Rogue Back Stabs???

[Joe]

I will ask this amongst the various players of the game how you folks interpret the rules.

Can you please clarify for me the differences?

I have seen a rogue repeatedly do this in a battle. They stand right in front of you in clear sight, can somehow "sneak" behind an enemy, "hide" in plain view, and pull off back stabs round after round. This seems to me an abuse/misinterpretation of RAW.

I admit I am no Hans Shadowspawn, but I have tried this at home with my spouse and every time all she had to do is turn her head. (Busted again!)
No matter how hard I try, I find it next to impossible to hide in plain sight especially after she already knows I am there. this applies even when I wear camoflauge.

For my own sake could you let me know how you guys run this?

I guess what I am asking is if this is possible with the rules as written?

Can a rogue that is standing in plain sight in front of you, smack you with his sword one round, then somehow move behind you, succeed at hiding in plain sight, and then repeatedly pull off back stabs?
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

[gideon_thorne]

Three things:

Hide: "If the character is being observed, even casually, they cannot hide."

Sneak Attack: "When an opponent or victim is aware of the rogue, but unsuspecting of an attack, a rogue can use the sneak attack ability."

Backstab: Pretty well requires the target to be unaware entirely of the attack.

So, as you describe it, no, it can't be done by C&C rules as written.
But, as you say, the GM can interpret how they like.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[anglefish]

First two sentences of the Back Stab ability:

"A rogue normally avoids face-to-face combat ... . A rogue able to attack an opponent from the rear and who is is unaware of the rogue's presence ..."

If you are referring to skill checks you need to sneak up behind a foe, I offer two suggestions:

* It's sneak up behind, not AROUND the foe. (which doesn't violate RAW)

* As RAW per Siege checks, a CK has to apply the HD of the target at a minimum, and can judge that additional CLs apply. "You want to slip behind him fast enough that he doesn't know where you are for a backstab. The 2HD city guard gets a +10 since it's broad daylight. Beat a 24."

Are there times you could do a sneak around? Sure. An opponent who is really, comically dumb, dazed by a head injury, befuddled by magic.

Best yet, snatch a few thieves toys from 3.x or ask your GM to let you use Disable traps to make a few of your own. Make smoke bombs or pepper eggs.

"Where did that rascal go? Ouch. Yep. There he is. Right behind me."

[serleran]

Backstabs work best with a ring f non-existence. Once you smack someone, they are well aware of you. Even if you cannot be seen.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[CharlieRock]

There is two types of special rogue attacks. One the rogue may do repeatedly over the course of a prolonged combat. And the other she can only do once. At least, that's how we've been doing it.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

[Go0gleplex]

My group had something very similar be attempted. In fact it became a rather heated argument with the player in question though in our case we were surrounded by 15 goblins. There was no way to get around behind them.

He couldn't understand why he couldn't backstab.

I feel your pain dude.

Both Gideon and Anglefish got it nailed.
_________________
The obvious will always trip you up FAR more than the obscure.

Baron Grignak Hammerhand of the Pacifica Provinces-

High Warden of the Castles & Crusades Society

[Lord Dynel]

CharlieRock wrote:
There is two types of special rogue attacks. One the rogue may do repeatedly over the course of a prolonged combat. And the other she can only do once. At least, that's how we've been doing it.

I kind of see it the same way. I personally don't know how many sneak attacks I would allow against one target in a battle (since the victim is supposed to be "unsuspecting of the attack") but I'd say he'd have a much better time getting that off more than once than he would a back attack, and against multiple opponents, he'd probably have a field day with sneak attacks.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

[Nykster]

This came up once before in a group of my friends. The CK dealt with it on a creature by creature case. The rogue was running from place to place back stabbing his allies opponent. When he got done doing that, the CK deemed it reasonable that the rogues first target would be preoccupied enough for him to make another back attack (as it was still alive). There were some penalties though, and he had to make another sneak check with a small modifier.

[koralas]

OK, so my question is, when you witnessed this repeated backstab, what game system were you playing? One of the huge problems with d20/3rd Ed. with the rogue was that the Sneak Attack ability was usable any time a victim was denied their AC bonus, or the rogue was flanking the victim. This often lead to repeated sneak attacks by rogues, even though the opponent is very aware of the rogue's presence.

Take for example at 9th level. A fighter with 18 Str and a long sword +3 is +9/+4 to hit from class for a total of +15/+11 to hit, and will deal d8+4+3, so a max of 15 from each blow, or a total of 30hp max damage in a round. A rogue of 9th level with a 14 Str, and a shortsword +3 and BtH of +6/+1 will hit with +11/+6 and each strike doing d6+5+5d6 damage, for a max of 35 HP per strike, or 70HP/round.

