Apparently, I'm mean to the thief.

[thedungeondelver]

I like the thief class (quite a bit), so this doesn't pertain to an overall feeling. I have dictated that - up until last night's game - thieves can't "just get" backstabs during melee. They get the attack bonus because they're striking from an indefensible spot, but the x3 damage I don't. This has happened during brawls in dungeons when the thief's player has dictated that he was "moving around to backstab". Well, this almost always targeted at the leader of the enemy forces and happens in the dungeon in tight corridors (all in T1, actually).

I have always deemed that the backstab isn't just a matter of where the attack falls but under what conditions. During the course of a one minute round the aware and attuned target will espy the thief and while not getting full coverage or benefit of his armor, steel themselves for the blow(s) before they fall, twisting and turning to keep vitals out of harms way.

But last night, in an open street, the thief took a long end-run around the melee and then snuck up behind the target (a cloud giant) and backstabbed him successfully.

The players wryly noted that this was the first time in the whole T1-4 campaign (the characters are currently on the elemental plane of air) that I'd allowed this and I tried (without stopping the game) to explain, yet again, that just because you run around behind someone they're suddenly ignorant of where you are and what you plan to do, especially when you're in a 10' wide corridor in the middle of a battle.

Thoughts? I personally think this is by the book, but it may be a nuance thing.

[Bargle]

You can console your player that normal attacks from behind only receive a +2 bonus to hit, but thieves (may) receive their usual +4, thereby granting the thief a defacto 1.5x backstab automatically over someone who is attacking from the front. fighter attacking from the front who does 6 dmg per round on average would do 7.2 dmg per round from behind (+2 bonus), but the thief with the same attack averages 8.4 dmg when attacking from behind (8.4)

In effect thieves do +2 dmg whe attacking from behind even if they cant get a backstab in.

[Lord Cias]

I think you're doing it right.

DMG, page 19:

Back Stabbing: Opponents aware of the thief will be able to negate the attack form.

Oh, BTW, the +4 to hit when attacking from behind by surprise applies to all characters, not just thieves (although thieves are far more likely to get into this position). Attacking from behind without surprise is a +2 bonus.

[Falconer]

A successful hide in shadows, if applicable, can presumably make the opponent unaware of the thief’s location.

[AxeMental]

We once had a player say he wanted his thief to hide in the shadow of the ogre about to step on him. The DM let him try.

Its the players natural tendency to try and abuse their thief abilities, survival and all that.

[AxeMental]

I think you're doing it right.

DMG, page 19:

Back Stabbing: Opponents aware of the thief will be able to negate the attack form.

Oh, BTW, the +4 to hit when attacking from behind by surprise applies to all characters, not just thieves (although thieves are far more likely to get into this position). Attacking from behind without surprise is a +2 bonus.

I've never heard that before Cias. My understanding is that its +2 (attacking from behind with total surprise) for all but thieves and assassins employing back stab. Do you have the reference,would like to see it.

[JCBoney]

What the hell was a cloud giant doing in an open street? Fogging everything up?

[mjudge55]

When I'm playing a thief, I prefer a DM who makes me work for a backstab: that makes it special, something that takes planning and thought. As a DM, I don't allow thieves who've already been spotted to sneak around. But if the thief can approach a melee undetected and attack from behind, that works for me.

[Matthew]

I rule that a back stab only takes place in a surprise or similar situation, which I understand to be the "by-the-book" reading; manoeuvring to the rear of the opponent is not enough, unlike in the various Unlimited Adventures powered computer games.

[Bargle]

If your player's thief is at least 4th level and doesn't yet have an intelligent magical sword...I will say you're being mean. A cool sword with powers will go along way towards mollifying him, allow him to dual wield with a dagger and he should feel like he's pulling his own weight with the cleric and fighter--his frustration at not being able to backstab may be the outward sign of this melee distress.

After all, a thief with a high dexterity and leather is as hard to hit as a normal man in Chainmail+shield, and the the thief is the only non-fighter class that can dual wield--and probably because of dexterity is actually the best dual wielder. Give him a 'scalpel' and 'cats claw' and he should be happy.

All too often a DM may try and make the party's thief more bilbo than mouser and it's a shame!

[francisca]

What the hell was a cloud giant doing in an open street? Fogging everything up?

Hoping for a lucky roll on the wandering prostitute table?

[Philotomy Jurament]

All too often a DM may try and make the party's thief more bilbo than mouser and it's a shame!

This is veering off-topic, but I like the concept of the Thief re-tooled as a Fighter subclass.

[Juju EyeBall]

All too often a DM may try and make the party's thief more bilbo than mouser and it's a shame!

This is veering off-topic, but I like the concept of the Thief re-tooled as a Fighter subclass.

I sometimes feel like the ranger was an attempt to bridge the fighter/thief gap. they get some crazy bonus and are similarly deadly to the thief when it comes to surprise attack especially at higher levels.

but i digress

[Ragnorakk]

That's sensible back-stabbing (sneaking up to the giant in melee after an end run) - I barely ever saw back-stabbing occur in dungeons unless the players were able to set up a good ambush, very rare. And they be disgruntled, but oh well.

[Juju EyeBall]

(sneaking up to the giant in melee after an end run)

ok, i got in a huge argument once with someone at DF over backstabbing giants.
I say you have to be able to reach a vital point on the target, I think the description reads this way. To me that is not possible if a human or smaller target is backstabbing a giant and they are both standing on the same level ground. I can see it possibly with a spear or if you allow ranged attackd but not if they haved to be attacking the legs. Thoughts?


Damn, I digressed again.