D&D 2E 2e Fighter vs Fighter/Thief vs Thief Play Balance

[Voadam]

Thieves were designed originally around the Magic-User chassis, swapping out spells for thief skills and ability and gaining slightly better armor and weapons and in AD&D HD.

I don't think the balance is sufficient but that was the general 0e design that stuck through 2e.

Still a 160,000 xp 10th level thief example compares to a 160,000 xp 9th level 2e wizard, who has 11 less hp, a THAC0 of 18 instead of 16, poorer armor, and worse weapon choices. The thief also has a x4 backstab, a 75% chance to read spell scrolls, and can attract a band of thief's followers.

I don't feel that is enough to compare with the 5th level wizard spells and ability to use wizard magic items like staves and wands in most D&D game contexts, but it is not nothing.

 

[James Gasik]

Oh it's true, it's somewhat harder to survive as a Mage than a Thief, but not by a lot. And yeah, a 10th level Thief has some extra goodies. I mostly chose that level because at low levels, it's harder to see the difference in advancement between classes.

 

[Musing Mage]

I am going to venture a controversial thought here - the Thief class is fine as-is.

So many DMs and players nerf the thief in the way they approach the abilities, then complain about how much they suck, when simply looking at it from another lens makes them quite useful.

Moving Silently and Hiding in Shadows are the ones most often done completely wrong. I have yet to see anyone use them as anything more than a binary pass/fail metric. They are meant to be possible enhancements to normal surprise chances, not the baseline skill to achieve them.

If your move silently succeeds, you subtract 2 points from the opponent's surprise roll. (d10, where surprise is achieved on a 1-3. Therefore successful MS means you surprise 1-5, 50%) Failure to MS simply means you don't get the enhancement but may still roll for normal surprise chances.

Hiding in shadows is your chance to achieve an invisible state in the right lighting conditions. Like with moving silently, failure doesn't mean you are automatically spotted, it simply means surprise chances are normal. So low starting numbers are still not a bad thing. A 15% chance to hide in shadows is still a roughly 1 in 6(ish) chance to become invisible in low light/shadowy conditions, which only gets better as you (rapidly) advance. If you're using the individual XP rules in the DMG, then thieves get 2xp per GP of loot, so they will ROCKET up in level after a good haul, I have seen it many times.

Backstab is also often nerfed into oblivion with a series of requirements. One DM I played with only allowed a backstab attempt IF the thief had successfully hidden in shadows, THEN moved silently behind the opponent AND achieved surprise (which was an unmodified roll, not adjusted for hiding/moving silently). That's the most extreme I've seen it, but many others are not far off from this.

Personally, I like 1e for backstab where it's always possible so long as you're on the opponent's rear, but for 2e, if you just use surprise as the only metric you need, then backstab will see plenty of use. And yes, it should be possible to re-achieve surprise by ducking out of the fight and successfully hiding for a round. There's already a note about being unable to hide under direct observation, but if the thief can slip out of sight, give them that chance - it is after all, what they do best.

 

[James Gasik]

Oh yeah, Thieves getting xp for loot is a pretty good deal. As for Stealthing, I think the problem was that the text, at least in 2e, was specific to mention that you "THINK" you are silent/hidden on a failed roll. The implication is that you have to be one or the other.

Also when Hide in Shadows explicitly calls out you can't actually Hide in total darkness always threw me for a loop. Also, since the DM is directed to make these rolls in secret, it's hard to tell exactly why your attempts failed, just that they did.

 

[Voadam]

Backstab is also often nerfed into oblivion with a series of requirements. One DM I played with only allowed a backstab attempt IF the thief had successfully hidden in shadows, THEN moved silently behind the opponent AND achieved surprise (which was an unmodified roll, not adjusted for hiding/moving silently). That's the most extreme I've seen it, but many others are not far off from this.

Personally, I like 1e for backstab where it's always possible so long as you're on the opponent's rear, but for 2e, if you just use surprise as the only metric you need, then backstab will see plenty of use. And yes, it should be possible to re-achieve surprise by ducking out of the fight and successfully hiding for a round. There's already a note about being unable to hide under direct observation, but if the thief can slip out of sight, give them that chance - it is after all, what they do best.