In contrast a C&C fighter with the same is at a total of +15 to hit, dealing d8+3+3 or a max of 14 damage per round. The rogue must take the opponent unaware, so after the first attack the opponent is aware and the rogue must retreat before sneaking up behind the same or another opponent, and strikes at +11 (+3 (class), +1 (Str), +3 (sword), +4 (sneak attack)), and deals d6x4+1+3 for a max of 28 points of damage, though some would say this should be (d6+1+3)x4 or 40 points of damage, the difference is do you apply the modifier to the weapon damage or total over all damage?

Ok, so on an individual blow, the C&C rogue and d20 rogue are just about on par; however, in C&C you can only sneak attack once, it is after all a SNEAK attack. You then have to leave combat, achieve stealth once again before attempting another sneak attack. In d20/3rd Ed (or as I like to call it, the start of the videogameification of table top RPGs, or the MPTTRPG that is Multi Player Table Top RPG) you just need a tank to stand on one side to soak damage, while the rogue comes to the other and deals out the real damage with as many "sneak attacks" as it wants, simply because he is flanking the opponent. And this works because all opponents are to dumb to figure out the tank is merely scratching them while this little whelp behind them is stricking vital organs, so they put all their focus on the big slow shiny thing and ignore the little flimsy thing on the other side...

[Taranthyll]

I think it depends on circumstances. In the chaos of combat, I think its quite reasonable for a rogue to make a hide check to manoeuvre around behind someone that was previously aware of him, and make a back attack. Joe, try the same thing with your wife while a group of your friends tries attacking her with swords and knives - you might find that she forgets all about you during her preoccupation with not being murdered .
There is a great opening scene in the movie, The Professional, where the assassin Leon, played by Jean Reno, is in a gangster's penthouse. He kills off all of the gangster's bodyguards one-by-one, slipping in and out of shadows. He emerges, kills his victim, then slips back into the shadows only to reappear somewhere else. This is the epitome of the rogue's hide and back attack skills in action. It isn't realistic, admittedly, but many of the class abilities of C&C are designed to emulate cinematic action, not reality. These abilities are what sets the specialist apart from everyone else. Anyone can try to sneak up on someone and stab them in the back, but the rogue is a master at it. Just as anyone can attempt to climb a surface with adequate handholds, the rogue can scale surfaces that no normal person could.

I always allow the rogue to make a hide check while in plain sight as long as there is some reasonable distraction that would draw the target's attention away from the rogue. I believe that this captures the spirit of class.
_________________
"You're not going crazy, you're going sane in a crazy world."

- The Tick

[koralas]

Taranthyll wrote:
I think it depends on circumstances. In the chaos of combat, I think its quite reasonable for a rogue to make a hide check to manoeuvre around behind someone that was previously aware of him, and make a back attack.

I always allow the rogue to make a hide check while in plain sight as long as there is some reasonable distraction that would draw the target's attention away from the rogue. I believe that this captures the spirit of class.

Oh, I agree to a point... The rogue can't hide when standing right next to someone, he has to back away, that is what I meant by leave combat, not have to wait for all that encounter to be resolved. So if you can get reasonably far enough away that you can slip "into the shadows", then you can back attack even that same opponent again. If you are next to an opponent that knows you are there, his/her head will be on a swivel, so standing next to the victim you can't suddenly just poof be gone. But with a round being 10 seconds, you can step back and away, then hide the next round, and sneak around again to prepare to attack.

[Taranthyll]

koralas wrote:
Oh, I agree to a point... The rogue can't hide when standing right next to someone, he has to back away, that is what I meant by leave combat, not have to wait for all that encounter to be resolved. So if you can get reasonably far enough away that you can slip "into the shadows", then you can back attack even that same opponent again. If you are next to an opponent that knows you are there, his/her head will be on a swivel, so standing next to the victim you can't suddenly just poof be gone. But with a round being 10 seconds, you can step back and away, then hide, and sneak around again.

I'm with you on this. I wouldn't allow a rogue to stand behind someone and repeatedly stab in the back just because he kept making hide checks. He'd definitely have to back away and melt into the shadows. I never much liked the 3rd edition sneak attack, either - simply flanking someone doesn't seem a sufficient distraction to warrant a sneak attack. I'm pretty sure that most people can position themselves sufficiently to keep a flanker in their peripheral vision while fighting another opponent - especially if that flanker has already tried to shiv them in the kidneys.
_________________
"You're not going crazy, you're going sane in a crazy world."

- The Tick