Apparently, I'm mean to the thief.

[Matthew]

Given that a thief is one or the other, that is still and hidden or moving silently, I have imagined 3in6 to make more sense. Elves on the other hand have the advantage of being not only unheard as they move but also unseen.

I would argue that he can be both in an ambush situation, since his hiding in shadows prevents his being seen when opponents enter the area and then silent movement prevents them from hearing him as he moves in position to attack.

[AxeMental]

The clues are pretty clear, though, in that the thief ability section tells us that move silently improves the chance of surprise, and we have an example of a silenced and invisible party getting a 4-in-6 chance.

I believe the conclusion of a debate over this back at DF (before I was banned) was something like: if a thief MS or HIS he can stay hidden (perhaps spy, if in range PP). If he attempts to backstab from behind he must win surprise (4-6). If he looses surprise (despite MS or HIS) its believed he made noise or the guy got lucky and go to init.

I give 100% to backstab if a thief MS or HIS into position for a backstabl.

[Matthew]

I believe the conclusion of a debate over this back at DF (before I was banned) was something like: if a thief MS or HIS he can stay hidden (perhaps spy, if in range PP). If he attempts to backstab from behind he must win surprise (4-6). If he looses surprise (despite MS or HIS) its believed he made noise or the guy got lucky and go to init.

I give 100% to backstab if a thief MS or HIS into position for a backstabl.

Right, successfully hiding in shadows or moving silently results in a character being rendered virtually invisible or silent, respectively, and they can expect all the benefits that would naturally accrue thereof. When it comes to surprise and back stab, though, in the first case these abilities only improve the chance for surprise (not necessarily guaranteeing it), and if surprise is usually necessary for back stab (and not everyone is as literal) then they improve its chance only by improving the probability of surprise. A silent and invisible party has a 4-6 chance of surprise, so a hidden and silent thief will probably enjoy the same, though obviously he cannot move whilst hidden so must rely on victims coming within mêlée range (1" or 10').

[mjudge55]

I believe the conclusion of a debate over this back at DF (before I was banned) was something like: if a thief MS or HIS he can stay hidden (perhaps spy, if in range PP). If he attempts to backstab from behind he must win surprise (4-6). If he looses surprise (despite MS or HIS) its believed he made noise or the guy got lucky and go to init.

I give 100% to backstab if a thief MS or HIS into position for a backstabl.

Right, successfully hiding in shadows or moving silently results in a character being rendered virtually invisible or silent, respectively, and they can expect all the benefits that would naturally accrue thereof. When it comes to surprise and back stab, though, in the first case these abilities only improve the chance for surprise (not necessarily guaranteeing it), and if surprise is usually necessary for back stab (and not everyone is as literal) then they improve its chance only by improving the probability of surprise. A silent and invisible party has a 4-6 chance of surprise, so a hidden and silent thief will probably enjoy the same, though obviously he cannot move whilst hidden so must rely on victims coming within mêlée range (1" or 10').

Both 3 in 6 and 4 in 6 sound like reasonable interpretations of the rule, BTB. In practice, every group I've played in has been at least as generous as AxeMental (HS/MS = automatic surprise), if not more so. I'm curious whether folks running this BTB get any flak from their players.

[Matthew]

Both 3 in 6 and 4 in 6 sound like reasonable interpretations of the rule, BTB. In practice, every group I've played in has been at least as generous as AxeMental (HS/MS = automatic surprise), if not more so. I'm curious whether folks running this BTB get any flak from their players.

Not yet!

[Flambeaux]

Both 3 in 6 and 4 in 6 sound like reasonable interpretations of the rule, BTB. In practice, every group I've played in has been at least as generous as AxeMental (HS/MS = automatic surprise), if not more so. I'm curious whether folks running this BTB get any flak from their players.

Is it possible the HS/MS = automatic surprise and successful backstab is a B/X-ism that, like so many others, was just assumed to carry over by those of us (like me) who didn't start with 1e?

I've never heard or read, until this thread, that HS/MS != automatic surprise & successful backstab attempt.

[mjudge55]

Both 3 in 6 and 4 in 6 sound like reasonable interpretations of the rule, BTB. In practice, every group I've played in has been at least as generous as AxeMental (HS/MS = automatic surprise), if not more so. I'm curious whether folks running this BTB get any flak from their players.

