TheRPGSite

Ok the question goes deeper than simply the "backstab" mechanic present in so many games actually but rather ...

How do you handle the attack against a totally unaware target?

Most will answer "according to the rules of course." and that's fine but I cant tell you how many times over the years, in a number of different systems, something like this has occurred.

GM - "The guard doesn't hear you, he is looking out over the battlement seemingly oblivious. Your roll is a good one and you are right up behind him."
Player - "I slit his throat."
GM - "Ok, that's *(insert game rule here - ie. double damage, +1d6, max die damage, auto crit or whatever)
Player - "Ok, I got a -blank- for -blank- points of damage!"
GM - "Alright, you got him good...... but he isn't dead. He's hurt though, so lets roll for initiative."
Player ' "WTF?"

So many times the backstab/sneak attack doesn't work out like the mercy kill its supposed to - at least in theory and it always causes frowns. Most will agree that if you come up behind someone unawares and have any skill at all, they are TOAST. It doesn't matter if they are Uber-level Billy Bad Ass, a knife in the head is pretty effective, as is a bow shot to the neck, a spear to through the chest, an axe beheading you or whatever.

I have, many times, simply allowed the player to dispatch the NPC if they aren't anybody important and reward them for their stealth but when its a major NPC you hate to jump passed the rules that far. (Despite what some will remember from my other posts, I do follow the rules a vast majority of the time.)

So whats the answer? Should you just let the thief get his +1d6, doing a pretty good number on the guard but then let the armored and better armed guard turn around and start beating the shit out of him despite his awesome sneakiness? Or do you just let him kill him and move on?

House rules maybe? Quadruple super damage? Instant Kill Shot possibility?

In AD&D 1e you have recourse to the Assassination table. However by the book I think that's only applicable to Assassins.

For everyone else in D&D I'll just note that flunkies should be 1hd and you also generally have surprise giving 1-2 free attacks before they can do anything.

That's at least a starting point.

The human body is a funny thing sometimes.  Bullets have bounced off skulls- hell, people have survived with pieces of their skull (and brain) actually missing.  Even a trained assassin can't account for everything.  You backstab a guy- but maybe his gaps in his ribs aren't where you thought because his garments threw off your calculations.  Or maybe you just happened to hit that one buckle on a strap, or maybe the guy coughed or turned at just the right moment. Even wounds that you think would kill someone (especially stabbing wounds) don't have an immediate effect.  A guy I knew in high school got stabbed twice and didn't even realize it until someone started screaming.

I'd put an initiative penalty on the guard at the very least.  He's gonna need a moment to figure out just what happened and get over the shock.  But if you sliced his throat 'wrong', there's a chance his windpipe is completely fucked and he won't be screaming- he'll be gasping.  

But like you said, house rule.  But you can't always make it easy instakill, because there's ways to exploit that.

Quote from: Crüesader;917273The human body is a funny thing sometimes.  Bullets have bounced off skulls- hell, people have survived with pieces of their skull (and brain) actually missing.  Even a trained assassin can't account for everything.  You backstab a guy- but maybe his gaps in his ribs aren't where you thought because his garments threw off your calculations.  Or maybe you just happened to hit that one buckle on a strap, or maybe the guy coughed or turned at just the right moment. Even wounds that you think would kill someone (especially stabbing wounds) don't have an immediate effect.  A guy I knew in high school got stabbed twice and didn't even realize it until someone started screaming.

I'd put an initiative penalty on the guard at the very least.  He's gonna need a moment to figure out just what happened and get over the shock.  But if you sliced his throat 'wrong', there's a chance his windpipe is completely fucked and he won't be screaming- he'll be gasping.  

But like you said, house rule.  But you can't always make it easy instakill, because there's ways to exploit that.

I agree, as a 22+ year paramedic I saw the human body survive some truly ghastly trauma.. however, SURVIVE is the key word there. They might have lived but except in a very, very, few cases such major trauma incapacitates in the least!  Line up 100 guards and give 100 novice thieves a knife and 99 of the guards are gonna be down for the count (gargling in their own blood, spinal cord severed, jugular ripped out, trachea perforated or whatever) but no longer a concern. That one guy might somehow luck out and keep going but hes a lucky dude indeed.

