Sunday, March 4, 2012

More On Backstabbing

A recent discussion of ways to play out the backstabbing mechanic has led me to review the rules, because they greatly influence the probabilities of success.  The Labyrinth Lord ruleset, as written, is extremely uncharitable to thieves in this one respect.  "[He] must catch an opponent unaware of his presense, using move silently and hide in shadows." The requirement to do both makes a successful backstab exceptionally improbable for low level thieves.  After a complaint from a player I've been trying to get interested in old school play, I've been exploring ways to adjust so that thieves could be a little more exciting to play.  Some of those ideas were discussed here.  I also decided to look it up in my old rule books.

According the Rules Cyclopedia:

If a thief can sneak up on a victim, completely unnoticed, the thief may backstab - if he is using a one-handed melee weapon, he may strike at particularly vulnerable points of his target's body. (Though the ability is called "backstabbing," the weapon doesn't have to be a stabbing weapon.  A thief can use this ability with a club, for example.)
...
If the intended victim sees, hears, or is warned of the thief's approach, the thief's attack is not a backstab; it is an ordinary attack, doing the damage appropriate for the weapon used.

When no battle is in progress, a backstab attack may require a Move Silently ability check.  The DM will make all the necessary decisions on that matter.

Furthermore, in my old, red box, Mentzer, D&D Player's Manual it describes the backstabbing ability this way:
If a thief can sneak up on a victim, completely unnoticed, the thief may Backstab.  If the intended victim sees, hears, or is otherwise warned of the thief's approach, a Backstab may not be taken but the thief may still attack normally.
...
EXAMPLE: An Apprentice is carrying a sword, and sees an ogre approaching the party.  The player says "I'll Hide in Shadows."  The DM rolls 19 on d%, so the ogre does not see the thief (but the DM does not announce the fact). During the battle, the ogre gets turned around, with its back towards the thief.  The player says, "I'll try to move in for a Backstab!" The DM decides that the ogre doesn't notice the thief's approach (no roll is made; it depends on the situation, and the DM's judgement) and says "The ogre doesn't notice you; roll for a Backstab." The thief player then makes a Hit Roll...
So originally, the issue wasn't necessarily the game mechanics, but rather the DM's discretion. Depending on the situation, a DM might require a Move Silently check, a Hide in Shadows check, both, or none.  While I definitely am a big fan of the Labyrinth Lord rule set, I'm coming to appreciate it's differences from D&D.  In this one little respect, I think Labyrinth Lord desperately needs to be tweaked.  One of the brilliant features of old school gaming is how much is left to the dungeon master.  The way it's worded in Labyrinth Lord specifically, though, is excessively binding and needs to be house ruled. Otherwise, no rational player would backstab until achieving a fairly high level. Not only that, house ruling it would be more in keeping with the original game rules.

7 comments:

  1. Moldvay Basic simply states "When striking unnoticed from behind". OD&D Greyhawk states "striking silently from behind," both of which again leave it open to the DMs judgement.

    I think the LL text could be improved by simply adding "which may involve" before the reference to MS and HS, or even removing the direct reference to them altogether.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. As it's stated, nobody would backstab. Originally, though, it encouraged roleplaying and imagination.

      Delete
  2. wow. I always have played that thieves need to move silently and hide in shadows. And yes, it is hard to backstab. Isn't that the point?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think it is. I think the point of backstabbing is to make thieves potentialy deadly in the right situation. Their special abilities are only one possible way to manufacture such a situation. Clever tactics, or use of terrain (curtains, bushes, etc.) might be another. Leaving whether backstabbing is possible to the DM has the potential to reward player creativity and roleplaying. If DMs do it right, they end up having better thieves.

      Delete
  3. I think the intention of the game was to say that you could use move silently OR hide in shadows. I believe the intent was to say "if you can sneak up on someone in any way, you can backstabbing." either way, easy to house rule.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think too many "referees" today are slaves to the concept of rules as written. (Note I do not give these sad individuals the title of "Dungeon MASTER.")

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well... rules lawyers have always had a prescense in D&D. The thing that's changed is that they used to be disdainfully referred to as "rules lawyers," and now that's just the way people play the game.

      The truth is, old school rules, but particularly AD&D in my experience, required a certain amount of DM discretion because it was ambiguous, vague, and contradictory. Even then it was look on as a weakness of the system. I think now, in retrospect, people look at it as its strength because it made people feel free to improvise and do things that weren't necessarily in the rules.

      Delete