Is it possible the HS/MS = automatic surprise and successful backstab is a B/X-ism that, like so many others, was just assumed to carry over by those of us (like me) who didn't start with 1e?

I've never heard or read, until this thread, that HS/MS != automatic surprise & successful backstab attempt.

Moldvay Basic just says a thief gets his backstab if he attacks from behind while unnoticed, so I guess it's wide open to interpretation.

As far as the auto success, assuming you still mean the thief has to make an attack roll, yes, I've seen it done that way a lot. I've had players petition me with a straight face to allow them a backstab just for getting behind an opponent who is fully aware of them.

[Flambeaux]

As far as the auto success, assuming you still mean the thief has to make an attack roll, yes, I've seen it done that way a lot.

Yes, attack roll still required at +2 vs AC without shield or Dex adjustments.

I've had players petition me with a straight face to allow them a backstab just for getting behind an opponent who is fully aware of them.

Oh. my. Umm...
On the bright side...at least your players try.

[Matthew]

Is it possible the HS/MS = automatic surprise and successful backstab is a B/X-ism that, like so many others, was just assumed to carry over by those of us (like me) who didn't start with 1e?

I've never heard or read, until this thread, that HS/MS != automatic surprise & successful backstab attempt.

I think it is just a common reaction to the rules for children and young adults, since it is not exactly spelled out.

I've had players petition me with a straight face to allow them a backstab just for getting behind an opponent who is fully aware of them.

Oh. my. Umm...
On the bright side...at least your players try.

Does not surprise (pun intended) me one bit, as that is how it works in the various SSI computer games (such as Unlimited Adventures)and you could gather as much from reading sections of the PHB in isolation.

[Philotomy Jurament]

I wouldn't go so far as to make "1 in 6 better" an actual rule that is always applied when invisible/hidden or silent. I treat this as a guideline (it is, after all, derived from an example). Keep in mind that the example covers an entire party of multiple PCs in a standard adventuring/exploration situation: "...a party of characters, moving silently and invisibly, comes upon a monster. They have a 4 of 6 chances to surprise..." If that's true, it seems reasonable that a single stationary PC who was silent and invisible would have an even better chance. A lone silent and invisible PC might also have a better chance. Et cetera.

Just food for thought.

[Matthew]

I wouldn't go so far as to make "1 in 6 better" an actual rule that is always applied when invisible/hidden or silent. I treat this as a guideline (it is, after all, derived from an example). Keep in mind that the example covers an entire party of multiple PCs in a standard adventuring/exploration situation: "...a party of characters, moving silently and invisibly, comes upon a monster. They have a 4 of 6 chances to surprise..." If that's true, it seems reasonable that a single stationary PC who was silent and invisible would have an even better chance. A lone silent and invisible PC might also have a better chance. Et cetera.

Just food for thought.

Not just that example mind, but also the surprise chances of elves and halflings (and rangers, I suppose). What I worry about as surprise chances increase is the commensurate number of surprise segments that accrue, whereas one or two segments seems reasonable to me, I have a harder time accepting five or six, and I suspect it was not originally really intended (hence the dichotomy of "surprise" and "complete surprise").

[Ragnorakk]

What I worry about as surprise chances increase is the commensurate number of surprise segments that accrue, whereas one or two segments seems reasonable to me, I have a harder time accepting five or six, and I suspect it was not originally really intended (hence the dichotomy of "surprise" and "complete surprise").

That can get pretty hairy can't it? I am tempted to cap surprise segments at 2 - 2 segments can already be pretty thoroughly devastating. Get into some of the more borderline conditions of surprise die and 'surprised on' interactions and you have the potential for much longer surprised states. Surprise does seem to have been a work-in-progress over the lifespan of AD&D publication.

[AxeMental]

Matt: " though obviously he cannot move whilst hidden so must rely on victims coming within mêlée range (1" or 10')."


I'm not following this Matt, a hidden thief can MS from his place of hiding (say 75 feet away from his target who is eating) get in close range (say 1 foot away) and BS (slit his throat or what have you).

Has anyone read how this is written in OSRIC, Im curious how this went down?