There should be a chance of failure though, I can see that. The situation almost seems to need to step outside the regular combat rules however as the variables at play are very different from the typical hack and slash melee. Ive house ruled it any number of ways - the most typical being a considerable multiplier or even using an exponent. (if your roll a 1, you get 1 damage - you screwed it up. But if you roll 5 you get 5x5 =25 enough to send even a high level monster writhing in his own fluids etc.)

Its hard to get the sufficient range and probabilities of the attack down to one simple rule.

Personally?

We use a very low HP system, and we consider it like a coup-de-grace.  See the bottom (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/48258720/Advanced%20Combat%20Strategies).

Well, newer versions of D&D use a coup de grace rule for helpless targets, which involves an instant critical hit, dealing greater damage (and even more damage based upon a thief's abilities) and the equivalent of a death save for the target. I would expect that'd be enough to take out most unaware, "standard" guards, most of the time. If, after all that, the low-level (or zero-level) guard still survives... well, luck isn't shining on the player character that day.

Yes, D&D has had a lot of time to get it right. Many first edition systems however choose to gloss over it with an over simplification and necessitate the need for a house rule sadly. Ive gotten in the habit of looking ahead to this element of combat to avoid the sudden unexpected and unpopular surprise during a game when it appears in all its sub-glory.

In AD&D 2e you have recourse to several things:

First, a failed Surprise allows a full round of attacks (not casting spells). So a thief with two daggers backstabs with a simultaneous off-hand stab, usually enough against 1st lvl followers (and I don't use 0th lvls).

Second, Ambush is like Super Surprise!, giving a round of attacks before even a Surprise roll. So you could end up with two rounds of attacks, which with a backstab is another 3 dagger attacks.

With some good kiting attacks a thief can be brutal.

Third, there's optional rules for sapping someone as a % chance with any weapon, which goes up with surprise (ambush) and even higher with a Blackjack weapon.

Overall, it works quite well unless you end up fighting a high level HP bloat wall. But them's the chances, and actually sort of a feature. Sure things get boring fast.

It's important, as always, to remember that in D&D hit points are an abstraction that represent luck and survival reflexes as much as actual flesh.

Also, if players whine about not being able to reliably instant-kill/maim things, remind them in a neutral tone of voice that it's only fair that anything they can do NPCs can do to them. That usually shuts them up.

Quote from: rgrove0172;917270I have, many times, simply allowed the player to dispatch the NPC if they aren't anybody important and reward them for their stealth but when its a major NPC you hate to jump passed the rules that far. (Despite what some will remember from my other posts, I do follow the rules a vast majority of the time.)

So whats the answer? Should you just let the thief get his +1d6, doing a pretty good number on the guard but then let the armored and better armed guard turn around and start beating the shit out of him despite his awesome sneakiness? Or do you just let him kill him and move on?

If the PCs are in a fight, then the thief gets his +1d6 (or whatever) if he sneaks up - the target is probably pretty alert, even if distracted by someone in front of him.

If the target is totally unaware - asleep, failed his chance to detect, etc - then I tend to do the auto-kill thing. If it's an important NPC, if the PCs get that far, I would probably use the Assassination table if I'm using any form of D&D.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;917297Also, if players whine about not being able to reliably instant-kill/maim things, remind them in a neutral tone of voice that it's only fair that anything they can do NPCs can do to them. That usually shuts them up.

Hahaha that, too. That can resolve most any attempt at weaseling for an advantage.

Just to address this example or a game using Rules as Written

QuoteGM - "The guard doesn't hear you, he is looking out over the battlement seemingly oblivious. Your roll is a good one and you are right up behind him."
Player - "I slit his throat."
GM - "Ok, that's *(insert game rule here - ie. double damage, +1d6, max die damage, auto crit or whatever)
Player - "Ok, I got a -blank- for -blank- points of damage!"
GM - "Alright, you got him good...... but he isn't dead. He's hurt though, so lets roll for initiative."
Player ' "WTF?"

I think if you changed the following from: "Alright, you got him good...... but he isn't dead. He's hurt though, so lets roll for initiative." to something like "You move in to slit his throat. As the dagger begins to slide across his neck he jerks free in terror and a spray of blood. He's wounded badly, but isn't dead."

The adjusted statement accounts for the attack not killing him, for a reason, in this case he broke free before it could be fatal. The player may not be happy with it but the narrative now fits the results of the dice instead of implying the PC did exactly what he descried, full on throat slittery. The player may not like the result. However, it shouldn't feel as absurd as the idea of a man having his throat slit and just standing there ready to fight. If the core engine uses a system of diminishing ability based on the level of damage such as the Storyteller system, you can add further elaboration on the wound to hint at how severely they are hurt, statements like they are staggering and woozy can help to imply penalties.