Backstab looked decently easy to achieve in 1e from the description on page 27 in the PH.

"Back stabbing is the striking of a blow from behind, be it with club, dagger, or sword."

So just a matter of positioning. This can be negated by fighting back to back or with your back against a wall, etc. but otherwise get behind somebody and stab them with your club.

But you get extra rules that change the parameters (like on a bunch of things) in the 1e DMG. Page 19:

"Back Stabbing: Opponents aware of the thief will be able to negate the attack form. Certain creatures (otyughs, slimes, molds, etc.) either negate surprise or have no definable “back”, thus negating this ability."

 

[Musing Mage]

But you get extra rules that change the parameters (like on a bunch of things) in the 1e DMG. Page 19:

"Back Stabbing: Opponents aware of the thief will be able to negate the attack form. Certain creatures (otyughs, slimes, molds, etc.) either negate surprise or have no definable “back”, thus negating this ability."

Yeah, this is where the trouble starts, I think. That word 'aware.' It boils down to interpretations. Personally I think being on a combatant's rear flank is enough to constitute that lack of awareness. Especially if the front flank is occupied by a burly tank wailing on said figure with a sword.

I think the phrase 'will be able to negate' is also often taken as an absolute, where I prefer to interpret it as a possible. This is stuff you can leave to circumstance and dice etc. Let's say the thief is on the target's rear, no surprise, no hiding, he's just in the right place for that sweet, sweet backstab. Initiative is rolled, and the enemy wins initiative. Knowing this guy is on the back, the combatant elects to 'negate the attack form' by repositioning and turning to face the thief, or putting him on his shield flank etc. before the thief attacks.... But if the thief had won initiative he could backstab (at +2, also negating Dex and shield) because the other didn't have time to react and thus negate the form.

If the thief HAS surprise, that's a different kettle of fish. Not only can our poor opponent not willingly negate the form as he's most certainly unaware of the thief, but the thief is now +4 (also negating dex and shield) to strike. Unless your DM is being a real jerk and saying that 1 segment of surprise only counts as 'partial surprise' which means the target is 'aware' and therefore negates backstab... ... and I wouldn't put it past some DMs. (Thankfully I have never seen that situation yet)

For anyone who thinks that just turning their back on someone isn't enough to classify as 'unware,' I refer you to any parent of young children who has turned their back on said child(ren) for 'only a moment.'

But that's 1st ed. On the topic of 2e, and staying within printed 2e parameters - it doesn't have to be too much different. 2e does require surprise (if I'm remembering correctly) and btb you can't get a backstab by just being on the rear without surprise. But if you use surprise as the main metric for a backstab, it opens things up immensely. A thief who has failed his relevant stealth roll STILL has that chance to achieve surprise and thus backstab, merely a reduced one.

Also when Hide in Shadows explicitly calls out you can't actually Hide in total darkness always threw me for a loop. Also, since the DM is directed to make these rolls in secret, it's hard to tell exactly why your attempts failed, just that they did.

Nothing wrong with them thinking they've made it even when they failed. They aren't supposed to know they failed, they are just following through on their chosen action. And if you use the surprise metric, it may yet be a success. As DM you can make the surprise check in front of the players, and that's when the success or failure of the attempt becomes relevant. You don't even need to tell the player whether or not their roll went their way, the surprise roll will do the talking for you.

As for 'why' they failed, it doesn't matter so much. Only that dice indicated that they did, and the chance to surprise wasn't enhanced. As DM you can make up whatever justification you want within the context. A successfull HS or MS roll may still fail because the surprise roll didn't pan out even with the modifiers, or a failed roll succeeds because the surprise roll went their way. Either way it makes the attempts worthwhile..

In some cases you can even let the players make their own MS or HS rolls if the surprise check is going to be immediate anyway, and explain the metric to them so they understand it. A good way for players to see the inner workings of the process and that failure isn't the end of the world.

PLAYER: "I want to sneak up behind him with my dagger"
DM: "Okay, I'll let you roll this one, roll Move silently."
PLAYER: "26%! My MS is 25%, I guess he hears me?"
DM: "Not necessarily, I'll roll surprise. d10. He doesn't notice you if it's 1-3. (rolls 3). That means he's surprised."
PLAYER: "So I can backstab?"
DM: "Yep, roll to strike."

