Are short swords really better than long swords for back-stabbing?
Oxford_Guy
Member Posts: 3,729
I've been wondering, ignoring any specific magic weapon bonuses, whether short swords really are better than long swords for back-stabing, as seems commonly suggested. Yes, short swords are faster, but long swords (especially magic ones) are not that slow, and does speed really matter that much for back-stabbing?
It's true that in some cases there's perhaps more chance your target will move away before you make contact, but often, at least for your *initial* attack, your opponent is rooted in spot, until you're spotted. I guess it's more of an issue if you stealth again once combat has started (either by running away and hiding again, or using Invisibility somehow) and wish to make another backstab, though - is this the main reason in favour of short swords?
It's just that, as well as doing 1-8 damage, instead of 1-6 damage, long swords are slashing weapons, which are less affected by heavy armour than piercing and there's less enemies immune to slashing damage than piercing. Also, there are more good magic long swords than short swords. especially in BG2 (though Kundane in BG2, with its extra attack, is nice).
Opinions?
It's true that in some cases there's perhaps more chance your target will move away before you make contact, but often, at least for your *initial* attack, your opponent is rooted in spot, until you're spotted. I guess it's more of an issue if you stealth again once combat has started (either by running away and hiding again, or using Invisibility somehow) and wish to make another backstab, though - is this the main reason in favour of short swords?
It's just that, as well as doing 1-8 damage, instead of 1-6 damage, long swords are slashing weapons, which are less affected by heavy armour than piercing and there's less enemies immune to slashing damage than piercing. Also, there are more good magic long swords than short swords. especially in BG2 (though Kundane in BG2, with its extra attack, is nice).
Opinions?
2
Comments
However, if you are either very good at hiding in shadows or prefer high base damages, than longswords should be your choice. I think longswrods are better but I never go with them for the atmosphere; an assassin with a longsword... is just weird.
I remember reading somewhere (possibly on these forums) that short swords are better because they usually have higher +x bonuses. For example, you can get a short sword +3 in BG1, but only a longsword +2, and in BGII I think you find +4 and +5 shortswords a while before you get +4 and +5 long swords. While this isn't important for normal combat (a +x longsword will still do the same damage as a +(x+1) shortsword on average) according to the guy whose post I was reading, it is important when backstabbing.
His logic was that, when it comes to backstabbing, it was better to increase the minimum damage you do rather than increase the maximum. I kinda agree with him on that, as I never go into a fight expecting my thief to stab for max damage, but I do usually expect him to inflict at least moderate damage, so getting a poor roll and hitting for piddling damage can really put a damper on my strategy.
I don't really know if I agree with the guy over all, but it's something to think about.
* though I can see giving a long sword to a Stalker, for example, as will be in straight melee as much as back-stabbing
http://deadgentlemen.com/projects/the-gamers-series/the-gamers/
http://deadgentlemen.com/projects/the-gamers-series/dorkness-rising/
I have both DVDs. TOTALLY worth it! Watched 'em both to death.
I prefer single weapon style for thieves, double crit chance and improved AC.
longer answer: in BG1, longsword stop at +2, however, there is a short sword of backstabbing, which is +3. the average damage is equal, speed (which doesn't matter) and hit-wise short swords win, though not by a huge margin. in other ad&d 2e games, longswords tend to be better.
I do sometimes have Safana wielding the dagger of venom in BGT or Tutu, though, as she gets proficiency in daggers
While you may not be "stabbing" when backstabbing with these larger weapons, the whole principle of backstabbing is that you are attacking an unaware target and are thus able to pinpoint their weak spot and deal a devastating blow. Whether this means that you are driving a long-sword between their shoulder blades, rather than slitting their throat with a dagger or planting a short sword in their kidney, is irrelevant imo.
When it comes to quarterstaves..., I suppose you could argue that they clocked them over the head, but I like to imagine you instead gave them a blunt uppercut to the nuts