Well obviously the PC didnt backstab which accounts for the crummy damage. :D

aheh. Sounds more like the PC was trying a cou-de-gra move on a concious target. Hence why it fails.

At the last second the guard senses something and one way or another screws up the attack. He grabbed the knife, the knife glanced off a medallion, etc. Never give the players a guaranteed "insta kill" because theres no such thing in real life combat. This is why cou-de-gra attacks were allowable only against totally helpless or unconscious targets.

Were the guard say drunk and passed out and the PC wanted to cou-de-gra them then sure.

Otherwise no. Your supposedly perfect attack isnt as perfect as you thought. For a really good sneak up and sneak attack tough could allow extra damage. Or as others pointed out, an extra attack for surprise.

Depends on the game and edition of course.

Thieves and Assassins get special backstab and assassination abilities that other characters don't get because they are specialists in this sort of thing.

I generally give anyone attacking an unaware target from beind a bonus to their attack. To hit or to damage or both depending on the system. Auto-kill is only possible against a helpless foe, and even then may not be silent.

Hollywood has a bit to anwer for on how easy it is to silently kill an unsuspecting guard I expect.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;917297It's important, as always, to remember that in D&D hit points are an abstraction that represent luck and survival reflexes as much as actual flesh.

Exactly. Surviving a backstab attack means that, at the last minute, the victim looked up, heard a tiny noise, or even just moved randomly in a way that saved his ass. Or neck, in this case. And, as you noted, PCs get the same benefit, so why complain?

Quote from: Arminius;917272In AD&D 1e you have recourse to the Assassination table. However by the book I think that's only applicable to Assassins.

Only assassins can attempt to assassinate, but you are also supposed to use the table for a true "mercy kill" (victim is unconscious or helpless) performed by any character class. I don't think I'd noticed that back when I ran AD&D. Still, what we are talking about is not a mercy kill, it's a surprise attack: sneak up on a victim without being noticed, grab him, slit his throat. He's not helpless, not unless you restrain him after grabbing him so that he can't avoid the blow.

In OD&D, I wouldn't bother with an assassination table for coup de grace. Killing a bound or unconscious victim is automatic. What I'd probably do, if I wanted instant kill surprise attacks, is give thieves an attack roll (ignoring armor) and then two options: roll multiple dice of damage as per the backstab rule and take the risk the character survives, or restrain/subdue the victim, then coup de grace. Maybe roll the "damage" and compare to victim's Strength first, to try to hold them, or to Con, to knock them out. Success on either allows automatic kill, if desired.

In reality it's not that simple, humans are surprisingly resilient.

In a game, well you just decide. It's reasonable to have PCs knock off nameless guards with impunity, but what if they sneak up on a red dragon? Well, this is why D&D has hit points and the mechanic of adding or multiplying damage - the sort of people you can knock off easily will have low HP, and the sort of people who you can't will have high HP.

The other aspect in D&D is that if you're having them roll for surprise, then - depending on your reading of the notoriously muddled AD&D1e initiative rules - you're supposed to get multiple attacks. So "you sneak up on the guard, he will be surprised on a 5 in 6... I rolled 2, that is 3 less than 5, so you after the first surprise attack you get 3 more, after the first one he might cry out though."

In GURPS4e they had something similar, basically the surprised people might just be milling around doing nothing but dithering and ducking for a few rounds. And the multiple attacks would usually take care of things for you.

In any system where any character of note is a damage sink this is simply going to happen. Playing systems that don't feature piles of hit points to represent advanced fighting skill is a start.

Whenever you attempt to apply real world specific results in system that was designed to handle combat abstractly there will be a clash of expectations. You may be expecting the natural result of your in game action and the rules deliver what they are designed to deliver- points of damage.

