PDA

View Full Version : Oldschool Backstab



Varnithis
2007-08-06, 11:16 AM
Does anyone else out there miss the old Backstab mechanics from 2e?

Sneak attack is neat and I suppose one could argue it's a more versital and better system overall... but I really miss the effectiveness of a good thief getting the drop on a caster in a big fight and pulling off a huge fatal backstab. It gave the thieves a way to be sneaky and effective in combat that almost always payed off if you knew how to use it well.

I dunno, but current Rogue Sneak Attack just doesn't seem... sneaky to me. It's more like "taking advantage of them being occupied" than "sneak".

Does anyone houserule in the old backstab mechanics as an option for Rogues? I'm tempted to come up with one.

The Glyphstone
2007-08-06, 11:24 AM
I think the problem is that 3.5 doesn't have facing, so you can't really get "behind" someone to backstab them.

If that's houseruled in/out, theres's potential though...

Iku Rex
2007-08-06, 11:27 AM
Variant facing rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/combatFacing.htm).

Sornjss Lichdom
2007-08-06, 11:28 AM
well i wasnt around during 2e so i wouldnt know but it sounds good, i aways thougth that a sneak attack was really in need of planing which shouldnt be needed.

It just seems that levatating above the hall and waiting till your target walks underneath you sounds fun.

its_all_ogre
2007-08-06, 11:28 AM
the old backstab relied entirely on dm
some dms made it uber-powerful!
some made it basically impossible to pull off.
hence i prefer sneak attack.

Krellen
2007-08-06, 11:28 AM
I don't see a need for "Backstab". Sneak Attack is Backstab++. All the instances when a Backstab would apply, Sneak Attack applies - and it also applies to instances where Backstab would not.

If you sneak up on someone unseen (creep up behind them), they're Flat-Footed - Sneak Attack applies. When you can get behind someone - they're flanked - Sneak Attack applies. And, unlike with Backstab, you can also make Sneak Attack apply by feinting them and through other clever Rogue tricks designed to knock your opponent off balance.

MrNexx
2007-08-06, 12:06 PM
the old backstab relied entirely on dm
some dms made it uber-powerful!
some made it basically impossible to pull off.
hence i prefer sneak attack.

Only if the DM was breaking the rules.

Matthew
2007-08-06, 12:22 PM
Exactly, the core rules on Back Stab are fairly clear, though House Rules could obviously adjust that.

For what it's worth, I don't really miss it, though I don't particularly like Sneak Attack either.

lukelightning
2007-08-06, 12:27 PM
I hated backstab. Sneak attack makes far more sense.

BardicDuelist
2007-08-06, 12:49 PM
Out of cuirosity, how did backstab work?

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-08-06, 01:02 PM
If you could sneak up on an opponent undetected, the damage you deal would be multiplied an amount based upon your thief's level. The multiplier ranged from x2 to x5.

In 3.5 terms, it would be like making sneak attack only work if you gained a surprise round on your opponent.

Tengu
2007-08-06, 01:09 PM
If you could sneak up on an opponent undetected, the damage you deal would be multiplied an amount based upon your thief's level. The multiplier ranged from x2 to x5.

In 3.5 terms, it would be like making sneak attack only work if you gained a surprise round on your opponent.

Unless you have a strength-based rogue, in most cases it would also mean less damage than sneak attack - (1d6+4)*5 is not as hot as 1d6+4+9d6.

lukelightning
2007-08-06, 01:14 PM
The multiplier ranged from x2 to x5.


Which is why thieves would use greatswords to backstab.

MrNexx
2007-08-06, 01:17 PM
Unless you have a strength-based rogue, in most cases it would also mean less damage than sneak attack - (1d6+4)*5 is not as hot as 1d6+4+9d6.

Less relevant, since HP's were generally lower (Constitution bonuses started higher on the scale, and were capped at +2 for non-warriors; monsters didn't get Constitution bonuses; PC-race HD capped at 9 or 10). For example, the average Ogre in 3.5 has 29 HP; the average ogre in 2nd edition has 19. That's with the same number of Hit Dice.

JadedDM
2007-08-06, 01:23 PM
Also, backstab had more stipulations. You could only use it on a creature that actually had a back and vital organs to puncture and was roughly man-sized (you couldn't backstab a dragon or pudding).

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-08-06, 01:25 PM
Re: "Strength-Based Rogues/Thieves": Modifiers just didn't show up on scores in the middle. Your thief would need a 16 Strength to get a +1 damage modifier. And unless the Thief was also a dual- or multi-classed warrior couldn't get more than a +2 bonus at 18 Strength.

MrNexx
2007-08-06, 01:32 PM
Also, backstab had more stipulations. You could only use it on a creature that actually had a back and vital organs to puncture and was roughly man-sized (you couldn't backstab a dragon or pudding).

