Larian Studios Forums Divinity - Original Sin Divinity - Original Sin - General Why on Earth can't you backstab with a Blackjack?

Aside from stilettos and daggers, I can't think of a more rogue- or thief-ish weapon to attack people from behind with than the Blackjack.

I recently started to play D:OS, and this really stood out to me from the start. It is not common to have blackjacks available as weapons in games at all, and when they are, they're almost always rogue- or thief-oriented.

I can't help but to notice that from the get-go, rogues are, if not underpowered, then at least at serious disadvantage starting out, since all of "their" weapons are piercing, while most opponents (at least in the beginning) are undead.

The fact that so many (zombies, zombie dogs, etc) spray ooze at you when you stab them doesn't help, but that's really beside the point.

Blackjacks really should be usable for backstabbing.

In the alpha/beta, this was something I requested... but I also wanted the undeads resistances to be increased to encourage you to use the appropriate weapon. Since the resistances were left as they were, using the intended weapon doesn't matter so much.

Still, I wouldn't mind this happening.

Well one issue I could see with increasing resistances would be that archers would be screwed, but it'd be interesting if you could actually change between an array of default arrows, including blunt ones.

That said, I agree.

I find it perfectly within the realm of reason that blackjacks aren't allowed to backstab. After all, it's an ability that allows you to do double damage by stabbing someone in the back. Aside from the literal fail of using a blunt instrument to "stab" someone, there is the additional fail of not being able to stab someone in the kidney with a bag of rocks.

I mean, any way you look at it the only thing you're possibly doing with a blackjack is knocking someone on the head. The whole point of the backstab ability is to reflect the user's skill at finding a weak spot on the target's back side. There's a word for it...I can't remember. Points around the body...pressure points?

Anyway, /rantoff. I'm happy with it being limited to piercing weapons. It bothers me a LITTLE that you can use rapiers...kind've should be limited to knives and daggers if you ask me.

But the blackjack...it should offer the chance to knockdown an opponent. I know you can mod that onto an item, but I wonder if you can make it have a greater chance to knockdown from BEHIND. That would probably be way more in line with what you're asking as far as game mechanics versus realism. At least OMO!

Take care.

Archers have a number of special arrows and most of them do not do piercing damage (e.g. knockdown arrows have crushing damage, stunning arrows air etc.). Having said that, special arrow attacks count as special ability usage, therefore the damage cannot be enhanced with Guerilla. But still, due to the special arrows they're a lot more versatile. Yes, simply doing piercing attacks does not always cut it in this game.

The "stab" in game terms is pure semantics, really. The entire point is that you are attacking someone from behind, which is precisely what you'd use blackjacks to do from the beginning.

And no, you're not really looking for pressure points to stab; backstabbing (as in, literal weak-spots) someone is all about piercing weak spots, main arteries, etc.

I really like the idea of knockdown instead of added damage on blackjacks, in theory, but in practice, CC is king in D:OS. Blackjacks having a chance to knockdown would suddenly make them insanely powerful compared to daggers (even if the knockdown is only 1 round), and if you scale the chance of it happening down, it'd be undependable and wonky, random, and thus underpowered (no guaranteed utility).

The easiest solution is to really to just assign backstab damage to blackjacks, with the rationale that you are hitting sweet spots, different or often the same sweet spots as a dagger or knife, meaning head, neck, kidneys.

I can think of other ideas, but they'd require a lot of work on the dev side in comparison, which is why I'd suggest just sticking to this.

...Is there a way to mod this in?

Because the more I play, the more annoyed I am by this.

The answer is pretty obvious.....you can't stab someone with a blunt object, such as a blackjack.

If the "stab" was pure semantics, like you claim, then you would be able to stab with it. I think it is done properly and it would be silly to change it.

Then if it would please those that engage in meaningless semantics, we can also change the name, if that makes them feel better.

Rather than knock down Blackjack should maybe have a chance to stun for say 1 round, without being given huge damage bonuses for backstabbing....a blackjack, sap or cosh is more of a subdual semi-lethal weapon, I am actually surprised at the weapons inclusion, and dissapointed at the omission of several much more prominent weapons...no flails for instance? No Slings, and no throwing weapons at all? And spears are 2handed weapons- no shield which yes polearms are not used with shields but spears are almost always used with a shield. Minor but could have been better.

Name change suggestion...Back-Attack.

I was surprised that Rapiers can be used in that manner, I dont hate it but I dont use it either...I like my rogues to be Archers, seems a far better use.

While I'm not so surprised at the weapons inclusion because other much more prominent weapons were left out - which is very true - I'm just surprised, period.

Because blackjacks are really not battlefield weapons, much like you wouldn't expect stilettos or small daggers to be. They're practically just implements used by rogues and thieves (thugs, if you will). Which makes it doubly odd to me that they were included... but obviously aren't intended to be rogue's weapons, despite being so iconic for being just that and virtually nothing else.

Same as knockdown, though, with stun, while I think it's thematic for sure, I just.. Crowd Control is king in D:OS. Knocking someone down or stunning them for a round is easily more powerful than causing extra damage. I'm not saying that it's a bad idea, just that it could be really hard to balance.

I would really love to see some spears, and definitely slings.. as a general note on weapons, D:OS doesn't really have that much different weapons aside from the stats. Even Crossbows and Bows aren't really that different when push comes to shove, and it would've been fun if they'd done some more things with it.