There are non-abstract combat systems that model this sort of thing fairly well. If you are looking to simply resolve combat quickly handling a good number of combatants, D&D does the job just fine. If you want to dwell on the combat details, want specific logical effects of injuries, etc. use GURPS, RQ or some other detailed combat system.  Of course such systems cut both ways. Player characters can't shrug off tons of damage because they are heroes. PC's can get arrows to the throat, limbs hacked off and so forth. Such systems can be great for teaching players the consequences of entering deadly combat at the drop of a hat. It also solves the 3 guards pointing loaded crossbows at the PC warrior problem. A powerful D&D fighter just laughs at them takes 3 bolts worth of damage then proceeds to chop the guards up with barely a scratch to his mountain of hit points. Even a very skilled GURPS fighter listens to what the guards have to say.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;917386In any system where any character of note is a damage sink this is simply going to happen. Playing systems that don't feature piles of hit points to represent advanced fighting skill is a start.

Whenever you attempt to apply real world specific results in system that was designed to handle combat abstractly there will be a clash of expectations. You may be expecting the natural result of your in game action and the rules deliver what they are designed to deliver- points of damage.

There are non-abstract combat systems that model this sort of thing fairly well. If you are looking to simply resolve combat quickly handling a good number of combatants, D&D does the job just fine. If you want to dwell on the combat details, want specific logical effects of injuries, etc. use GURPS, RQ or some other detailed combat system.  Of course such systems cut both ways. Player characters can't shrug off tons of damage because they are heroes. PC's can get arrows to the throat, limbs hacked off and so forth. Such systems can be great for teaching players the consequences of entering deadly combat at the drop of a hat. It also solves the 3 guards pointing loaded crossbows at the PC warrior problem. A powerful D&D fighter just laughs at them takes 3 bolts worth of damage then proceeds to chop the guards up with barely a scratch to his mountain of hit points. Even a very skilled GURPS fighter listens to what the guards have to say.

Pretty much this.  D&D has a pool of hit points that represent two things...1. Actual wounds, 2. The Stamina to avoid damage through your skill in combat.  Obviously in a Silent Kill situation, number 2 does not apply, so if you only have one number, you have to boost the damage accordingly to represent the nullification of 2.  Hence Backstabbing doing more damage as you increase in level, representing your skill in the techniques required.

However, even as a high level thief, if you're trying to Backstab a Fighter with very high HPs, then even a Damx5 may not be enough for an Instant Kill.  You're trying to get a more granular result then the rules were meant to support.  So, you do what any good D&D GM does, you houserule it, which will depend on system.  Grant Advantage to damage dice (5e), allow Move Silently rolls to keep quiet as you keep Backstabbing through the Surprise rounds (1e).  Use a Vitality/Wounds system to replace HPs and have Backstab be not so much damage but applied directly to wounds.

Or you pick a game like Rolemaster, where Surprise will get you a bonus to hit, probably resulting in a Critical, and the Ambush skill will increase the severity of that critical.  Or Mythras, where taking a combat hit completely unawares is extremely nasty, and learning Assassination and Silent Kill techniques make it even more so.  Or Shadowrun, where the complete lack of opposed rolls and reduced target number will probably allow your number of successes to push the damage into Deadly range.  There are a lot of systems out there where the natural granularity of the system allows for "Backstabs" to just occur organically from the system without a dedicated power or skill that allows it.  D&D's just not one of them.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;917386In any system where any character of note is a damage sink this is simply going to happen. Playing systems that don't feature piles of hit points to represent advanced fighting skill is a start.

Quote from: CRKrueger;917408Pretty much this.  D&D has a pool of hit points that represent two things...1. Actual wounds, 2. The Stamina to avoid damage through your skill in combat.  Obviously in a Silent Kill situation, number 2 does not apply, so if you only have one number, you have to boost the damage accordingly to represent the nullification of 2.  Hence Backstabbing doing more damage as you increase in level, representing your skill in the techniques required.

However, even as a high level thief, if you're trying to Backstab a Fighter with very high HPs, then even a Damx5 may not be enough for an Instant Kill.  You're trying to get a more granular result then the rules were meant to support.  So, you do what any good D&D GM does, you houserule it, which will depend on system.  Grant Advantage to damage dice (5e), allow Move Silently rolls to keep quiet as you keep Backstabbing through the Surprise rounds (1e).  Use a Vitality/Wounds system to replace HPs and have Backstab be not so much damage but applied directly to wounds.

The problem is not a having a large number of hit points, or a lack of rules for bypassing them. It's a question of when to allow instant kills vs. death by cumulative damage. As has already been discussed upthread, there's already the example of instantly killing helpless victims, which has been part of D&D for a very long time. It's just that it's not typically applied to the backstab, because Gygax decided that thieves should have an increased chance of killing the victim with a backstab, but not an instant kill as with a bound or unconscious victim.