Roughly man-shaped, not man-sized. Giants are possible, so long as you can reach something worth hitting.

Chronos
2007-08-06, 07:41 PM
Re: "Strength-Based Rogues/Thieves": Modifiers just didn't show up on scores in the middle. Your thief would need a 16 Strength to get a +1 damage modifier. And unless the Thief was also a dual- or multi-classed warrior couldn't get more than a +2 bonus at 18 Strength.Even a fighter/thief with 18/00 strength would probably be better off with a 3.x Sneak Attack than a Backstab: The multiplier was applied before any strength or magical bonus. On the other hand, the rules for multiple multiplications were never made explicit, so a 13th-level thief who scored a critical hit on a backstab would presumably get 10x damage (though I was once in an adventure where the thief got a crit on a backstab, and then rolled a 1 for the damage. It was still enough; the target was a low-level mook).

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-08-06, 07:48 PM
Roughly man-shaped, not man-sized. Giants are possible, so long as you can reach something worth hitting.
Technically, doesn't that proviso still exist in 3.x? But the ability to hit "something worth hitting" being even more ill-defined than in 2nd edition, it tends to get ignored...


On the other hand, the rules for multiple multiplications were never made explicit, so a 13th-level thief who scored a critical hit on a backstab would presumably get 10x damage (though I was once in an adventure where the thief got a crit on a backstab, and then rolled a 1 for the damage. It was still enough; the target was a low-level mook).
But then critical hits certainly were not core back then. :smallwink:

And good point about the Strength bonus not being multiplied. I didn't get a chance to double check them when I posted.

Matthew
2007-08-06, 08:03 PM
Also note that in 1e you only had to be behind the opponent, but in 2e you had to be behind an unaware or surprised opponent.

Dervag
2007-08-06, 08:45 PM
I hated backstab. Sneak attack makes far more sense.Why, because it abolishes the concept that people have eyes in the front of their head and not the back?


Also, backstab had more stipulations. You could only use it on a creature that actually had a back and vital organs to puncture and was roughly man-sized (you couldn't backstab a dragon or pudding).You arguably shouldn't be able to sneak attack a pudding, either. Granted that it isn't listed as being immune to critical hits, but...

It's a pile of goo! How, exactly, do you go about delivering a devastating sneak attack to a pile of goo, or to a ball of light (lantern archon)?

I would argue that while the rule that creatures had to have a discernable anatomy to be vulnerable to backstab may have been vague, it made more sense than allowing someone to stab a pile of goo in the kidney.

Jasdoif
2007-08-06, 08:48 PM
You arguably shouldn't be able to sneak attack a pudding, either. Granted that it isn't listed as being immune to critical hits, but...Yes it is. It's even mentioned in sneak attack's own description that you can't use it against oozes.

Glyphic
2007-08-06, 09:44 PM
Also, in 2nd edition, you couldn't backstab with all weapons. You couldn't use missile weapons, and it had to be a one handed melee weapon a thief was normally proficient with. So, using a Great sword or a halberd was out.

Matthew
2007-08-06, 09:47 PM
You know, I was thinking I had read that somewhere, but I couldn't spot it in my PHB, I'll have to take another look.

MrNexx
2007-08-06, 10:21 PM
You know, I was thinking I had read that somewhere, but I couldn't spot it in my PHB, I'll have to take another look.

It's mentioned in 1e, but not in 2e.

Matthew
2007-08-06, 11:11 PM
Where does it mention that in 1e? All I could find was a "be it, such in such" in the Thief description.

Just thought I would also mention a useful alternate 2e implementation of Backstab from the Complete Thief's Handbook - Mugging, which in lieu of Damage forced the target to make a Save versus Petrification or be knocked unconscious for 2D8 Minutes.

MrNexx
2007-08-06, 11:24 PM
Where does it mention that in 1e? All I could find was a "be it, such in such" in the Thief description.


IIRC, it is with the description of the ability itself; it may be, OTOH, in the multi-classing stuff.

Matthew
2007-08-07, 12:11 AM
Not that I can see; I'm sure I have read this before, but I just cannot source it. Interestingly, it looks like in Lords and Labyrinths a Thief can use any Weapon, though I do not know how that relates back to Basic Dungeons & Dragons.

kjones
2007-08-07, 12:45 AM
The real problem with Backstab, as far as I'm concerned, was that it meant that the thief had one chance, and only one chance, in combat to make some useful contribution. Regardless of his success or failure (usually failure, since success generally required a Move Silently check), after the thief made his backstab attempt, he was useless for the remainder of the battle - just a squishier fighter with less armor and lighter weapons. Sneak Attack means that the rogue has a meaningful role throughout the entire battle; he's always jockeying for position, trying to get flanking.

