Question about the "backstabbing" bonus of thieves

[TheObligatorySQL]

I'm currently putting together a "reference document" for the Original D&D game (much like the Swords & Wizardry game, but doing it "by the book"), using the d20 System Reference Document v.3.5 as the basis.

While working on the document, a question arose about the thieves' backstabbing. The bonus to attack rolls for backstabbing is a +4 bonus (or 20%). It's obvious that his bonus is meant for the "alternative combat system", but how does the bonus to hit translate into the other forms of combat? Does it add a result bonuses or full dice in the Chainmail mass combat system? What does it do to the 2d6 rolls of the the man-to-man system and fantasy combat?

[waysoftheearth]

Welcome to the boards

I'm not completely sure what you are asking here, Alistair. The 3LBBs are a set of reference documents themselves, and there also exist reformatted edits of the same material for "easier" reference.

It isn't obvious to me how your intended reference document would differ from these..?

You're no doubt aware that thieves didn't appear in original D&D until Supplement I, but in any case I'm not sure how I'd go about translating their backstabbing ability to the non-alternative combat.

I'm sure at least one of the sage members here will be able to help out

[Finarvyn]

I think you've hit one of the "rough spots" in OD&D. Some of the early material was developed with "alternate" combat in mind, some with "chainmail" combat. Some designed with d6 hit dice, other with Greyhawk "AD&D-like" hit dice in mind. Thieves are kind of tricky because they seem like "core four" classes but it was really only "core three" in the early days.

Basically, I've always used thieves with "alternate" combat (which is really considered "standard" by most folks anyway). However, if you want to switch to "chainmail" style, I belive that the OD&D thief has the same HD, etc, as the magic user so you might use the MU numbers as a starting point.

[cooper]

Interesting question. So, +4 to hit is 20% so that would roughly translate as increasing a hit in CM by +2 pips or 16%

So a 1st level light foot thief backstabing light foot would roll 1d6/4-6 instead of 1d6/6

That's how I'd do it. Or perhap +1d6 from levels 1-3, +2d6 from levels 4-7 etc.

So a 1st level light foot thief would roll 2d6/6.

Or perhaps I would let the thief attack as one category higher. So a light foot thief backstabs as heavy foot.

[Stormcrow]

Jun 8, 2011 9:00:02 GMT -6 cooper said:

So, +4 to hit is 20% so that would roughly translate as increasing a hit in CM by +2 pips or 16%

The thief's special ability to strike from behind is clearly designed to be used with the alternative combat system. Any attempt to "convert" it to Chainmail is just an makeshift approximation. (E.g., +4 does not always equal +2 pips in Chainmail mass combat. And what about man-to-man?)

Even if you use Chainmail as your combat system, why not use the alternate system as the thief's backstabbing table? You could even recalculate the numbers to include the +4.

[howandwhy99]

I believe +4 is the bonus "to hit" for Rear attacks, not only Thieves' Backstabbing, which is more about the damage bonus when attacking from a rear face.

In Mass Combat this bonus would be the same for any attacker, but unless the entire unit is comprised of thieves (unlikely, but some monsters may have the ability) the bonus damage is going to be according to a single man vs. unit scenario. Formation comes into play, not to mention creature type, etc.

EDIT: Also remember, modifiers to attack rolls matter for whether or not they change the roll or the AC target number. Changes to the roll are far more beneficial.