There are three other examples already written into the rules where people can instantly die, regardless of hit points:

(1) Save vs. poison (in the rules since the very beginning,)
(2) System shock (hinted at in Men & Magic, but not spelled out until AD&D 1e,)
(3) Assassination (added in Blackmoor.)

Those, plus the instant kill of helpless victims without a roll, can all be used to implement instant death in any other situation. The question is, do you really want it? Players may be in favor of it when they are the ones doing the killing, but how are they going to feel when they are the victims? The OP wants instant death to apply to any surprise attack from behind. But if that were allowed, it would be easy and reasonable for intelligent monsters in a dungeon to just sneak, make their surprise roll, instantly kill the last person in marching order, then flee and hide, repeating later. The surprise roll becomes a save vs. death, and the players will lose their adventuring party without much opportunity to prevent it. Maybe they could move even more slowly, with characters in the rear facing backwards and those on the flanks facing the sides, and two people examining the floors and ceilings?

I'm going to try a Wounds / Vitality style of hit points for my next game (Health / Grit). Backstabs will bypass Grit and directly damage Health. We'll see.

GURPS has pretty detailed and specific rules that handle such details to my satisfaction. The target gets no defense, and will be surprised, likely allowing multiple actions even if they survive the first action. But it does matter what you use, what your skills and strengths are, the target location, its armor, etc. There are major bonuses for the motionless target and taking several seconds, etc., so as the rules point out, it's usually really likely such a person is going to be taken out, but it's not automatic. And the detail of the rules makes it pretty clear what does happen, if something else happens e.g. the victim has armor the attacker didn't notice on his throat, or the victim clings to consciousness, or the attacker makes a superficial cut or fumbles or drops his knife or something. There's also a chance the guard sneezes or turns for some other noise or thought at the wrong time.

Quote from: LordVreeg;917280Personally?

We use a very low HP system, and we consider it like a coup-de-grace.  See the bottom (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/48258720/Advanced%20Combat%20Strategies).

This is honestly I think the best way to go if you want something more gritty and realistic. Low HP definitely works best for that kind of play I think. If it is is difficult to impossible to one hit kill people with a normal attack, then it some character getting killed because he was unaware is going to be hard without special rules for that situation or the GM ruling that it means instant death.

But if you are playing system that is more heroic, and you still want it, the stuff like coup de grace rules or just ruling it is usually fine.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;917459This is honestly I think the best way to go if you want something more gritty and realistic. Low HP definitely works best for that kind of play I think. If it is is difficult to impossible to one hit kill people with a normal attack, then it some character getting killed because he was unaware is going to be hard without special rules for that situation or the GM ruling that it means instant death.

But if you are playing system that is more heroic, and you still want it, the stuff like coup de grace rules or just ruling it is usually fine.

It's low HP AND high damage.  Heavier armors make you easier to hit, but protection becomes vital.   PC fighter types normally don't hit 20hp until 10-15 sessions, 30 hp more like 30 sessions.  My highest PC hp right now is 48, after over a 160 sessions.  Joe fighter does NOT go into combat without his armor...
Even a little Dirk has a 2d4+9/d10 normal damage (still maxing out at 17 hp damage before any bonuses), and a medium one handed sword like a broadsword does 1d10+16/d6.
 And that's normal, before all the coup rules of critical damage, added damage, etc.  Criticals give minuses on the dividing die, and turn it from a divider into a multiplier.

We have somewhat high mortality from combat.

I like having the rules in place.  I mean, yes, you can just rule it, but since the rules sort of give expectations for how the world is supposed to work..the physics engine...I'll prefer a system that has taken the time to figure this one out.

Quote from: Baron Opal;917452I'm going to try a Wounds / Vitality style of hit points for my next game (Health / Grit). Backstabs will bypass Grit and directly damage Health. We'll see.

This is the obvious solution.

Another note mentioned in passing earlier - if this is "just a guard" then the assumption for me is he'd be low-level. Otherwise a Thief might make some kind of roll to size up his target to determine if indeed a backstab would even work against an experienced foe.

I don't have very much issue with Backstab. Modulating the powerlevel of the NPC's is fairly easy to do even on the fly.

