sneak Attacks on an incapitated enemy. But you cannot miss (or perhaps only very rarely) miss an enemy that is being held or stunned, Sneak Attacks or not. Here are the numbers for thieves in general (also taken from the manual):
I know you get a bonus of 4 to THAC0 when attacking while stealthed but especially early in the game pure Thiefs have a terrible THAC0. I think at least in that situation Sneak Attacks have a slight edge, because you can just keep trying. If you can hit reliably and can restealth, or are hasted Backstabs do sound like the better choice.
I do not think that for Sneak Attacks you have to be stealthed. Just your position matters. That is an advantage because you can easily keep trying on your next attacks and move from target to target after you landed your sneak attack on one. Question is how good it is to not focus each target. Depends I guess.
However, the "only once" part is a lie. You can get multiple sneak attacks on the same target.
When it comes to hitting things, backstabbers don't usually have much problem. After all, you don't just get the +4 to hit from invisibility - you also ignore the target's Dex modifier. And if the target doesn't have a melee weapon equipped, that's another +4 to hit and +4 (multiplied in the stab) damage.
So, revised opinion: the two options favor different play styles. Backstabs are best used with a lone specialist heading out ahead of the party to strike and retreat, taking out key targets before the rest of the party engages. Sneak attacks are best used in the thick of melee, as your rogue weakens whoever's currently vulnerable. Multiple attacks per round help the sneak attacker more than the backstabber, because the sneak attacker doesn't have to disengage to reapply stealth. Both require significant player attention, of course.
The files for Crippling Strike do not exist in BG2EE by default, so you can spam sneak attacks.
This might be the reason multiple Sneak Attacks work in Baldur's Gate. I copied this part out of the Icewind Dale manual, where it seems that it actually works like that (I asked a question initually in the context of IWD in another thread). So in IWD only one Sneak Attack per target.
You always could enable Sneak Attacks in IWD, even in the vanilla version of it. With the Enhanced Editions this settings has been added to BG as well and I thought it would work the same.
So in IWD it works, because the files for Crippling Strike always had been there, in BG it does not because it seemingly got enabled without adding those files from IWD. That clearly sounds like a bug to me then.
Sneak Attacks are not mentioned in the BG1/2:EE manuals at all, despite the existing setting.
I mean ignoring that you could restealth and try to backstab again, which at some point will become a tedious; having a +3D6 added to all your attacks sounds way more powerful than doing x4 your damage once, even more so when having a high amount of attacks per round (talking about a level 10 rogue). Can't you get 10 ATP with haste?
And all you have to do for that is make sure your rogue is flanking or behind the target. Easy I think.
Here is how this works properly in Icewind Dale:
You can clearly see, it only works once. The thief has not been stealthed. That being said I wish that option would be supported in BG1/2 too.
Kind of technical question for this thread, but anyway:
Do you know why the 70 rounds immunity is implemented via opcode #292?
Why not just applying a simple opcode #206 effect as the last effect...?
Here.
Yeah, me dumb...
I mean, the "issue" here is that the AI is not required to flank their target when performing sneak attacks (the `BackStab()` script action does not work), so op#292 is necessary to balance things out...