Apparently, I'm mean to the thief.

[mjudge55]

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).

You remind of something interesting I've observed: Among the folks I've played with who grant a backstab opportunity without the surprise roll after successful HS/MS, there was never an option presented or asserted where they could roll for surprise instead of backstab and have the opportunity for multiple segments of ranged attacks. This would be the better option in many cases, but lots of folks aren't really consistently applying surprise and players don't really get to exploit it for all it's worth. That's just my limited experience though.

[AxeMental]

Matt: "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".

Yes, I know that, I'm just assuming the DM would rule this way in those examples typically. I agree, in the example with the merchant being warned. But only as long as its one room and within a short period of time.

If a PC enters a dungeon known to have orcs sneaking around in it, is it impossible for the orcs to surprise the PCs because they are forwarned? for a thief to backstab, must his existance be completely unknown (if YES then how pointless to be a thief, after all every group has one...its to be expected)?

I have always had a problem with this ruling...at what point is surprise impossible (is it limited to one room and immediately being warned, or can it cover a wing of a dungeon and an hour can pass, or an entire dungeon and days)?

Personally, I'd allow a thief to both back stab that merchant if he let his gaurd down for a second. If the thief MS or HIS he'd def. get the chance for some sort of surprise (espl to his opponents back). Otherwise your being unrealiistic (and not being a truely neutral DM).

Here's a RL example:

Say your wife tells you "Dear I saw someone crawl into our house threw the window, and (Because the police are on strike and you have your life savings hidden within) you go in armed to find and kill or at least stop the thief. Isn't it possible that thief could be hidden and surprise you (or at least get the first blow) doesn't that kind of thing happen all the time IRL? 1E AD&D is a game of "make believe" its "realism" or "plausability" (which TRP forces me to use) trumps rules that were included with that intent.

Bottom line is, if it could happen to you in real life, it could happen in the game (which emulates it, albiet in a different setting). All the rules included in 1E are made to create the experiance of "what would really happen if I was in this situation". Follow the intent of the rules that seem to contradict.

[EOTB]

Thieves' backstabs are an area where I am more lenient than btb. I agree that as written in the PHB and DMG, that a thief must succeed on either or both of HiS and MS rolls, as applicable to the encounter, and additionally a surprise roll. As some others have said, I also tend to forego the surprise roll.

In practice, especially at low levels where the various percentages are low, so many rolls to succeed in a row means that backstabs are much fewer and farther between than I think should be for an archtypical skill of a primary class. I don't want every other attack roll to be a backstab, but neither do I want a thief to go a significant portion of a level without successfully using the skill - and I am not even including the attack roll here, that's a 4th roll to succeed just to be able to inflict some damage.

A thief that is played smartly should succeed somewhere between a third and half the time in getting in position to make the attack roll (which may fail, but is often still considered a "successful" use of the skill by a PC).

[mjudge55]

Thieves' backstabs are an area where I am more lenient than btb. I agree that as written in the PHB and DMG, that a thief must succeed on either or both of HiS and MS rolls, as applicable to the encounter, and additionally a surprise roll. As some others have said, I also tend to forego the surprise roll.

In practice, especially at low levels where the various percentages are low, so many rolls to succeed in a row means that backstabs are much fewer and farther between than I think should be for an archtypical skill of a primary class. I don't want every other attack roll to be a backstab, but neither do I want a thief to go a significant portion of a level without successfully using the skill - and I am not even including the attack roll here, that's a 4th roll to succeed just to be able to inflict some damage.

A thief that is played smartly should succeed somewhere between a third and half the time in getting in position to make the attack roll (which may fail, but is often still considered a "successful" use of the skill by a PC).

I absolutely see where you're coming from with this. But it occurs to me that the percentages for HS and MS can be improved situationally. For example, a thief sneaking up behind an opponent in a noisy environment may get a huge bonus to HS, or not even have to roll, and a nice bonus to MS for the noise. Rather than houseruling out the surprise roll to ensure that low level thieves get their backstabs, what about presenting the player with a situation that is a great backstab opportunity and modifying the rolls based on how well the player exploits it? This encourages the player to be clever about backstabbing, incorporates the low intelligence of many low-level monsters, and avoids the problem of it being too easy for high level thieves to backstab.