Realistically, a knife isn't going to kill in one strike, no matter where you hit.  You'll DISABLE the target, quite easily, if you know where to strike.  At which point, in the case of a guard on a battlement, you pitch him over the edge and let gravity do the work.  Sadly, most fantasy games (including D&D) doesn't even bother simulating that.

Quote from: tenbones;917464This is the obvious solution.

Another note mentioned in passing earlier - if this is "just a guard" then the assumption for me is he'd be low-level. Otherwise a Thief might make some kind of roll to size up his target to determine if indeed a backstab would even work against an experienced foe.

I don't have very much issue with Backstab. Modulating the powerlevel of the NPC's is fairly easy to do even on the fly.

That's an interesting idea, giving the thief the ability to eye somebody and decide "this one is too alert and skilled for even me to take out in one shot." Still, a knife in the kidneys, &c.

I've found I greatly dislike assassination rolls. I think I can accept backstabs and poison being a "lethal shortcut", as it were. That's their point. But assassination feels a bit too much like an "I win" button. That's from the gut and a little play, however, and not based on any great logic and play testing.

Quote from: talysman;917448The problem is not a having a large number of hit points, or a lack of rules for bypassing them. It's a question of when to allow instant kills vs. death by cumulative damage. As has already been discussed upthread, there's already the example of instantly killing helpless victims, which has been part of D&D for a very long time. It's just that it's not typically applied to the backstab, because Gygax decided that thieves should have an increased chance of killing the victim with a backstab, but not an instant kill as with a bound or unconscious victim.

There are three other examples already written into the rules where people can instantly die, regardless of hit points:

(1) Save vs. poison (in the rules since the very beginning,)
(2) System shock (hinted at in Men & Magic, but not spelled out until AD&D 1e,)
(3) Assassination (added in Blackmoor.)

Those, plus the instant kill of helpless victims without a roll, can all be used to implement instant death in any other situation. The question is, do you really want it? Players may be in favor of it when they are the ones doing the killing, but how are they going to feel when they are the victims? The OP wants instant death to apply to any surprise attack from behind. But if that were allowed, it would be easy and reasonable for intelligent monsters in a dungeon to just sneak, make their surprise roll, instantly kill the last person in marching order, then flee and hide, repeating later. The surprise roll becomes a save vs. death, and the players will lose their adventuring party without much opportunity to prevent it. Maybe they could move even more slowly, with characters in the rear facing backwards and those on the flanks facing the sides, and two people examining the floors and ceilings?

Exactly. Automatic Death is readily available to every class (to editions that have it); it's called held or asleep (unconscious) outside of combat. With some prep even high level, high HP characters can die to this universally available form of Instant Death.

Just like thieves doing skills at the nigh magical level — move silently, hide in shadows, etc. — this is their skill set leaking into an almost lethal surprise attack. It's leaking from everyday Instant Death into a very unsure thing: combat. Is it a sure thing? No, it's not supposed to be. Because an out-of-combat sure thing is already available, this in-combat thing has to have a chance at failure.

In a lethal world as is everyone kinda has to sleep with one eye open. Making backstabs such reliable Instant Death would leave people walking with their backs hugging walls. Kinda crazy ramifications at that point.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;917477Realistically, a knife isn't going to kill in one strike, no matter where you hit.  You'll DISABLE the target, quite easily, if you know where to strike.  At which point, in the case of a guard on a battlement, you pitch him over the edge and let gravity do the work.  Sadly, most fantasy games (including D&D) doesn't even bother simulating that.

Ambush, and Surprise (if they fail), rounds readily allow you to shove someone over a battlement. Not too hard to rule a successful backstab as collapsing a lung to prevent them from screaming (as they fall over the battlement later, even!). Or you could just push, if you don't mind the screaming.

There's not much I see here that seems to need models to simulate. What formula models are you looking for?

Quote from: Baron Opal;917491That's an interesting idea, giving the thief the ability to eye somebody and decide "this one is too alert and skilled for even me to take out in one shot." Still, a knife in the kidneys, &c.

I've found I greatly dislike assassination rolls. I think I can accept backstabs and poison being a "lethal shortcut", as it were. That's their point. But assassination feels a bit too much like an "I win" button. That's from the gut and a little play, however, and not based on any great logic and play testing.

Yep. The *idea* behind Backstab is that it's not JUST that you're killing someone with a knife etc. But that you're particularly skilled at doing exactly that. So the solution seems rather simple - either the Thief in question is good enough or not. The corollaries being "Who are they attempting to Backstab?" and of course "Exactly how Good are they?"

