Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8858562" data-attributes="member: 29398">I probably give more weight to the &quot;if pressed in melee&quot; clause than some might - someone in melee can either look for the thief and be exposed to the melee foe, or deal with the melee foe at cost of automatically (unless the Thief is a complete idiot) losing track of the Thief.I've always taken the +4 to be a built-in part of the backstrike ability; though as noted elsewhere it also applies to the first attack by any invisible foe.&nbsp; Typical 1e confusion. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />True.&nbsp; I should have clarified I was assuming the Thief was going for a different target each time.&nbsp; Obviously someone backstruck once will be aware there's a danger to the rear - assuming, of course, the backstrike left them capable of being aware of anything.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 8858562, member: 29398"] I probably give more weight to the "if pressed in melee" clause than some might - someone in melee can either look for the thief and be exposed to the melee foe, or deal with the melee foe at cost of automatically (unless the Thief is a complete idiot) losing track of the Thief. I've always taken the +4 to be a built-in part of the backstrike ability; though as noted elsewhere it also applies to the first attack by any invisible foe. Typical 1e confusion. :) True. I should have clarified I was assuming the Thief was going for a different target each time. Obviously someone backstruck once will be aware there's a danger to the rear - assuming, of course, the backstrike left them capable of being aware of anything. [/QUOTE]

Verification