As somebody who always played the 2e thief, this is how it usually went with me...

MrNexx
2007-08-07, 01:40 AM
Choose better proficiencies, use better tactics.

So, we start with a backstab. Rogue proficiencies include Jumping and Tumbling... why are you still in melee?

If you're using weapon groups, get the narrow group of Short Blades. It will give you the useful proficiencies of Dagger, Knife, and Short Sword. Tumble out of there and start pitching daggers (2/rnd, cozy range, and you've got a good dex). If you're not using groups, even Dagger and Short Sword (or broad sword or long sword) will do you a world of good.

If you can style specialize, Single Weapon is a good one, as is Two Weapon; do one of them at level 4 (your next WP slot). Two-weapon is GREAT if you have the Short Blades group; you have proficiency in the Main Gauche, which is great for parrying. If you're not allowed style specialization, get a short bow... better range and damage than the daggers.

Tactically, you're not a physical powerhouse. So don't try to be. The Pull/Trip maneuver out of Complete Fighters/Combat and Tactics makes you very useful. Try wolf-packing with the party fighter... you get behind someone and keep stabbing them, while the fighter parries. When the monster turns to attack you, you go full defense (parry + tumble), while the fighter gets his whacks in. Your point is to disable opponents so others can take them out, or they're helpless before a backstab. For fun, take the Rope Use proficiency. Not only is it useful, it gives you a +2 to hit with Lassos. Monsters who have been lassoed are much less frisky.

JadedDM
2007-08-07, 01:57 AM
I have a human thief NPC in my game right now. He helps out in combat by using a short bow (2/1 attack, plus a +1 due to his high DEX).

But overall, thieves aren't meant to be powerhouses in combat. That's what fighters are for. Or mages, maybe.

greenknight
2007-08-07, 03:51 AM
And good point about the Strength bonus not being multiplied. I didn't get a chance to double check them when I posted.

It's not just Strength, the only thing multiplied by a backstab (according to the rules) is the base weapon damage. So a 13th level+ Thief might get one chance per encounter to do an extra 20 damage (on average) to a medium sized humanoid foe while using a longsword. By that level, the other classes could dish out far more damage per round, much more reliably. I prefer the 3.x version, where a Rogue has at least some chance to make a real difference in combat.

nagora
2007-08-07, 04:04 AM
Which is why thieves would use greatswords to backstab.

Which is part of why they weren't allowed to use greatswords.

Also, the target did not have to be unaware - they just had to be unable to do anything about it, although intelligent creatures could be assumed to make great efforts to prevent a backstab if they were aware of the presence of a thief or assassin. A surprised target gave an additional +4 to hit.

nagora
2007-08-07, 04:20 AM
The real problem with Backstab, as far as I'm concerned, was that it meant that the thief had one chance, and only one chance, in combat to make some useful contribution.

Why only one? I've seen an assassin get "behind enemy lines" and slaughter a line of orcs or whatever who were facing the rest of the party on numerous occassions.

If you play the thief/assassin as a crap Fighter then you can expect them to perform like one. But a careful thief or assassin could really gut a stronghold in advance of a main attack.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-08-07, 07:47 AM
Also, the target did not have to be unaware - they just had to be unable to do anything about it...
Maybe in the 1e version Matthew and Mr. Nexx have been talking about. But in 2e your opponent had to be unaware. (First sentence of the second paragraph of the Backstab description on pg. 57 of the revised 2e Player's Handbook: "To use this ability, the thief must be behind his victim and the victim must be unaware that the theif intends to attack him.") Though you could still backstab an opponent who was aware of your presence but not of your intention to attack.

kjones
2007-08-07, 08:38 AM
Maybe in the 1e version Matthew and Mr. Nexx have been talking about. But in 2e your opponent had to be unaware. (First sentence of the second paragraph of the Backstab description on pg. 57 of the revised 2e Player's Handbook: "To use this ability, the thief must be behind his victim and the victim must be unaware that the theif intends to attack him.") Though you could still backstab an opponent who was aware of your presence but not of your intention to attack.

QFT. This is exactly what I meant. It's not enough just to be behind the person; that would be much more interesting for the thief. Instead, you get one chance and one chance only.

Sure, lassos, tumbling, etc. are great, but the fact is that without backstab/sneak attack, there's only one thing you can do in combat, and the fighter is better than you at it.

MrNexx
2007-08-07, 10:25 AM
Sure, lassos, tumbling, etc. are great, but the fact is that without backstab/sneak attack, there's only one thing you can do in combat, and the fighter is better than you at it.

Yes, the fighter is better than you at fighting. It's part of his name, after all.

You're better than him at sneaking, at opening locks and disarming traps, and reading.