My impression is that Gygax had always intended that a MS or HIS did equal a 100% chance to back stab. Then after the backstab attempt you role normal initiative (so no further segments of surprise possible). Furthermore, the thief that gets into range to deliver his backstab can choose instead not to backstab and instead attempt thief surprise of 1-4 in 6 (so it was an either or).

I asked Gygax about this many years ago and he confirmed that when he played a thief that MS or HIS = a chance to BS (assuming the thief wasn't known to be around ie. complete surprise).

Here is an example of how I think 1E AD&D was supposed to work as it relates to thieves: 1. a merchant goes into his bedroom and a thief hidden behind a curtain MS behind the merchant and chooses to backstab. He misses roling a 1 and normal initiative takes place. 2. Same as above but this time the thief instead chooses to surprise (1-4 in6). The pore bastard roles a 4 and the thief gets 8 attacks with daggers (statistically a better chance of hitting at least once) at least the first 2 at +2 from behind. 3. Same as above except this time a guard tells the merchant a thief was seen sneaking into his room from a window. The cocky merchant is afraid something important might be stolen so orders the gaurd to come with him when he goes in to secure it. He's nervous, and despite the thief MS from behind the curtain and getting in range he can't backstab automatically but can role surprise 1-4 in 6.

I always considered backstab a "thief thing" outside of (and better at times then) surprise. It just seems to read that way. And I've always seen it DMed that way (since the late 70s).

[TRP]

Matt: " though obviously he cannot move whilst hidden so must rely on victims coming within mêlée range (1" or 10')."


I'm not following this Matt, a hidden thief can MS from his place of hiding (say 75 feet away from his target who is eating) get in close range (say 1 foot away) and BS (slit his throat or what have you).

I agree with Axe. I allow thieves to slip from shadow to shadow, provided their rolls are successful with each move.

[Matthew]

I'm not following this Matt, a hidden thief can MS from his place of hiding (say 75 feet away from his target who is eating) get in close range (say 1 foot away) and back stab (slit his throat or what have you).

My impression is that Gygax had always intended that a MS or HIS did equal a 100% chance to back stab. Then after the back stab attempt you role normal initiative (so no further segments of surprise possible). Furthermore, the thief that gets into range to deliver his back stab can choose instead not to back stab and instead attempt thief surprise of 1-4 in 6 (so it was an either or).

Well, that is where we get into the question of what conditions are required for a back stab to take place? There are a few things we can say for definite from the book:

1) Move Silently/Hide in Shadows does not create automatic surprise
2) Surprise is necessary for the +4 bonus to hit
3) Surprise is necessary for assassination attempts on non-helpless victims
4) Creatures that negate surprise also negate back stabs

So we can say for sure is that having surprise and being behind an opponent definitely will allow a back stab to take place with a +4 bonus to hit. If more lenient conditions are permitted, that is pretty much up to the game master, though the target still needs to be unaware, attacked from behind, and capable of being surprised (as well as having a back).

I asked Gygax about this many years ago and he confirmed that when he played a thief that MS or HIS = a chance to BS (assuming the thief wasn't known to be around ie. complete surprise).

That sounds like an interesting conversation, and one which I would be interested to read, but in all honesty Gygax never really gives consistent answers in retrospect to AD&D questions, rather he often seems inclined to tell the questioner more or less what he wants to hear.

Here is an example of how I think 1E AD&D was supposed to work as it relates to thieves: 1. a merchant goes into his bedroom and a thief hidden behind a curtain MS behind the merchant and chooses to backstab. He misses rolling a 1 and normal initiative takes place. 2. Same as above but this time the thief instead chooses to surprise (1-4 in6). The poor bastard roles a 4 and the thief gets 8 attacks with daggers (statistically a better chance of hitting at least once) at least the first 2 at +2 from behind. 3. Same as above except this time a guard tells the merchant a thief was seen sneaking into his room from a window. The cocky merchant is afraid something important might be stolen so orders the guard to come with him when he goes in to secure it. He's nervous, and despite the thief MS from behind the curtain and getting in range he can't back stab automatically but can role surprise 1-4 in 6.

I always considered backstab a "thief thing" outside of (and better at times then) surprise. It just seems to read that way. And I've always seen it DMed that way (since the late 70s).

The thief does not get to choose whether surprise is rolled for or not, that is basically up to the game master. However, if one side is aware of the other surprise is impossible, according to the DMG.