Thief's backstab revisited.

[AxeMental]

Pretty amazing how much variety there is in dealing with thieves and backstab.

EDIT Based on something Matthew said in the assassin thread, it got me thinking. If you keep the assassination table out of the combat round (which was probably the intent, because AC does not come into the equation) why not keep backstab out of the combat round as well (or sort of a pre-combat attack)? If a MS or HIS works (totally hidden and totally silent) then allow a chance to hit before surprise is rolled (or before combat). Then role normal initiative (as the chance of thief's surprise was sacrificed by the attack, or at best normal surprise 1-2 in 6). If the thief chooses he can instead go for surprise 1-4 in 6 then after that go to regular initiative (honestly the chance of winning 4 segments of surprise is probably a better option then backstabbing alot of the time, for example you come upon 4 orcs. With 4 segments of surprise you might kill all of them before normal initiative. If the thief moved up behind one, I'd allow a +2 on the first hit, no double damage and then however many other hits he can get in based on his segments of surprise). I remember asking Gygax about backstab and surprise years ago. He stated his intent was that if you MS or HIS (whatever being appropriate) you could backstab without having to role a separate surprise (and this would be at +4 not +2). I suspect that this was the intention of the author (you could backstab or surprise but not both), it was just botched in how it was written. Further more, if you were hidden and managed to get an attack from behind off (despite failing to MS) you could still backstab at a +2 (so say you as a thief made noise, but where close enough to strike the target from behind. Lets say the target is already in combat and can't turn around to see whats at his back, but he can take some precautions (so its a +2 and backstab rather then a +4 and backstab the thief would have gotten if he'd MS successfully).

[Blackadder23]

If you keep the assassination table out of the combat round (which was probably the intent, because AC does not come into the equation) why not keep backstab out of the combat round as well (or sort of a pre-combat attack)?

You can, of course, although a player might complain that the thief in the example combat in the PHB backstabs the illusionist in the middle of an ongoing combat. But if they don't like your rulings, that's their problem.

[AxeMental]

I like Lord Cias's method (normal surprise allows for a backstab even if MS or HIS fails, assuming its from behind). I also like the idea that a MS or HIS = an automatic surprise (as long as the target is not moving about or suspicious of eminent attack, I'd limit this to 1 automatic surprise segment and then role for normal surprise 1-2 in 6, or I'd let the thief choose to attempt a 1-4 in 6 if they choose, as this is clearly a thief power).

Another question: would you allow a thief to backstab with two weapons (one in each hand) say two daggers or a dagger and long sword). Also, would you allow a thief to throw a dagger a short distance to back stab (say 20 feet)? Haven't been able to find anything much on these two questions. I typically require hand held and allow only one weapon to back stab (the other attack would be at +4 but do normal damage). A player wanted to know how I was making that ruling, and I didn't have a good answer (other then "that's the way I'm doing it now"). But, I'm honestly not sure what Gygax intended for both of these situations (can you throw a dagger for a backstab, and can you backstab with a weapon in either hand doubling both if both hit).

[prespos]

BtB, it is a little ambiguous.

I kinda prefer the Gold Box / Unlimited Adventures way of resolving it.

Mega-Damage,
Prespos

[Ska]

I believe that a back attack by a thief only allows for the +4 to hit, any other class (except of course the evil assassin) will at most get +2 to hit.
If a thief surprises he gets the +4, if surprise fails he gets +2 to hit but can get extra backstab damage. A victim might hear a noise but if the thief won initiative and the victims back is still presented I believe the extra damage occurs.

I believe the DMG ex where target is aware of the thief he can negate the attack means the target has seen the thief and knows it is not a branch falling etc.

One must remember that combat segment is long enough to represent the target hearing and turning around.

[prespos]

OK, when an enemy disengages from melee, the opponent gets a free attack, at +2, back attack.

So, do thieves do extra damage on this attack?

Pres

[Ska]

No thief would not get extra damage for an opponent disengaging IMO. The person fleeing may be swiveling their heads etc and is aware of the thief as they flee.

[prespos]

No thief would not get extra damage for an opponent disengaging IMO. The person fleeing may be swiveling their heads etc and is aware of the thief as they flee.

Sounds like a sensible ruling: I think I'd rule the same.