I know I'm verging on being slavish to this rule, but another thing that's nice about it is that it simulates the fact that no matter how silent, or hidden the thief, there is always a good chance the monster will chance to turn and notice him sneaking up, or smell him, or just "have a funny feeling."

[Matthew]

Yes, I know that, I'm just assuming the DM would rule this way in those examples typically. I agree, in the example with the merchant being warned. But only as long as its one room and within a short period of time.

If a PC enters a dungeon known to have orcs sneaking around in it, is it impossible for the orcs to surprise the PCs because they are forewarned? for a thief to backstab, must his existence be completely unknown (if YES then how pointless to be a thief, after all every group has one...its to be expected)?

I have always had a problem with this ruling...at what point is surprise impossible (is it limited to one room and immediately being warned, or can it cover a wing of a dungeon and an hour can pass, or an entire dungeon and days)?

I think it is pretty obvious that the intent is to be forewarned of imminent surprise. That said, if adventurers are storming a dungeon and the whole place is up in arms, then it would be fair to say that they should only be able to achieve surprise if coming from an unexpected direction. I have no more problem with this rule than any other that is basically governed by the good sense of the game master. It is doubtful that "unaware" refers to "unknowing of the existence of", more plainly it is unaware of where the thief is.

Personally, I'd allow a thief to both back stab that merchant if he let his guard down for a second. If the thief MS or HIS he'd definitely get the chance for some sort of surprise (especially to his opponents back). Otherwise your being unrealistic (and not being a truly neutral DM).

As things stand in your merchant example, if the merchant is unaware of where the thief is, and the thief is hidden but wants to attempt a back stab, then it is time to roll for surprise. The probability of surprise is in the hands of the game master, and also whether it ought to be bypassed.

Say your wife tells you "Dear I saw someone crawl into our house threw the window, and (because the police are on strike and you have your life savings hidden within) you go in armed to find and kill or at least stop the thief. Isn't it possible that thief could be hidden and surprise you (or at least get the first blow) doesn't that kind of thing happen all the time IRL? 1E AD&D is a game of "make believe" its "realism" or "plausibility" (which TRP forces me to use) trumps rules that were included with that intent.

Bottom line is, if it could happen to you in real life, it could happen in the game (which emulates it, albeit in a different setting). All the rules included in 1E are made to create the experience of "what would really happen if I was in this situation". Follow the intent of the rules that seem to contradict.

If the victim is unaware of the whereabouts of the thief then surprise would be possible. The precision with which the victim needs to know the whereabouts of his hidden assailant before surprise is impossible is in the hands of the game master, as is whether surprise needs to be rolled, and this is because the rules do not say. Whatever he feels is within the spirit of the rules is the answer, which may be informed by his experience or imaginings of "real life" (though in all fairness, it is more likely to be informed by what he has seen in films or read in books).

Thieves' backstabs are an area where I am more lenient than btb. I agree that as written in the PHB and DMG, that a thief must succeed on either or both of HiS and MS rolls, as applicable to the encounter, and additionally a surprise roll. As some others have said, I also tend to forego the surprise roll.

In practice, especially at low levels where the various percentages are low, so many rolls to succeed in a row means that backstabs are much fewer and farther between than I think should be for an archtypical skill of a primary class. I don't want every other attack roll to be a backstab, but neither do I want a thief to go a significant portion of a level without successfully using the skill - and I am not even including the attack roll here, that's a 4th roll to succeed just to be able to inflict some damage.

A thief that is played smartly should succeed somewhere between a third and half the time in getting in position to make the attack roll (which may fail, but is often still considered a "successful" use of the skill by a PC).

