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

[Mannahnin]

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.

Nah. The rules bend over backwards to nerf the thief.

I'm all in favor of interpreting them more generously to let the thief be decent, but IMO it's quite clear that DMs who run backstab as extremely difficult to achieve are following the expressed instructions.

 

[Musing Mage]

Nah. The rules bend over backwards to nerf the thief.

I'm all in favor of interpreting them more generously to let the thief be decent, but IMO it's quite clear that DMs who run backstab as extremely difficult to achieve are following the expressed instructions.

I will grant you that 2e definitely makes backstabbing more difficult to achieve than it is in 1e, but it should not be as difficult as most DMs seem to want to make it. Both 1e and 2e have many instances of overdescribing what should otherwise be simple concepts. But ultimately - do you want a clean systemic procedure or always leave it to arbitrary DM rulings?

Here are two examples of play that can be considered by the book (both justifiable by passages in the rules), let me know which is more appealing as a player:

Example a)

Player: I want to move silently behind him to get my backstab in.
DM: Ok. (rolls, MS is successful, rolls surprise also successful). You creep up behind him, but he's a nervous and twitchy sort, so always looking around, he catches you in the periphery of his vision and even though your MS was successful and you have surprise, he's able to negate your backstab because he saw you approach out of the corner of his eye.

Example b)

Player: I want to move silently behind him to get my backstab in.
DM: Ok. (rolls, MS is successful, rolls surprise also successful). You creep up behind him, but he's a nervous and twitchy sort, always looking around him... even so, your MS was successful so he doesn't hear your approach, giving you surprise so he can't react to you. Roll to strike a backstab.

Example (A) justifies the text under backstabbing under the thief section of the PHB (backstab thwarted by being seen, heard, or warned against). Giving a DM any arbitrary excuse to simply say they won't allow the backstab. It also invites arguments from very (and rightly) annoyed players who have succeeded in the relevant rolls.

Example (B) justifies the text under moving silently (improves surprise), Backstabbing (have surprise and be behind the target), and uses a simple metric for determining if any of those other factors apply. This takes it out of DMs hands and sets it firmly within the purview of the mechanics, giving thief players a fair chance to accomplish their ends.


I can't speak for anyone else here, but give me option B every time.

 

[James Gasik]

Oh I agree, the DM -should- be working with the Thief. Unfortunately, the guidance in AD&D seems to be the very opposite.

While not relevant to the Thief specifically, we have Gary actively saying that you should NEVER tell Assassin players that they have an extra class ability (poison use) unless they ask specifically (hey can assassins use poisons?). His rants about player agency inform the DM that the players need to work for everything, and you should make things as hard as possible for them.

And sometimes, that's baked into the rules- for example, Monk open hand damage doesn't work on creatures of a certain height!

2e doesn't have anti-player rhetoric, but the rules still reflect that things should be hard. Some of the things I noted about the Thieving Abilities just boggle the mind. If I Hide in Shadows, infravision cannot detect me. But I can't Hide in Shadows in pure darkness, so infravision can detect me easily before I can reach an area with some kind of illumination?

And the truly tragic part about this is that backstab isn't really even all that good! The damage multiplier is to the weapon damage dice alone! Now the Thief does have a few weapons that can really take advantage of this (a broadsword does 2d4, so 4d4, 6d4, and so on isn't bad). Elves will probably use longswords which are a little worse at 1d8.

Halflings can use these weapons in two hands and it's not like Thieves use shields or anything.

Presumably a Fighter/Thief could use a Greatsword or something crazy like the Longspear from the Complete Fighter's Handbook.

But even then, this isn't guaranteed death, even though it can be a lot of damage.

Of course some DM's I know actually took the "knife in the back" comment quite literally and disallowed backstab with heavy weapons.

You can see this with a lot of the early 3e discussions about the Rogue's Sneak Attack, where DM's, used to older rules, flat out rejected the notion a Rogue could Sneak Attack with a greatsword or a scythe.

Then in 4e and 5e, what weapons you could Sneak Attack with was restricted, so that while 5e Rogues can use longswords, they can't use them to Sneak Attack.

I know that this is an example of DM's stepping beyond the rules, but this is the kind of environment the Thief lived in- his abilities were hard to use, had glaring flaws, and the DM was sometimes encouraged to make the Thief fail.

 

[Musing Mage]

Oh I agree, the DM -should- be working with the Thief. Unfortunately, the guidance in AD&D seems to be the very opposite.

While not relevant to the Thief specifically, we have Gary actively saying that you should NEVER tell Assassin players that they have an extra class ability (poison use) unless they ask specifically (hey can assassins use poisons?). His rants about player agency inform the DM that the players need to work for everything, and you should make things as hard as possible for them.

Ha! Funny story, this actually just happened in my ''Team Evil' 1e game - our 4th level Assassin queried about learning poisons. (completely oblivious to this reference in the books)

Gary's DM vs Player rhetoric aside... (I certainly don't subscribe to actively opposing players) I do think players should work for it, but sometimes circumstance and mechanics will make things easy, and I won't take that away when it happens. Nor will I make it easy when things get hard. Neutral arbiter and all that...