 

[Voadam]

2e Backstab Page 57 of the revised 2e PH:

Thieves are weak in toe-to-toe hacking matches, but they are masters of the knife in the back. When attacking someone by surprise and from behind, a thief can improve his chance to successfully hit (+4 modifier for rear attack and negate the target’s shield and Dexterity bonuses) and greatly increase the amount of damage his blow causes.
To use this ability, the thief must be behind his victim and the victim must be unaware that the thief intends to attack him. If an enemy sees the thief, hears him approach from a blind side, or is warned by another, he is not caught unaware, and the backstab is handled like a normal attack (although bonuses for a rear attack still apply). Opponents in battle will often notice a thief trying to maneuver behind them—the first rule of fighting is to never turn your back on an enemy! However, someone who isn’t expecting to be attacked (a friend or ally, perhaps) can be caught unaware even if he knows the thief is behind him.

Surprise alone is insufficient, being seen coming when surprised, or being heard when coming up unseen on a surprised opponent seem to be enough for a surprised opponent to be aware of the intended attack and spoil the backstab.

 

[James Gasik]

This reminds me of why people say don't play an assassin rogue. How many hoops do you have to make a thief jump through?

 

[Musing Mage]

2e Backstab Page 57 of the revised 2e PH:

Thieves are weak in toe-to-toe hacking matches, but they are masters of the knife in the back. When attacking someone by surprise and from behind, a thief can improve his chance to successfully hit (+4 modifier for rear attack and negate the target’s shield and Dexterity bonuses) and greatly increase the amount of damage his blow causes.

Yes, this is fine. It's clear - attacking from behind while surprised is a backstab.

But then this happens:

To use this ability, the thief must be behind his victim and the victim must be unaware that the thief intends to attack him. If an enemy sees the thief, hears him approach from a blind side, or is warned by another, he is not caught unaware, and the backstab is handled like a normal attack (although bonuses for a rear attack still apply). Opponents in battle will often notice a thief trying to maneuver behind them—the first rule of fighting is to never turn your back on an enemy! However, someone who isn’t expecting to be attacked (a friend or ally, perhaps) can be caught unaware even if he knows the thief is behind him.

This redundant text is what confuses the issue and suddenly there are hoops to jump through.

Surprise alone is insufficient, being seen coming when surprised, or being heard when coming up unseen on a surprised opponent seem to be enough for a surprised opponent to be aware of the intended attack and spoil the backstab.

This is exactly the kind of thing that I'm talking about. The way players and DMs bend over backwards to nerf the thief, then subsequently complain about how much they suck.

The surprise roll IS the determining factor for whether nor the opponent sees, hears, or is warned by others. The text says 'IF' an enemy sees, hears, or is warned by another. That 'IF' is determined by the surprise roll.

Keep it simple - if you have surprise, and you are behind your enemy - you get to backstab.

If the enemy sees the thief, it's because the surprise roll failed. No backstab. If they hear the thief approach, it's because surprise failed. No backstab. If warned by another, guess what? Surprise roll, and if no surprise, then no backstab. But if in any of those cases the thief gets to an opponent's rear flank, and the dice indicate surprise, then a backstabbin' we will go.

This is the point of surprise. This is why Move Silently or hide in shadows are enhancements to surprise. There is absolutely no need to overcomplicate it with a further set of arbitrary ideas:

"Oh, the dice say the enemies are surprised...but the buddy of your target calls out to him and warns him about you, so even though you have the drop and are right behind him, he's just unsurprised enough to screw with your 'mastery of the knife in the back' so you lose out on your class ability, but you can still make a regular attack if you like."

 

[James Gasik]

Took me awhile to find it, but the first attached file mentions another hurdle- you must be able to strike something the DM defines as a "vital area". I recall a discussion about this in Dragon, I believe, where Halflings were being denied backstab because they couldn't reach a target's vitals.

The second attached file shows how a lot of this got started, with the EGG man himself, who certainly seems to insinuate that failed checks reveal your presence.