Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
2e Fighter vs Fighter/Thief vs Thief Play Balance
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Musing Mage" data-source="post: 8574196" data-attributes="member: 7025552"><p>Ha! Funny story, this actually just happened in my ''Team Evil' 1e game - our 4th level Assassin queried about learning poisons. (completely oblivious to this reference in the books)</p><p></p><p>Gary's DM vs Player rhetoric aside... (I certainly don't subscribe to actively opposing players) I do think players should work for it, but sometimes circumstance and mechanics will make things easy, and I won't take that away when it happens. Nor will I make it easy when things get hard. Neutral arbiter and all that...</p><p></p><p>On the note of the 1e Assassin - they actually get backstab at first level, but no thieving skills until 3rd level. If one is running the 'Must succeed in moving silently or hiding in shadows' metric to backstab, then assassins having the ability at 1st level is absolutely pointless.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It's the stun/kill effect that doesn't work - the damage still applies. I'm okay with this rule, I don't see it as a negative as it's a defined parameter, not left to on the spot arbitrary decisions by the DM. Monks can be brutally deadly in 1e even with it. (Especially if you apply the surprise metric to Thief skills as I have been outlining where in 1e surprise can grant multiple actions if you get extra segments).</p><p></p><p>That's the crux of the matter here - a systemic limitation is fine, when it's clearly laid out so we know how to apply it. But when the DM comes in and takes away abilities for arbitrary reasons, that's when the trouble begins.</p><p></p><p>Thieving skills are overwritten with so many addendums that they cause debate... but if you go back to how what is printed can be applied through a clear system of procedure, the problem clears right up.</p><p></p><p>Did my stealth roll succeed? If yes, gain bonus to surprise. If no, surprise chances normal.</p><p>Did I achieve surprise? If yes, my rear attack is a backstab. If no, then my rear attack is just normal.</p><p></p><p>Did my pick pockets check succeed? If yes, then I snagged something. If no, check roll against HD of opponent. Was roll high enough to be caught? If yes, then DM will adjudicate response. If no, then *phew!</p><p></p><p>You get the idea.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There is a logic behind it, though. Infravision is spoiled by a light source, hence why hiding in shadows will beat it. But in total darkness, everyone except those with infravision are blind... so having infravision in total darkness will allow you to see the person attempting to hide.</p><p></p><p>If you're in complete darkness with others who are blind, then hiding is irrelevant as you can't be seen anyway. Moving silently, however, is not irrelevant.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It's good enough, especially used in conjunction with allies. Certainly effective enough to warrant the effort at any rate. It speaks to how thieves approach combat, especially against enemies who are distracted by your team. Backstab, duck out of combat when enemies are distracted, hide for a bit, and try again.</p><p></p><p>I have always ruled that backstab must be done with a thief class melee weapon, regardless of your class combinations, but then I also go with the PHB note (in my 1e games that is) that backstab can be attempted so long as you're in a rear flank, surprise simply gives you +4 to the attack.</p><p></p><p>When I ran 2e, I allowed any weapon (within reason, no ballistas. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" />), but it was btb in that you needed surprise.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm certainly not saying it's not a thing that happens... I have seen it. Felt it. Been there done that. In 36 years I've certainly been THAT DM... I've been the player on the receiving end of THAT DM... but that's one of the reasons I took a hard look at what the rules lead to if you just approach it systemically, and came to conclusions that I have.</p><p></p><p>I've been using it in practice for many years now, and it's effective. My niece played a thief once, and her stats were super average. Dex of 11, nothing else higher than 10. (Yes, I'm a DM who makes people keep their rolls come what may, but that's another debate thread... <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />)</p><p></p><p>Anyway, that character was a howl because her abilities were so low that almost every effort failed at first. But even so, even with failed checks she still had the base 1-2 on d6 surprise chances. (this is 1e, so d6 not d10). That's a 1 in 3 chance of still achieving surprise, and she did so often enough that even her low thieving scores didn't discourage her from actually making attempts. </p><p></p><p>I can't speak to 4e, as I've never wanted or needed to play it. I do dabble in 5e, and while I think sneak attack is a little on the permissive side I wouldn't nerf it or anything - it certainly works within the context of how 5e plays. But the system is there, and it's quite clean and easy to grasp with no open ended clauses for DMs to to cancel the move.