On the note of the 1e Assassin - they actually get backstab at first level, but no thieving skills until 3rd level. If one is running the 'Must succeed in moving silently or hiding in shadows' metric to backstab, then assassins having the ability at 1st level is absolutely pointless.

And sometimes, that's baked into the rules- for example, Monk open hand damage doesn't work on creatures of a certain height!

It's the stun/kill effect that doesn't work - the damage still applies. I'm okay with this rule, I don't see it as a negative as it's a defined parameter, not left to on the spot arbitrary decisions by the DM. Monks can be brutally deadly in 1e even with it. (Especially if you apply the surprise metric to Thief skills as I have been outlining where in 1e surprise can grant multiple actions if you get extra segments).

That's the crux of the matter here - a systemic limitation is fine, when it's clearly laid out so we know how to apply it. But when the DM comes in and takes away abilities for arbitrary reasons, that's when the trouble begins.

Thieving skills are overwritten with so many addendums that they cause debate... but if you go back to how what is printed can be applied through a clear system of procedure, the problem clears right up.

Did my stealth roll succeed? If yes, gain bonus to surprise. If no, surprise chances normal.
Did I achieve surprise? If yes, my rear attack is a backstab. If no, then my rear attack is just normal.

Did my pick pockets check succeed? If yes, then I snagged something. If no, check roll against HD of opponent. Was roll high enough to be caught? If yes, then DM will adjudicate response. If no, then *phew!

You get the idea.

2e doesn't have anti-player rhetoric, but the rules still reflect that things should be hard. Some of the things I noted about the Thieving Abilities just boggle the mind. If I Hide in Shadows, infravision cannot detect me. But I can't Hide in Shadows in pure darkness, so infravision can detect me easily before I can reach an area with some kind of illumination?

There is a logic behind it, though. Infravision is spoiled by a light source, hence why hiding in shadows will beat it. But in total darkness, everyone except those with infravision are blind... so having infravision in total darkness will allow you to see the person attempting to hide.

If you're in complete darkness with others who are blind, then hiding is irrelevant as you can't be seen anyway. Moving silently, however, is not irrelevant.

And the truly tragic part about this is that backstab isn't really even all that good! The damage multiplier is to the weapon damage dice alone! Now the Thief does have a few weapons that can really take advantage of this (a broadsword does 2d4, so 4d4, 6d4, and so on isn't bad). Elves will probably use longswords which are a little worse at 1d8.

Halflings can use these weapons in two hands and it's not like Thieves use shields or anything.

Presumably a Fighter/Thief could use a Greatsword or something crazy like the Longspear from the Complete Fighter's Handbook.

But even then, this isn't guaranteed death, even though it can be a lot of damage.

It's good enough, especially used in conjunction with allies. Certainly effective enough to warrant the effort at any rate. It speaks to how thieves approach combat, especially against enemies who are distracted by your team. Backstab, duck out of combat when enemies are distracted, hide for a bit, and try again.

I have always ruled that backstab must be done with a thief class melee weapon, regardless of your class combinations, but then I also go with the PHB note (in my 1e games that is) that backstab can be attempted so long as you're in a rear flank, surprise simply gives you +4 to the attack.

When I ran 2e, I allowed any weapon (within reason, no ballistas. ), but it was btb in that you needed surprise.

You can see this with a lot of the early 3e discussions about the Rogue's Sneak Attack, where DM's, used to older rules, flat out rejected the notion a Rogue could Sneak Attack with a greatsword or a scythe.

Then in 4e and 5e, what weapons you could Sneak Attack with was restricted, so that while 5e Rogues can use longswords, they can't use them to Sneak Attack.

I know that this is an example of DM's stepping beyond the rules, but this is the kind of environment the Thief lived in- his abilities were hard to use, had glaring flaws, and the DM was sometimes encouraged to make the Thief fail.

I'm certainly not saying it's not a thing that happens... I have seen it. Felt it. Been there done that. In 36 years I've certainly been THAT DM... I've been the player on the receiving end of THAT DM... but that's one of the reasons I took a hard look at what the rules lead to if you just approach it systemically, and came to conclusions that I have.

I've been using it in practice for many years now, and it's effective. My niece played a thief once, and her stats were super average. Dex of 11, nothing else higher than 10. (Yes, I'm a DM who makes people keep their rolls come what may, but that's another debate thread... )

Anyway, that character was a howl because her abilities were so low that almost every effort failed at first. But even so, even with failed checks she still had the base 1-2 on d6 surprise chances. (this is 1e, so d6 not d10). That's a 1 in 3 chance of still achieving surprise, and she did so often enough that even her low thieving scores didn't discourage her from actually making attempts.

I can't speak to 4e, as I've never wanted or needed to play it. I do dabble in 5e, and while I think sneak attack is a little on the permissive side I wouldn't nerf it or anything - it certainly works within the context of how 5e plays. But the system is there, and it's quite clean and easy to grasp with no open ended clauses for DMs to to cancel the move.