Generally speaking, there should be no reason to succeed at those rolls in a row. Rather, move silently and hide in shadows improve the chance for surprise, which in turn allows for a back stab. Failing to move silently or hide in shadows does not prevent a back stab if surprise is achieved.

[Ragnorakk]

I know I'm verging on being slavish to this rule, but another thing that's nice about it is that it simulates the fact that no matter how silent, or hidden the thief, there is always a good chance the monster will chance to turn and notice him sneaking up, or smell him, or just "have a funny feeling."

Reminds me of John Carter sneezing his way out of surprise situation in an early ERB book!
As far as rules to be slaved to, this is not a bad one!

[EOTB]

Generally speaking, there should be no reason to succeed at those rolls in a row. Rather, move silently and hide in shadows improve the chance for surprise, which in turn allows for a back stab. Failing to move silently or hide in shadows does not prevent a back stab if surprise is achieved.

I agree, if a player is still allowed a 2 in 6 chance to surprise more often than not, depending upon circumstances, than it is reasonable to have all the various rolls. It has just been my experience as a player (and I had not thought to implement this when in the DM chair, either) that once a failed MS or HiS check hit, it was no chance. I will have to test out allowing the surprise roll to go on in a game and see if it still hits the sweet spot for frequency of attempts.

[AxeMental]

Matt: "If the victim is unaware of the whereabouts of the thief then surprise would be possible. The precision with which the victim needs to know the whereabouts of his hidden assailant before surprise is impossible is in the hands of the game master,"

Thats true, but like many of the rules readings its something that can be answered more globally with common sense (which is helpful for new DMs for instance). I've heard it suggested in many threads over the years that if a thief is suspected in a room backstab is impossible (and even surprise is impossible). I think both are false. When a group moves about a hostile dungeon every room and every turn is suspect, yet we allow surprise in most cases. I suspect knowing seconds before (from sound or sight) and being prepared is whats needed to avoid normal surprise. If you know the thief is hiding in a small room, or in the corner of a room, then yes surprise and backstab may be impossible...but if its a larger room stuffed with rotting furniture and junk, and you saw a thief run into this room, I'd allow the thief a chance to HIS, MS, and if he chose surprise and backstab (though I may adjust chances).

[sepulchre]

Matthew wrote:

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.

Matt, I would contend these are separate actions. If the thief is hidden, not moving, but hidden, he is 3in6 to surprise. If he wants to get into closer range, provided vision does not extend to the thief's area of observation...

As is plainly stated in PLAYERS HANDBOOK, this is NEVER possible under direct (or even indirect) observation. Likewise, if a hidden thief attempts movement while under observation, the proverbial jig is up for him or her...if vision would normally extend to the thief's area of activity, then observation rules apply. Unobserved attempts to hide in shadows must likewise stand the hazard of the dice roll. (19 DMG).

...then he dices to move silently otherwise becoming 2in6 to surprise during that round. If successful the thief remains 3in6 to surprise while stalking. Once he arrives in the desired spot to hide he must dice again to hide in shadows. If successful he is again 3in6 to surprise and closer to being within 1", or melee range.

Philotomy wrote:

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...treat this as a guideline

A fair reminder of the spirit of things, yes.

(it is, after all, derived from an example).

and comparisons to other examples via PHB (elves) and MMI (too many to mention). To my mind, some of the comparisons serve as a guideline and inform the ruling. Elves not wearing metal armor, or in oiled elfin chain (see WG4) moving in a natural setting imply a probability of surprise that is superior to that of the quiet thief, unless he too is invisible. That is a reading of surprise with a nod to the examples presented in the books. You could swap out elves for comparison and replace it with jaguar/panther (MMI) or even ranger in a natural setting. An interpretation I draw from such comparisons is that a thief in an urban/dungeon setting isn't much different from a ranger in an outdoor setting.

adventuring/exploration situation: "...a party of characters, moving silently and invisibly, comes upon a monster. They have a 4 of 6 chances to surprise..A lone silent and invisible PC might also have a better chance."

