Thief's backstab revisited.

[AxeMental]

The tweaking thieves thread in Home Brew section http://knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/view ... 4&start=15 got me thinking about whats the correct way to adjudicate back stab. I had been playing up to a few months ago that the thief had to sneak up from behind and win surprise before a back stab could be attempted (always at +4) if the surprise didn't work, but the thief won initiative he'd still get a +2 (from behind bonus) to hit and do normal damage. But a careful reading of the description in the PH doesn't say that. Its broken into basically two parts. The first defines a backstab as needing to be an attack from behind (doubling damage). The second says if this is done with surprise from behind the thief gets a bonus 20% or +4 to the to hit dice role. But in both cases, surprise or no surprise, the thief should be able to backstab (doubling damage) as long as he attacks from behind.

Here is the PH text about back stab:Back Stabbing is the striking of a blow from behind, be it with a club, dagger or sword. The damage done per hit is twice normal for the weapon used per four exp. levels of the thief...Note that striking by surprise from behind also increases the hit probability by 20% (+4 on the thief's 'to hit' die roll)."

It sounds to me as if the +4 for winning surprise from behind is just gravy (over the standard +2 bonus for attacking from behind.

I remember this coming up at DF many years ago and Storm Crow suggesting that a thief had to win complete surprise from behind to attempt a back stab, but I don't recall where he found the evidence suggesting that (and I may be miss-remembering it, its been years).

[Philotomy Jurament]

...

[Lord Cias]

To backstab the thief must be behind the opponent AND the opponent must not know the thief is there (this means surprise). Page 19 of the DMG says:

Opponents aware of the thief will be able to negate the attack form [backstab].

In addition, attacking from behind with surprise (for anyone) is a total bonus of +4.

[grodog]

To backstab the thief must be behind the opponent AND the opponent must not know the thief is there (this means surprise). Page 19 of the DMG says:

Opponents aware of the thief will be able to negate the attack form [backstab].

And potentially more, since surprise negates Sex bonus to AC.

In addition, attacking from behind with surprise (for anyone) is a total bonus of +4.

[Matthew]

And potentially more, since surprise negates Sex bonus to AC.

Ummn? Sounds like an interesting "role-playing" game you have going on there, Allan.

[AxeMental]

Yes Grodog, do explain....or maybe never mind.

To backstab the thief must be behind the opponent AND the opponent must not know the thief is there (this means surprise). Page 19 of the DMG says:

Opponents aware of the thief will be able to negate the attack form [backstab].

In addition, attacking from behind with surprise (for anyone) is a total bonus of +4.

Thanks Lord Cias.

It would seem the DM has some latitude in determining what "aware of the thief" means in determining if backstab is possible. For instance, would you allow a thief the ability to leave combat and rehide and then attempt another backstab. For example, a thief is hidden behind a tree, wins surprise and backstabs an ogre. The thief then runs into some bushes and rehides. The ogre is aware that a thief is about, and goes into the bushes searching. The thief makes his HIS role and again attacks from behind winning surprise. Can he attempt backstab (or simply get the +4 and normal damage).

Also, do you guys think if a thief MS or HIS (and the target's back is in range) that a thief wanting to backstab needs to win an additional surprise role, or do you think the intent of the HIS or MS role is that surprise is already won?

[EOTB]

I think the btb intent is that the thief roll an enhanced (4-in-6) surprise check to complete a backstabbing after a successful MS and HiS check. (Or, for elves and halflings, attacking from natural surrounds, or in light armor 50 ft ahead, etc. - I don't require MS or HiS checks when those circumstances are in effect.)

However, I like to emphasize the thief a little bit more. The WoTC version is to much, and the btb version that results in a successful backstabbing one time in six (considering all the rolls that must succeed) is too little. So I ditch the surprise roll. It seems to raise the success percentage up to the point where players actually look to use it, and elf/halfling scouts can be pretty lethal.

[AxeMental]

I'm starting to doubt that failing to make a surprise role from behind means the thief in position can't backstab. Just because a target hears a noise behind them doesn't mean the target is aware that its a thief (per the DMG line mentioned above), it just means "surprise" is lost (the target still has to wonder whats behind him and turn to see, and he has to win initiative to do this in time and avoid a back attack) thus the thief only gets a +2 (if he wins initiative) attacking from behind, rather then a +4 (like anyone else if he'd won surprise) but unlike everyone else gets to backstab (as long as its form behind...surprise or not).

I think what was occuring that prompted the DMG p19 line about backstab was players of thieves simply moving behind an opponent and arguing they can backstab (even though the target watched the thief go behind him and knows what it is, say in combat with multiple opponents, where the target can't turn around). But thats not the case when a thief jumps out from some bushes and doesn't win surprise. In that case the target just knows somethings up, not what specifically, certainly he has no idea until he turns that its a thief (is it a cat, a giant spider, his cloak snagging on a branch, a fellow adventurer coming behind him to whisper in his ear). How fast can you turn to see? I'd say at least a segment of inititiave (or six seconds) but I'd say a simple initiative role would be fair. Since Gygax didn't elaborate in the DMG line (as he did with other thief abilities) I think the correct thing to do is to side in favor of the class, which I think is the precedent in cases of clarity (note: this can work against the party as well, given thieves are common monster encounters).

-So, a non-thief who wins surprise from behind gets a +4 to hit but normal damage.
-A non-thief who fails to win surprise from behind but wins initiative gets a +2 and normal dam.
-A thief who wins surprise from behind gets +4 and the ability to do double damage (backstab).
-A thief who doesn't wins surprise from behind but wins initiative gets a +2 and ability to backstab.