The mechanics that exemplify this are what needs to be tinkered with as you see fit. My general notion in 5e if you go with Wounds/Health - you'll have to downgrade the Backstab dice a bit.

Assassination - it's a bit fast and loose. But most people I've encountered didn't use it as proscribed. They kinda used it as a replacement for "Backstab" with the Assassin class. As I recall the Assassination table was for you concocting a full-on plan and the percentage was based on your assumed skill vs. what you didn't know (which the DM could penalize/bonus you as they saw fit). I never had a problem with anyone using it either way for inconsequential NPC's that aren't the BIG BAD. I'd rather play it out, personally.

I ran into this multiple times in old D&D. We'd simply refer to the Assassination table to determine the outcome. Otherwise, it was simply "roll dice and see what happens". It was silly in retrospect.

In ZWEIHÄNDER (http://grimandperilous.com), I let players either knock someone out with the Knockout! action or simply kill them if they approach an unaware (otherwise Helpless) foe. But the sword cuts both ways; although it's an option I rarely afford to enemies, I have at times let foes use it... and as the character lays gurgling in their own pool of blood - or as they spend a Fate Point to avoid a grisly end - they make their allies immediately aware of an attack.

Quote from: Opaopajr;917508Ambush, and Surprise (if they fail), rounds readily allow you to shove someone over a battlement. Not too hard to rule a successful backstab as collapsing a lung to prevent them from screaming (as they fall over the battlement later, even!). Or you could just push, if you don't mind the screaming.

There's not much I see here that seems to need models to simulate. What formula models are you looking for?

Formula?  Honestly, I've already house ruled it.  In the various editions of D&D I've run.  And in Fantasy Hero, I simply allowed Stealth to determine a multiplier.

5e:  You catch you're opponent unaware with stealth, you get the Rogue's Advantage bonus when striking, however, to 'disable' (In other words remove a target, whether by death or stabbing in the vitals like lungs, kidneys and so on) you have disadvantage on the strike.  If you do it on a surprise round, you get just get Disadvantage on the attack.

I used the hit location table from the Fighters Handbook in 2e.  3e, we had a rogue and the times the wizard was there, that one always managed to remove any target long before stealth or surprise ever mattered.

I think as other posters have said, D&D isnt great for simulating ambushes - shadowrun for example does it much better.

But it is a game balance issue, as the OP suggests - if you let any big bad get dropped by a stealth ambush, that's super effective - and your players will play accordingly, turning their party into a crack ninja commando team - firstly to reap the benefits, and secondly to avoid being ambushed themselves.

I think in D&D a failed ambush of this kind if explained by - target notices the attack at last moment and reacts etc, stuffing up the blow in some way, or gets lucky. For the most party however, 1st level sentries will die vs a thief backstab (with multi dice damage), it is only higher level threats that might resist - and against those, the thief may well win initiative, effectively getting two rounds of attacks before the target retaliates. So there is a good incentive to ambush, but it isnt a guaranteed win, or at least not against opponent with more than 1-3 HD.

Which is I think about how it should be, for a D&D level based game.

In Low Fantasy Gaming I gave thieves +4 to hit and adv on attack rolls against unaware opponents (auto hit, pretty much), with extra damage dice. If a player really wanted to make a true "assassin" type character, they can make themselves an appropriate Unique Ability at 3rd, 6th etc (in consultation with the GM).

The other problem is that say slitting someones throat from behind is going to blow your sneak the second you start to reach around them.

Get a friend. Hand them a ruler or butter knife and have them stand behind you and then reach around to try and get your neck.

Assuming a 5e Rogue with sneak attack and surprise then you have two rounds to poke this guard to death.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;917531Formula?  Honestly, I've already house ruled it.  In the various editions of D&D I've run.  And in Fantasy Hero, I simply allowed Stealth to determine a multiplier.

5e:  You catch you're opponent unaware with stealth, you get the Rogue's Advantage bonus when striking, however, to 'disable' (In other words remove a target, whether by death or stabbing in the vitals like lungs, kidneys and so on) you have disadvantage on the strike.  If you do it on a surprise round, you get just get Disadvantage on the attack.

I used the hit location table from the Fighters Handbook in 2e.  3e, we had a rogue and the times the wizard was there, that one always managed to remove any target long before stealth or surprise ever mattered.