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Musing Mage, post: 8574196, member: 7025552"] Ha! Funny story, this actually just happened in my ''Team Evil' 1e game - our 4th level Assassin queried about learning poisons. (completely oblivious to this reference in the books) Gary's DM vs Player rhetoric aside... (I certainly don't subscribe to actively opposing players) I do think players should work for it, but sometimes circumstance and mechanics will make things easy, and I won't take that away when it happens. Nor will I make it easy when things get hard. Neutral arbiter and all that... On the note of the 1e Assassin - they actually get backstab at first level, but no thieving skills until 3rd level. If one is running the 'Must succeed in moving silently or hiding in shadows' metric to backstab, then assassins having the ability at 1st level is absolutely pointless. It's the stun/kill effect that doesn't work - the damage still applies. I'm okay with this rule, I don't see it as a negative as it's a defined parameter, not left to on the spot arbitrary decisions by the DM. Monks can be brutally deadly in 1e even with it. (Especially if you apply the surprise metric to Thief skills as I have been outlining where in 1e surprise can grant multiple actions if you get extra segments). That's the crux of the matter here - a systemic limitation is fine, when it's clearly laid out so we know how to apply it. But when the DM comes in and takes away abilities for arbitrary reasons, that's when the trouble begins. Thieving skills are overwritten with so many addendums that they cause debate... but if you go back to how what is printed can be applied through a clear system of procedure, the problem clears right up. Did my stealth roll succeed? If yes, gain bonus to surprise. If no, surprise chances normal. Did I achieve surprise? If yes, my rear attack is a backstab. If no, then my rear attack is just normal. Did my pick pockets check succeed? If yes, then I snagged something. If no, check roll against HD of opponent. Was roll high enough to be caught? If yes, then DM will adjudicate response. If no, then *phew! You get the idea. There is a logic behind it, though. Infravision is spoiled by a light source, hence why hiding in shadows will beat it. But in total darkness, everyone except those with infravision are blind... so having infravision in total darkness will allow you to see the person attempting to hide. If you're in complete darkness with others who are blind, then hiding is irrelevant as you can't be seen anyway. Moving silently, however, is not irrelevant. It's good enough, especially used in conjunction with allies. Certainly effective enough to warrant the effort at any rate. It speaks to how thieves approach combat, especially against enemies who are distracted by your team. Backstab, duck out of combat when enemies are distracted, hide for a bit, and try again. I have always ruled that backstab must be done with a thief class melee weapon, regardless of your class combinations, but then I also go with the PHB note (in my 1e games that is) that backstab can be attempted so long as you're in a rear flank, surprise simply gives you +4 to the attack. When I ran 2e, I allowed any weapon (within reason, no ballistas. ;)), but it was btb in that you needed surprise. I'm certainly not saying it's not a thing that happens... I have seen it. Felt it. Been there done that. In 36 years I've certainly been THAT DM... I've been the player on the receiving end of THAT DM... but that's one of the reasons I took a hard look at what the rules lead to if you just approach it systemically, and came to conclusions that I have. I've been using it in practice for many years now, and it's effective. My niece played a thief once, and her stats were super average. Dex of 11, nothing else higher than 10. (Yes, I'm a DM who makes people keep their rolls come what may, but that's another debate thread... :p) Anyway, that character was a howl because her abilities were so low that almost every effort failed at first. But even so, even with failed checks she still had the base 1-2 on d6 surprise chances. (this is 1e, so d6 not d10). That's a 1 in 3 chance of still achieving surprise, and she did so often enough that even her low thieving scores didn't discourage her from actually making attempts. I can't speak to 4e, as I've never wanted or needed to play it. I do dabble in 5e, and while I think sneak attack is a little on the permissive side I wouldn't nerf it or anything - it certainly works within the context of how 5e plays. But the system is there, and it's quite clean and easy to grasp with no open ended clauses for DMs to to cancel the move. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
2e Fighter vs Fighter/Thief vs Thief Play Balance
Top