Somewhere I've seen arguments to the effect that backstab is essentially a non-combat skill. I.e. you can use it if you surprise your foe and not in general melee. My old killer DM (this guy) used to allow a backstab in dungeon fights if you could roll both Move Silently and Hide in Shadows the round before. I never quite figured out why moving silently was important when the half-ogre was bellowing obscenities at the badguys and swords were clanging against armor, but making that Hide in Shadows throw usually got you ignored for a round as well.
I recently stumbled across another interesting implementation while reading the opening chapter of an old Judges Guild module. Michael Mayeau's Survival of the Fittest is one of those choose-your-own-adventure affairs, designed for first or second level OD&D characters. I haven't read the meat of the adventure yet, as I've been kicking around playing this thing solo to see how it turns out. With no DM around to adjudicate lighting, positioning, etc., the special solo rules give thieves a flat 1 in 6 chance of being able to pull off a backstab at any given time.That seems like a good rule of thumb to me. In any given round where a backstab seems possible, throw the die to see if the thief can make an attack from behind. If the roll doesn't go the thief's way, they can then decide if they want to Hide in Shadows to set themselves up for backstabbing on the following round.
%202.png)
.JPG)
.png)
.gif)
Posts
Your old DM had a really cool way of handling things. The game I was in a few years back had a similar rule. Our DM allowed thief characters to make a backstab attack on the first round without a check, if they were unnoticed by the being they were trying to shank. Each round after that the DM would make a roll to see which line of sight the being would focus on. If he wasn't tuned in to the thief, the character then had a chance to forfeit a round of attacks to "in-game" position himself to set up for a backstab position. This required some check by the character, and they also received their "to hit" bonus for backstabs.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it was a hodge-podge rule, it worked out well. Hrm, at least until he allowed dual class fighter/thiefs to use the weapon specialization and weapon mastery rules. Then it was every other round backstabs galore by a pair of rogues who were high mastered in short swords, could crit on a 16 roll, and had an enormous bonus to "to hit" and "damage." Ah, 2nd Ed. definitely needed some fine tweaking.
If you're going to reduce it to a single die roll, why not make it identical to the attack roll, so then it can improve as the thief does? So the thief gets two attack rolls, one to see if it's a sneak attack, and one standard.
ReplyDeleteThere are probably good reasons why this wouldn't work, but it seems okay.
Oh, and the Move Silently/Hide in Shadows combo is how Labyrinth Lord does it, I believe.
I hadn't really thought much on it before, but I think I agree with this:
ReplyDeletebackstab is essentially a non-combat skill. I.e. you can use it if you surprise your foe and not in general melee
Otherwise you end up with the Thief becoming the "Striker" instead of the Fighting Man... and it all goes south from there. ;)
In our AD&D years, we always stuck generally with the "it's a non-combat skill" approach, allowing in-combat exceptions depending on the fight location/conditions/etc.
ReplyDeleteI remember sometimes requiring one or more of the stealthy die-rolls, but I remember on at least one occasion requiring none because, looking at the minis, the thief simply had a clear opportunity without even changing his position.
I've thought it over, and I think I'd actually make the thiefly backstab more powerful, since I'd let anyone backstab outside of combat if they surprise their foe. But I'd require a distraction; the thief rerolls surprise to see if the distraction works, then uses surprise to aim a serious blow.
ReplyDeleteWe always said you had to surprise your opponent. Hide in Shadows couldn't be used in a fight unless you fled out of sight and returned the next round.
ReplyDeleteSo if you wanted to backstab, you had to act and then move out of the fight, then next round stay away and do whatever, then next round Move Silently back and try to backstab. Once per three rounds.
Having Invisibility (say from a ring) saved you a round. So you'd put on yout ring (becoming invisible) and move, then next round you could attack with a backstab. So the best you got was once per two rounds.
If you had multiple attacks, only the first attack was a backstab regardless of what type of invisibility you had. And if you missed that first one, or it hit a Stoneskin, you were out of luck when it came to the backstab that round.
This helped minimize the in-combat use of backstab to a hit-and-run tactic, while allowing it to be used out of combat to take down a guard in one hit from surprise.
I don't recall what we did about blackjacks and garrotes, both of which should be useful only with a backstab.
I'm just gushing over that awesome "Survival of the Fittest" cover...
ReplyDeleteOur group uses the miniture position and movie approach to combat. i.e. A very mean Lych is fighting against a Paladin and a Ranger up front and the wizard is peeing himself as the Lych stares him down a rank back about to do something nasty, the halfling thief tries and makes a tumble check and actually tumbles/slides through the Lychs legs, comes up and back stabs with an arrow of undead slaying. Roll the to hit and you are golden if not... there goes Mr Wizard.
ReplyDeleteRick
Hmmmmm, I don't like the rogue(all characters are thieves) hoggin trap finding/figuring and the sneakin about. Picking locks (mostly) seems a pointless pass/fail dice roll fest. That pretty much leaves damage dealer aka "striker".
ReplyDeleteI kind of want rogues to be the soft (low AC, low HP), high damage dealers. Swashbuckers & Tricksters.
Maybe if rogue has flank bonus they get BS damage bonus. Maybe that just sets up distraction for their surprise roll.
I also kind of want no player to ever want to play rogue so I don't have to deal.
I have always denied the use of backstab more than once in combat, i.e. after the surprise moment it is banned. All that flat-footed stuff in D&D 3.x was surely just a way to make thieves more deadly. I think backstabbing is an excellent skill, especially combined with poison and that class Baldur's Gate 2 tactic of dropping a fireball on your own thief once the bad guys converge (maybe that was NWN, where in any case it never works). But I don't think it should be possible to just keep doing it.
ReplyDeleteFunnily enough, I seem to recall version 3.x put stern limits on the use of backstab with missile weapons, so you couldn't be a sniper even if your target was standing still out of combat. Harsh!
And 4e seems to have made backstab even more effective.
faustusnotes, backstab in 4e is a bit of a gamble. If you get the situation set up in your favour, and you've built the rogue in the right way, you can unleash a lot of damage with a backstab; I think my goblin rogue was doing 2d6+2d8+1 as a basic sneak attack without factoring in powers. It's a lot of damage, but you have to set it up, so you have to be hiding, or going first in the encounter, or flanking an opponent, so there is a trade-off.
ReplyDeleteWhat I discovered is that the ranger, because his attacks aren't as reliant on situation, is more consistent, even if his maximum damage output is a bit lower.
Sorry to get 4e all over your blog, Jeff.
Executing a successful back stab is a matter of getting as much of a surprise chance as you can, much like assassination. I like it that way, though I have sympathy for those who want to be able to do it whenever their thief is behind an enemy.
ReplyDeleteIt's been many many years, but I remember being able to backstab anyone whose back was to you or had been surprised.
ReplyDelete