AD&D 1E Redesigned and Rebalanced Assassin for 1e AD&D

[Mannahnin]

I like the class write-up. Definitely agree with letting them use any weapon and armor, which makes it easier for them to pretend to be Fighters and resolves questions about how they can equip and function while operating in disguise.

I appreciate the superior backstab as a much more playable alternative to the assassination chart, which I agree only ever made sense for resolution of hiring an NPC to kill another NPC.

I particularly appreciate allowing ranged backstab for sniping assassinations, which I think Thieves should be able to do generally (though I can definitely see reserving it for Assassins if we're using that class instead of making it just one way a Thief can focus).

The modifiers for disguise are impressively comprehensive. Obviously it's a lot of fiddly little details, but I think it's in keeping with 1E's style, and the ones you've used nicely cover the possibilities you'd expect in the fiction.

The guild stuff and assassin war/advancement stuff is good fun.

 

[Celebrim]

I particularly appreciate allowing ranged backstab for sniping assassinations, which I think Thieves should be able to do generally (though I can definitely see reserving it for Assassins if we're using that class instead of making it just one way a Thief can focus).

In the write of the revised thief, thieves can take the Sniper NWP to do it.

 

[Lanefan]

As Celebrim clarified, he was talking about assassination, not backstab.

Though in order to get an assassination chance you first have to meet the requirements for backstrike, correct?

As a clarifying note for OSR-interested players, AD&D is a bit ambiguous about what weapons can be used in a back stab. 1E says...


Which some folks, as Celebrim shows, interpret as meaning that it can only be with club, dagger or sword, although bear in mind that those are all the melee weapons Thieves are allowed to use in the 1E PH, and interpreting this as an exclusive list would mean that the sap (introduced in Unearthed Arcana) would be excluded, which seems off, at least to me.

It also doesn't allow for weapons like the garotte (sp.?), which to me is a classic assassinatin' tool. Given that it largely bypasses hit points, though, it's a very all-or-nothing weapon - you either get the kill or you don't, period.

 

[Lanefan]

I like the class write-up. Definitely agree with letting them use any weapon and armor, which makes it easier for them to pretend to be Fighters and resolves questions about how they can equip and function while operating in disguise.

I've had Assassins pretend to be Fighters with light armour - as their Dex is going to be good anyway, going in posing as a back-line archer type works great. Better yet is going in as a Fighter-Thief (if your game has relaxed multi-class rules enough to allow anyone to do this).

I've also had Assassins go in as basic Thieves, hiding their 'extras' as long as they could.

Heavy armour plays hell with their thieving skills.

I appreciate the superior backstab as a much more playable alternative to the assassination chart, which I agree only ever made sense for resolution of hiring an NPC to kill another NPC.

I've used that table in every possible combination - PC-v-PC, PC-v-NPC, NPC-v-PC, and NPC-v-NPC - over the years, though fairly rarely in any case.

I particularly appreciate allowing ranged backstab for sniping assassinations, which I think Thieves should be able to do generally (though I can definitely see reserving it for Assassins if we're using that class instead of making it just one way a Thief can focus).

I've never been a fan of ranged backstrike unless the range is very close (e.g. a thrown dagger from 10 feet or less) as it makes assassination a bit too risk-free. 3e brought in ranged 'sneak attack' which had the same problem: Rogues could do stupid amounts of damage at little relative risk to themselves (and always PC Rogues, gawds help the DM who dared use sneak attack against the PCs).

The modifiers for disguise are impressively comprehensive. Obviously it's a lot of fiddly little details, but I think it's in keeping with 1E's style, and the ones you've used nicely cover the possibilities you'd expect in the fiction.

Agreed.

 

[Celebrim]

Though in order to get an assassination chance you first have to meet the requirements for backstrike, correct?

No. In fact, they have nothing really do with each other. I think the requirements of a backstab are basically you are behind the opponent, while the requirements of an assassination are you've achieved surprise. A backstab benefits from surprise but doesn't seem to actually require it, unless you take the note in the DMG as referring to the requirement of surprise, while an assassination attempt requires surprise but not so far as I can tell that it be from behind.

It also doesn't allow for weapons like the garotte (sp.?), which to me is a classic assassination' tool. Given that it largely bypasses hit points, though, it's a very all-or-nothing weapon - you either get the kill or you don't, period.

Good garotte rules are almost impossible to devise and I won't claim that D&D has them, though there is IMO no reason to give double damage on the garotte. On the other hand, an assassin RAW certainly could claim an assassination attack with a garotte with a corresponding chance of instant kill and at worst you have them in a garotte.

