Troll Lord Games

The old school thief of 1e AD&D would get the extra damage from just being behind their opponent. All the sneaking got you was a +4 "to hit". I haven't had a chance to playtest it and don't have a rogue in my current game. So I'm wondering what y'all think about implimenting the old way. Is it too powerful? It didn't seem to be in AD&D.

I don't require it to be a sneak attack, but the target does have to be unaware that the thief is attacking them. From any direction. I know, still sounds like a sneak attack, but I see some things that bring that into question. So I say as long as the opponent is not aware that you are attacking them, the thief gets the bonus. So sneak, surprise, etc...

Well, that's how it is for C&C. It seems kind of weak to me. So, you then think being able to get the extra back attack damage, i.e. double, triple, etc. just for attacking from the rear, as 1n AD&D, is too powerful?

No. I allow it from any "side", as long as the target is not aware that the thief is going to attack them. So if they surprise, sneak, bluff, etc... in some manor I allow it. So if anything I say restricting them to only the "back" is less powerful.

I do not allow it on flanks, though. I never could buy into that argument in 3E.

Okay, I see. You allow the back attack damage when sucessfully surprising the opponent. I can see that. Now, do you think it's too powerful to give the back attack damage from the rear without needing a sneaky maneuver as in AD&D?

As long as it is in some way a surprise. I don't agree with extra damage just because they are attacking from behind. I do agree with the to hit bonus.

Treebore wrote:
As long as it is in some way a surprise. I don't agree with extra damage just because they are attacking from behind. I do agree with the to hit bonus.

So knowing where to stick that dagger and having the time to put it where it hurts most, shouldn't net an extra bonus? What about Assassin, then?

As for Flanking, in 3.x I agree with it. Just because you can see your enemy means nothing if he has a friend on the other side. You have two targets to keep track and focusing on one, leaves your flank (imagine that. :p ) vulnerable. It's a bad position to be in, and the 3.x rogue is designed to capitalize on it.

The C&C one is not. If any class would get a flanking bonus, I'd give it to the Assassin, but I don't want to open that can of worms, so I won't.

If I know you are behind me with a dagger I am not going to let you hit me any more than I would if you were in front of me. So if you want to hit a critical area your going to have to attack me without me knowing it.

Anyone who knows how to fight knows where the "best" areas to hit are. The most direct way to the heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, and major arteries.

So if the thief and assassin can hit critical areas without surprise/ignorance of the target then all attacks from fighters should get the multiplier.

So Surprise/ignorance/total lack of ability to defend on the part of the target with regards to a thief's attack needs to be required.

Treebore I tend to agre with you.

I've had the luck/unluck of being in a combatives ring a few times. It is suprising how if you know someone is at your side or back you can keep moving & not let them get a good hit. An evil instructer at times will let some one in behind you with out you knowing. A very quick & painful end unless you are lucky or really very skilled. (3 seconds was my worse from facing the "threat" to the front to, a kick to the back knee, an arm bar, then a face eating mat...)

That has lead me to make the suprise the key. if the thief or assasin has suprise (or a fighter for that matter, if he has fooled the target into letting down his gard) all modifers that aply are used, and the combat is done in short order.

I do give the benifit to the thier/assasin types in hitting critical areas easier. Ive always felt fighter types were trained in "wack some one hard enough here & the arm is hurt" where as thief & especially assasin types are more, poke some one at spot x just so and they go numb...
_________________
"And so I am become a knight of the Kingdom of Dreams and Shadows!" - Mark Twain

Forgive all spelling errors.

Knight Errant & Humble C&C Society Contributor
C&C Society

Treebore wrote:
If I know you are behind me with a dagger I am not going to let you hit me any more than I would if you were in front of me. So if you want to hit a critical area your going to have to attack me without me knowing it.

Anyone who knows how to fight knows where the "best" areas to hit are. The most direct way to the heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, and major arteries.

So if the thief and assassin can hit critical areas without surprise/ignorance of the target then allattacks from fighters should get the multiplier.

And NOW you know why I allow the Fighter class to add it's BtH to damage.

You know, as I sit here thinking about it, thats not a bad idea. Give the fighter types their BtH as a damage bonus in the surprise round, when it is achieved.

Treebore wrote:
You know, as I sit here thinking about it, thats not a bad idea. Give the fighter types their BtH as a damage bonus in the surprise round, when it is achieved.

I personally do it for all attacks, because I believe massive physical damage is a Fighter's bread and butter. A rogue and assassin are trained to do it on unsuspecting targets, while a Fighter does it by both force and general knowledge.