Feature Request: pickpocketing Drizzt
Gallowglass
Member Posts: 3,356
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).
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).
Post edited by [Deleted User] on
0
Comments
Also this is not a bug
@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.
Twinkle isn't only for good aligned parties
My evil F/M/T <3s using Twinkle
Helm of opposite alignment FTW
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
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.
@Riolathel: 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.
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
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.
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.
@IchigoRXC: Agreed! And since I doubt that the devs intended to make the second one stealable, I therefore reported it as a bug.
@IchigoRXC: 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: Oh, okay. Wasn't clear.
@Riolathel: 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.
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".
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.
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).
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.
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.
I described how a thief might take the scimitars he was wielding already above
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?
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.
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...