The DMG page 19 only states that a person "aware of a thief" not simply aware of noise from behind, which could be anything...but blows surprise (so I'd think that would mean either knowing it was a thief or seeing that it was a thief (a reflection say). If the thief wins normal initiative from behind (after failing his surprise attempt), that would suggest he acts before the victim can turn around and understand the situation completely. At least, if you want to be BtB and not fill in the blanks).

[Lord Cias]

It would seem the DM has some latitude in determining what "aware of the thief" means in determining if backstab is possible. For instance, would you allow a thief the ability to leave combat and rehide and then attempt another backstab. For example, a thief is hidden behind a tree, wins surprise and backstabs an ogre. The thief then runs into some bushes and rehides. The ogre is aware that a thief is about, and goes into the bushes searching. The thief makes his HIS role and again attacks from behind winning surprise. Can he attempt backstab (or simply get the +4 and normal damage).

I totally agree that it's up to the DM to determine what "aware of the thief" means.

Also, do you guys think if a thief MS or HIS (and the target's back is in range) that a thief wanting to backstab needs to win an additional surprise role, or do you think the intent of the HIS or MS role is that surprise is already won?

Personally I think that when playing BtB hide in shadows and move silent can either equal automatic surprise or a large bonus to get surprise, depending on the situation.

For example, a thief successfully moves silently while approaching an enemy. Now if the enemy has his back to the thief then he can't see the thief, and if the thief is completely silent then he can't hear the thief either. Thus as long as the enemy is standing fairly still and doesn't turn around, automatic surprise. However, if the enemy is moving about or for any reason might randomly turn around or peak over his shoulder then the thief would have to roll surprise, but with a bonus of from 4 in 6 to 7 in 8, depending on the situation. In either case if the move silent roll fails the thief still has the normal 2 in 6 chance of surprise.

I think what was occurring that prompted the DMG p19 line about backstab was players of thieves simply moving behind an opponent and arguing they can backstab (even though the target watched the thief go behind him and knows what it is, say in combat with multiple opponents, where the target can't turn around).

I'd agree with this. I think it's perfectly fine for the DM to rule that the thief can backstab even if "normal" surprise isn't a factor, depending on the circumstances of the situation. The point is that not ALL attacks from the back by a thief qualifies as a backstab.

[TRP]

Just because a target hears a noise behind them doesn't mean the target is aware that its a thief (

He doesn't have to know it's a thief; he just knows he needs to guard himself against *something*.

[AxeMental]

Just because a target hears a noise behind them doesn't mean the target is aware that its a thief (

He doesn't have to know it's a thief; he just knows he needs to guard himself against *something*.

I was being literal as it relates to the DMG line on page 19 that Lord Cias posted above.
"Opponents aware of the thief will be able to negate the attack form [backstab]".
If taken literally as written, knowing "*something* is behind you isn't good enough (they must be aware that its a thief). Yes, I realize this might not be the intent. But its a big penalty against the thief if you guys are wrong.

Note, if a thief fails to MS or HIS the thief won't likely be close enough to attempt an attack from behind. A thief has to HIS/MS and then can still fail to win surprise on a d6 and loose his chance to Backstab? Man, in this case the poor bastard can't seem to catch a break.
And all because of this line on page 19 of the DMG (which isn't really clear or well explained).

So, lets say he fails to surprise. If the thief then wins normal initiative (detected, but still hidden until the guy can turn around) why not allow back stab (he's still striking from behind and the target is unaware he's a thief (per page 19)? He beat the guy to the punch (despite not being undetected he's still behind and hidden and acting first).

Like I said earlier. The +4 for surprise is just gravy, attacking form behind (and not being seen) is enough for backstab per the PH (surprise or no surprise). The DMG is just saying "hey, if you know its a thief behind you he can't backstab, even though he can still strike from behind with a +2 to hit, but just do normal damage).

I like the idea that Lord Cias proposed of allowing the DM to determine when and how backstab will be possible case by case.

[TRP]

I was being literal as it relates to the DMG line on page 19 that Lord Cias posted above.
"Opponents aware of the thief will be able to negate the attack form [backstab]".
If taken literally as written, knowing "*something* is behind you isn't good enough (they must be aware that its a thief).

Then it would say "a thief", not "the thief", such that, it would be referring to a universal ability the class.

[Falconer]

In general, if the battle is large-scale and chaotic enough, I pretty much let the Thief have a shot at backstab as long as he or she expends a round to “sneak around behind” the target.

If the battle is smaller, I make the Thief pass a move silently and/or hide in shadows (depending on the situation) before he or she can make a backstab attempt.

[AxeMental]

I was being literal as it relates to the DMG line on page 19 that Lord Cias posted above.
"Opponents aware of the thief will be able to negate the attack form [backstab]".
If taken literally as written, knowing "*something* is behind you isn't good enough (they must be aware that its a thief).

Then it would say "a thief", not "the thief", such that, it would be referring to a universal ability the class.

Good point. Still, it seems more specific. It doesn't say "if surprise fails" (which can be seeing the thief out of the corner of your eye, or simply sensing a wind, hearing a creak etc.)

[TRP]

In my game, if the situation is conducive to the thief sneaking behind an opponent, and if a thief can make both a MS and HiS, then surprise is achieved. Combat is rarely conducive to sneaking around someone whose life depends on being alert in a battle.

A thief's backstab is best accomplished by the thief lying in wait for it's opponent.