 

[James Gasik]

Though some will try to cancel it, for some reason or another. I've never understood why, it's the only real way the Thief contributes in combat. But my goodness, it just offends some people that you can pick up a handful of d6's every turn!

Anyways, back to the original point of this thread- whether or not the Thief actually needs help, it definitely needs clarity in how it's abilities are intended to function. If we assume that anyone can attempt these tasks, and the Thief has a chance to do the impossible, if we assume failure on a check does not mean failure, and we allow backstab to function any time the opponent is surprised with a thief behind them, it does help...a little.

Also, I guess this is another reason Elves and Halfings are the best Thieves, because of that -4/-2 surprise penalty they impose to enemies.

 

[Musing Mage]

Though some will try to cancel it, for some reason or another. I've never understood why, it's the only real way the Thief contributes in combat. But my goodness, it just offends some people that you can pick up a handful of d6's every turn!

Anyways, back to the original point of this thread- whether or not the Thief actually needs help, it definitely needs clarity in how it's abilities are intended to function. If we assume that anyone can attempt these tasks, and the Thief has a chance to do the impossible, if we assume failure on a check does not mean failure, and we allow backstab to function any time the opponent is surprised with a thief behind them, it does help...a little.

Also, I guess this is another reason Elves and Halfings are the best Thieves, because of that -4/-2 surprise penalty they impose to enemies.

Absolutely, no argument on the issue of clarity. I loves me some old school (especially 1e) but damn they could have hired better editors.

Elven and Halfling thieves do definitely rule on the stealth front.

 

[James Gasik]

I'll be honest, I don't know that anyone I ever played with used the surprise rules. The DM would just announce you're surprised or not. I can't recall if I ever did as a DM, but I did try to use the Encounter Reaction Chart once. Yeah that was fun.

 

[dmhelp]

Ok so you say thieves have a purpose due to backstab on surprise. But this just makes the fighter/thief an even better option. Not to mention the cleric/thief or mage/thief….

 

[James Gasik]

Well the issue with those multiclasses is they do take a little bit to get off the ground, as it were. But yeah, in the long run, a multiclassed character is ALWAYS better than a single classed character*, as, if you look at the xp tables, they generally only end up a level behind a single classed character. Fighter Multiclasses are probably better off ignoring their "other half" at first, in which case, they are basically Fighters with less hit points, but hey, a bow fires 2 shots a round (and Elves get some of the better multiclass combinations).

Now in the case of multiclassed Thieves, I wouldn't do it without a very high Dexterity, because it will take you longer to reach levels where you have competency at various tasks, but most Thieves have everything they need by level 6 or 7, at which point they can start dumping points into gravy Abilities like Read Languages. Being able to actually cast invisibility is super helpful for a Thief, and Gnomes are allowed to be multiclassed Illusionists (just in case you think you might not be able to get access).

If the Complete Bard's Handbook is in play, an interesting possibility unlocks- multiclassing Thief and Bard. You have to use certain kits to make this work, but now you get thieving abilities from both classes (though granted, Bards only have access to four), and a little spellcasting.

Cleric/Rogue is a great multiclass (though only available to Gnomes in the PHB) since you are now covering two important support roles.

*Subject to level limits; a few other factors have to be taken into account, like the ability to wear armor, and what weapons you can use. Triple Classes compound these problems as well, but do grant a broad base of abilities at high levels- that having been said, you can still only do one thing a turn, so combining, say, Fighter and Cleric/Mage (or all three, in the case of Half-Elves) may not always feel like it's worth it, YMMV. You really need to be in a game likely to reach levels beyond 5-7 for this to pay off.

 

[Musing Mage]

Ok so you say thieves have a purpose due to backstab on surprise. But this just makes the fighter/thief an even better option. Not to mention the cleric/thief or mage/thief….

It's not so much that they have 'purpose' as it's a more intuitive way of handling the ability mechanically.

As for multiclassing, yes, multiclassing yields some great options. There are drawbacks too, which you need to let play out. But single class, or multiclass are both valid options for different reasons, even if it's just flavour. Not every choice needs to be made from a min-max optimization point of view.

Division of xp means a slightly slower progression. Hit points are going to be a little lower on average. If you're allowing max hp, or letting players fudge rolls so they're not vulnerable then you diminish that drawback, but they'll still be down a bit from their single classed compatriot. Armour considerations are also important if one of your classes is a magic-user, because in 2e you cannot cast while wearing armour.

Compare the fighter/thief to the single classed thief on XP: (This is not to show that one is better, just a stat comparison)

Single classed thief at 10,000 xp is 5th level. Thaco is 18. Backstab is x3. You'll have now had 180 pts to spend on thief skills. Average hp (assuming you roll all levels and no CON bonus) is 15-16, max possible from straight rolls is 30.

F/T at 10,000 xp is 3/4. Thaco is 18. Backstab is x2. You'll have divvied 150 pts to thief skills. Average hp: in the 12-13 range, max possible from straight rolls is 27.

Level limits in 2e are such an absolute joke that they're not worth mentioning as a drawback, but if your campaign goes on long enough it may yet become a concern. Don't nerf it, let it play out.