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?