I don't think this stands to reason. All of the PCs mentioned have the same static chance to surprise. If this were a lone PC the result would be the same, one die, 4in6.
If a visble PC tagged along moving silently, or an elf in metal armor the chance would become 3in6 for all.

[Matthew]

That's true, but like many of the rules readings its something that can be answered more globally with common sense (which is helpful for new DMs for instance). I've heard it suggested in many threads over the years that if a thief is suspected in a room back stab is impossible (and even surprise is impossible). I think both are false. When a group moves about a hostile dungeon every room and every turn is suspect, yet we allow surprise in most cases. I suspect knowing seconds before (from sound or sight) and being prepared is what's needed to avoid normal surprise. If you know the thief is hiding in a small room, or in the corner of a room, then yes surprise and back stab may be impossible...but if its a larger room stuffed with rotting furniture and junk, and you saw a thief run into this room, I'd allow the thief a chance to HIS, MS, and if he chose surprise and back stab (though I may adjust chances).

Well, it sounds like your issue may be with what others have suggested rather than myself. If people are plumping for such a literal interpretation of the text taken to the extreme [e.g. I know thieves exist, therefore I expect them at every turn], then I suspect they are straying from the spirit in which they were written. That said, every game master had his own interpretive campaign, and at the end of the day if he has all the facts at his fingertips and still rules that way, it is up to him. Certainly, it seems to me that it is necessary to be reasonable in deciding under what conditions surprise and back stabs are possible.

Matt, I would contend these are separate actions. If the thief is hidden, not moving, but hidden, he is 3in6 to surprise. If he wants to get into closer range, provided vision does not extend to the thief's area of observation...

As is plainly stated in PLAYERS HANDBOOK, this is NEVER possible under direct (or even indirect) observation. Likewise, if a hidden thief attempts movement while under observation, the proverbial jig is up for him or her...if vision would normally extend to the thief's area of activity, then observation rules apply. Unobserved attempts to hide in shadows must likewise stand the hazard of the dice roll. (19 DMG).

...then he dices to move silently otherwise becoming 2in6 to surprise during that round. If successful the thief remains 3in6 to surprise while stalking. Once he arrives in the desired spot to hide he must dice again to hide in shadows. If successful he is again 3in6 to surprise and closer to being within 1", or melee range.

I think that you have to be sensible about these things. If a thief is hiding in shadows and an enemy comes within range of a back stab [i.e. mêlée distance] there is surely going to be a difference in his probability of success if he chooses to move silently or simply rushes out to attack. They are two separate action in the sense they do not occur at the same time, but they both have the potential to contribute to surprise, which is reliant on events prior to the moment itself.

[thedungeondelver]

Ran a session of Castle Delve late last week and a thief blew a backstab on a sleeping blue dragon (!!!) and got eaten in a single bite!

[sepulchre]

Matt wrote:

I think that you have to be sensible about these things.

Sure there is a difference. I agree. Moreover, once a thief is hidden and not within the range of vision but within melee range he should dice for surprise 3in6. That is, if he is to sustain a modified surprise dice and move he must roll his chances to move quietly and eventually reroll his chance to hide in shadows. In either instance, there are two different means being employed to sustain a modified surprise dice, and thus they are not meant to be cumulative.

[Matthew]

Sure there is a difference. I agree. Moreover, once a thief is hidden and not within the range of vision but within melee range he should dice for surprise 3in6. That is, if he is to sustain a modified surprise dice and move he must roll his chances to move quietly and eventually reroll his chance to hide in shadows. In either instance, there are two different means being employed to sustain a modified surprise dice, and thus they are not meant to be cumulative.

I think you are imagining surprise being more "in the moment", and perhaps less abstract, than I am; the way I see it, if the thief is both hidden prior to unleashing his attack and silent during his approach then he qualifies for the same sort of 4-in-6 chance that an invisible and silent character would otherwise get. If the thief moves to initiate surprise, that would be a different case.