hal@pur-phy.UUCP (Hal Chambers) (04/09/84)
The damage multiplier for "back-stabbing" only applies to weapon
damage. Also, the +4 "to-hit" modifier only applies when attacking
with surprise; not when simply attacking from behind. The appropriate
section of the Player's Handbook (p.27) is quoted below (words in
all caps are my emphasis):
3. Back stabbing is the striking of a blow from behind, be it with
club, dagger, or sword. The damage done per hit is twice normal
FOR THE WEAPON used per four experience levels of the thief,
i.e. double damage at levels 1-4....
Note that striking BY SURPRISE FROM BEHIND also increases the
hit probability by 20% (+4 on the thief's "to hit" die roll).
Hal Chambers
Purdue University
(..!pur-ee!pur-phy!hal)bryan@uiucdcs.UUCP (04/12/84)
#R:pur-phy:-128600:uiucdcs:9300027:000:297 uiucdcs!bryan Apr 12 12:45:00 1984 From the base notes exerts from the Player's Handbook it appears that the thief always recieves double normal WEAPON damage when striking from behind for every four levels of the thief. Being that the surprise bonus is listed after the damage increase and thus appears separte while related ????
hal@pur-phy.UUCP (Hal Chambers) (04/13/84)
The Attack Matrix for Thieves and Assassins in the DMG has a footnote on each column which says: "Thieves and assassins double damage from a surprise BACK STAB." where the word "double" is replaced by the appropriate multiplier for the particular column. Thus the damage muliplier does not apply to all back attacks. Hal Chambers (..!pur-ee!pur-phy!hal)
hakanson@orstcs.UUCP (04/13/84)
Yes, but our group's interpretation is that the normal damage for a weapon
includes any bonuses -- weapon bonuses, strength bonuses, etc. It seems
ridiculous that a thief of low to moderate strength would be allowed to
do the same amount of damage as one with high strength in the same situation.
Of course, some people (and reasonably so, I think) limit it to including
only the weapon damage bonus. The rationale there is that backstabbing
has nothing to do with strength -- only finesse. I'm afraid that I can
agree with this approach too, but I believe strength should come into
the calculation as well -- but only with certain weapons (suppose your
backstab weapon is something like a club, for example). But the AD&D
system isn't complex enough to take this into account, so you have to
be consistent in your campaign. Another shortcoming of the AD&D backstab
system is that Assassins are allowed to backstab with any of THEIR weapons,
e.g. a two-handed sword. Now that's getting ridiculous, especially if
the victim is "large." Ouch!
Marion Hakanson CSnet: hakanson@oregon-state
UUCP : {hp-pcd,tektronix}!orstcs!hakansontomj@dartvax.UUCP (Thomas Johnston) (04/15/84)
As I have stated more than once, we apply thief multipliers only on
the die roll for damage. I have indicated what can happen when one
starts to multiply strength and weapon bonuses as well. Marion Hakanson
believes that it is reasonable to expect a stronger thief [or one with
a better weapon] to do more damage than a weaker one when back-stabbing.
I agree. I do not believe that strength and weapon damages should be
multiplied.
One reason why these bonuses should not be included in the multiplication
is that, as Marion Hakanson says, the increased damage results from finesse
and skill, not sheer force. Another reason can be found in the mathematics
of the game. A fifth level thief wielding a long sword, with a strength
bonus of three, and a weapon damage of three, would expect to do
E[X] = ( E[d8] + 3 + 3 ) * 3 = 10.5 * 3 = 31.5
points of damage, if both the strength and weapon damage bonuses were
included. Using Marion Hakanson's approach, in which only the weapon
bonus is included in the multiplier, the same thief would expect to do
E[X'] = ( E[d8] + 3 ) * 3 + 3 = 7.5 * 3 + 3 = 25.5
points of damage. In D&D (d8's for fighters), 31.5 points of damage would
kill the average seventh (7th) level fighter. In AD&D, 31.5 points of
damage would almost kill the average sixth (6th) level fighter (d10's for
fighters in AD&D). Twenty-five and one-half points of damage is more
than possessed by the average fifth level fighter in D&D, or the average
fourth level fighter in AD&D. While these numbers may not seem extreme to
you at the first glance, try them against magic users!
A fifteenth (yes 15th) level mage averages 31.5 hit points. A tenth
level mage averages 25 hit points. While you all who play thieves may
disagree (I play one myself, and I dislike the rule myself), these
numbers are extreme. If the strength and weapon damages are not included,
the average damage works out to
E[Y] = (E[d8]*3)+3+3 = 4.5*3 + 6 = 19.5
points of damage. This comes out to just above the average hit points of
a fourth level fighter in D&D, just below a fourth level fighter in AD&D,
and just below those of an eighth level magic-user. I've said enough.
In the long run it comes down to the dm's decision. I'm all for doing
lots and lots of damage against random monsters and nasties, but when it
comes to pc - wars (Player characters fighting player characters), and
pc - npc wars, thieves don't need any more advantage than they have.
A final comment on the system that generated this problem. D&D is very
good for generating offensive minded mages, thieves, assassins and monks.
There is very little in the way of defense available, except to the monk,
or to the deryni if you use that race as we do (shields provide magical
protection). Even clerics have little in the way of defense, except after-
the-fact healing.
Tom Johnston
{cornell,linus,decvax}!dartvax!tomj