 

[Lanefan]

No. In fact, they have nothing really do with each other. I think the requirements of a backstab are basically you are behind the opponent, while the requirements of an assassination are you've achieved surprise.

I'd have to look it up, but I seem to recall that backstrike requires the target to be unaware of your presence, which is just fancy words for 'surprised'.

A backstab benefits from surprise but doesn't seem to actually require it, while an assassination attempt requires surprise but not that it be from behind.

I've never taken that "must be from behind" part seriously when it comes to backstriking. If the circumstances are such that you're attacking from below or above or beside or even right in front of the target, that's good enough as long as a) the target's unaware of your presence and b) you've had a chance to properly line up the strike (as opposed to just swinging as if in melee).

That said, most backstrikes end up being from behind anyway as that's usually the easiest direction from which to approach unnoticed.

Good garotte rules are almost impossible to devise and I won't claim that D&D has them, though there is IMO no reason to give double damage on the garotte. On the other hand, an assassin RAW certainly could claim an assassination attack with a garotte with a corresponding chance of instant kill and at worst you have them in a garotte.

We've had garotte as an allowable weapon proficiency for Assassins since forever, though few have chosen it. We also have 'garotte collar' on the equipment list, for those who are paranoid about being on the receiving end of such things.

 

[Mannahnin]

Though in order to get an assassination chance you first have to meet the requirements for backstrike, correct?

No. Assassination per the 1E rules just requires surprise. Backstab says "from behind", but it also implies with surprise, from the last sentence of the description, which tells us that the Thief gets +2 to hit rather than the usual +2 for a rear attack per the DMG. I can't find any mention of a +2 bonus to hit against surprised opponents in the DMG, so doubling the usual bonus for rear seems to be a trait of Thief back stabbing, which incidentally is stated explicitly in B/X.

1E PH:
"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, triple at 5-8, quadruple at levels 9-12, and quintuple at levels 13-16. Note that striking by surprise from behind also increases the hit probability by 20% (+4 on the thief's "to hit" die roll)."

Though in order to get an assassination chance you first have to meet the requirements for backstrike, correct?

It also doesn't allow for weapons like the garotte (sp.?), which to me is a classic assassinatin' tool. Given that it largely bypasses hit points, though, it's a very all-or-nothing weapon - you either get the kill or you don't, period.

A Garrot (Unearthed Arcana's spelling, though garrote is more common) incidentally requires both surprise and attacking from behind.

 

[Mannahnin]

No. In fact, they have nothing really do with each other. I think the requirements of a backstab are basically you are behind the opponent, while the requirements of an assassination are you've achieved surprise. A backstab benefits from surprise but doesn't seem to actually require it, unless you take the note in the DMG as referring to the requirement of surprise, while an assassination attempt requires surprise but not so far as I can tell that it be from behind.

The DMG passage stating that either having no back or being immune to surprise negates the ability has always indicated to me that 1E's intent was for surprise to be needed. Yet another instance of Gygax making Thieves' lives even harder.

DMG p19:
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.

 

[Mannahnin]

I'd have to look it up, but I seem to recall that backstrike requires the target to be unaware of your presence, which is just fancy words for 'surprised'.

Why would you need to look it up, when I already quoted the rules verbatim in this thread (across multiple editions) specifically for clarity?

I just quoted the full 1E rules a second time.

 

[Lanefan]

No. Assassination per the 1E rules just requires surprise. Backstab says "from behind", but it also implies with surprise, from the last sentence of the description, which tells us that the Thief gets +2 to hit rather than the usual +2 for a rear attack per the DMG. I can't find any mention of a +2 bonus to hit against surprised opponents in the DMG, so doubling the usual bonus for rear seems to be a trait of Thief back stabbing, which incidentally is stated explicitly in B/X.

1E PH:
"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, triple at 5-8, quadruple at levels 9-12, and quintuple at levels 13-16. Note that striking by surprise from behind also increases the hit probability by 20% (+4 on the thief's "to hit" die roll)."

I think what happened is we somehow incorporated that last sentence as a requirement, as all our backstrikes come with that +4 to hit built in.

A Garrot (Unearthed Arcana's spelling, though garrote is more common) incidentally requires both surprise and attacking from behind.

I've never seen it spelled 'garrot' anywhere else but have seen both garotte and garrote in use. I can see it requiring surprise but I'd think - given the target has to be surprised anyway - the attack could come from any direction except below.