Spears with added reach, especially for Attacks Of Opportunity, slings with very low AP cost, Crossbows could've had separate reload cost (so you could fire it and discard it), etc.

As for rapiers.. yeah, those things ARE practically rapiers by any other name, right? It almost feels like they didn't call them rapiers just so they could squeeze it in under the same category so they'd work with blackjacks.

Makes me wonder if it would be possible to reclassify all blackjacks to be daggers or knives, too, because it makes about as much sense. Because Talents (big surprise) can't be modded.

Too true. Blackjacks are much less lethal than say a mace or club. Even in the trenches in ww1 a great deal of improvisation for CC melee weapons was going on becasue issue weapons of the types needed didnt exist in any armies arsenals

The dagger and stiletto have a bit of precedent in that Daggers of Mercy were carried frequently, and nearly everyone carried a knife in the middle ages of some sort, ballock daggers and dirks being two common types, Cinqueda's kind of blur the line between dagger and short sword but were common in Italy.

Yeah I really feel crossbows were handled incorrectly, they should have a way lower dex requirement than a bow, and a much higher AP cost to reflect the reloading time. I do like the idea of a shot then throw it down and scoop up some other weapon.

Stun and knockdown are great effects to pin on an enemy, but if they are better than damage I cannot agree, although they can greatly contribute to the amount of damage the victim gets and in another way take the victim out of the fight for a round or more, so in some ways it is better than damage just not as reliable, the victim can make the save or the weapon inflicting stun doesnt for instance. The problem with damage is it causes no ill effects until death, like D&D. SO 1 HP from death or 1000 doesnt matter they still fight with 100% ability, this to me is something that should be changed, and I am surprised no one else has brought it up or if they have I missed it. Wounds should detrimentally effect the combatants ability to the %to hit, their initiative, their action points, and the amount of damage they cause, I would say nothing happens until your at least-33% off your max health but thats a suggestion.

Spear and shield should be viable just like sword and shield, reach is the polearms forte and it isnt being used in the game, I am not a huge polearm fan but they were incredibly popular historically and an absolutely staggering array of them were available.

Slings and thrown weapons ( handaxes javelins and hammers especially and even rocks!) are so common the omission of the whole class of missile is sort of baffling, they are not a group of weapons I am a user of, but thrown weapons are so basic they should be there. Especially for the softening up volley used pre melee like you suggested with the crossbow.

At this point you can't even backstab with a Blackjack ans people are already requesting that they get an inherent chance to stun or knock down?

No way should blackjacks get super-overpowered bonuses like those, what are you thinking?

relax Stabbey all theoretical questioning as far as I am concerned, I want nothing changed, I was kind of reflecting on how it could be handled and seem a bit more in line with how a sap, cosh or blackjack would really work. I would think you would be more interested in the damage degrading a combatants ability to fight based on their level of helth to me that is far more important.

I would never use such a weapon its pretty ho-hum, so I could care less. But I am always interested in talking about weapons ( most former Marines are ) even if I highly doubt blackjacks even existed in the medieval or renaissance era, from what I can find out they really are not in use any earlier, and this seems a bit iffy than around 1600. Course catchpoles and sleevtanglers are around that period as well so eh maybe they are historically viable. But why even have non-lethal weapons there is no provision for non-lethal combat resolution in the game. Cant knock out, cant subdue, cant grapple and pin. Not that I care for or want it, I like it just the way it is.

But really it is less lethal than a mace or truncheon of any kind, if it was gonna do something non-lethal which is what they are meant to do, I would say it does no damage at all and only causes a stun or knock-down effect. Or better yet pull the weapon out of the game completely since there is no non-lethal combat option and replace it with...

Put in flails and throwing weapons instead.

"How it would work in reality" is usually a questionable thing to try and duplicate in a game, because reality has a lot of things that make for poor and unfun gameplay. So going down that theoretical lane doesn't seem all that productive.

Even though adding in non-lethal/knockout weapons would actually benefit my hypothetical "thief" mod, they don't seem like they'd fit in D:OS's vanilla gameplay.

***

I suspect that one reason why games tend to avoid "damage decreases a character's ability to fight" is that that can produce a death spiral, especially since enemies tend to both be more numerous and have 10-100 times more HP than player characters. That's the kind of mechanic that you have to balance the game around from the start, not add in 6 months after release to see what happens.

Excellantly put and understandble as explained.

Mmm yes death spirals might really be um bad for the pc, possibly lots of reloading.

I was sort of thinking about the old pnp rpg rolemaster with its incredibly graphic and lethal combat, bleeding stun, knockdown, severed limbs and instant death were all common. We all loved playing that game. Been a lot of years.

Man those critical hit tables were so much more intense and satisfying than d&d ever was.

See i reallymlove d:os maybe even more than bg or iwd or fallouts, i said maybe but it could and does have abright future i think. I would not want it broken either its too good to deserve that.

Backstabbing is the ability to hit vital spot.
Why I can backstab undeads who obviously dont have a vital spot?

Rogues are overpowered.

Well undead would have vital spots ull and spine would seem to be important, also would depend on the kind of undead and what undead tropes or rules are in effect.

I dont think rogues are overpowered. Actually i like the way the classes are they complement and accent each other well.