Huh, OK. I thought you were asking about "how to shove someone over a battlement." Which was so odd it warranted my curiosity. Carry on!

Quote from: Omega;917553The other problem is that say slitting someones throat from behind is going to blow your sneak the second you start to reach around them.

Get a friend. Hand them a ruler or butter knife and have them stand behind you and then reach around to try and get your neck.

Assuming a 5e Rogue with sneak attack and surprise then you have two rounds to poke this guard to death.

Eh, that example goes deliberately against the explanations of both Surprise and Backstab conditions (2e specifically). There has to be a lack of awareness, either of intent or presence or both. Your example has visuals, hearing, and advanced warning before the attempt which fails the requirements (unless you're all playing Killer).

Naturally, I understand you are talking about that innate extra sensory sense animals seem to have about being watched, but the example doesn't help explain that. The point you're making is taking advantage of surprise ends up imperfect, because surprise itself is part of the unpredictable mess known as combat. Thus yes, it does make sense that HP and damage ranges become relevant to represent this range of unpredictability.

(I also still dislike 5e's Sneak Attack and way prefer good ol' Backstab instead.)

Quote from: Opaopajr;917579Eh, that example goes deliberately against the explanations of both Surprise and Backstab conditions (2e specifically). There has to be a lack of awareness, either of intent or presence or both. Your example has visuals, hearing, and advanced warning before the attempt which fails the requirements (unless you're all playing Killer).

This is the OPs example.

QuoteGM - "The guard doesn't hear you, he is looking out over the battlement seemingly oblivious. Your roll is a good one and you are right up behind him."
Player - "I slit his throat."

Thats not a sneak attack. That is trying to cou-de-gra someone neither unconcious nor restrained.

If you really sneak up silently behind him and strike solidly he's dead.  Just like if you come upon Ultimate Bigbadguy and he's sound asleep and you hit him squarely in the face with a battle axe, he's dead.  Fuck hit points, fuck level.  You hit somebody in the face with a battle axe, he's dead.

The rules are there to serve me, not I them.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;917613If you really sneak up silently behind him and strike solidly he's dead.  Just like if you come upon Ultimate Bigbadguy and he's sound asleep and you hit him squarely in the face with a battle axe, he's dead.  Fuck hit points, fuck level.  You hit somebody in the face with a battle axe, he's dead.

The rules are there to serve me, not I them.

Dont complain when someone does it to your character standing on watch then.

Quote from: Omega;917604This is the OPs example.
[...]
Thats not a sneak attack. That is trying to cou-de-gra someone neither unconcious nor restrained.

That's just ambush/surprise in 2e. Coup de grâce instant death is for out-of-combat held or asleep. In-combat held or asleep is an automatic hit. Since the target is neither held nor asleep the out-of-combat factor moves merrily along into ambush/surprise combat resolution. Very easy.

Point being is unconsciousness or restraint prevents any sort of subconscious resistance. Because, regardless our attitudes, life wants to live and will flinch or cringe accordingly. Obliviousness is not the same as sleep otherwise there is no need to define surprise, let alone offer the GM the optional roll mechanic.

And since the guard is looking over a battlement, and a prepped ambush (such as waiting for the guard to be close & obliviously enough to overlook the battlements with you nearby) gives a free round of actions, it's dirt easy to just push... Instant death. No reengineered backstab, or more broadly defined coup de grâce, necessary. Same result but the setting & party isn't plunged into paranoia because of houseruling ramifications.

The rules work exactly fine as intended as is.

(Edit: OK, I see where you are arguing from now. And I see we are still in agreement. I just found your example confusing. I won't delete my post because I think my comment supports your point of view here.)

Quote from: Omega;917553The other problem is that say slitting someones throat from behind is going to blow your sneak the second you start to reach around them.

Get a friend. Hand them a ruler or butter knife and have them stand behind you and then reach around to try and get your neck.

Assuming a 5e Rogue with sneak attack and surprise then you have two rounds to poke this guard to death.

Hollywood rarely gets throat cutting right. The blade needs to enter the neck from the side and then pushed outward cutting the throat from the inside out.

Thats just basic blade safety- cut away from yourself.

It still boils down to a player trying to create an "I win" button rather than enguaging the system.

in 5e a Guard has 11 HP. The backstabbing Rogue can assess their chance of downing this guy in one go. Assuming youve got a rapier then the average damage is 4.5 and the backstab extra is 3.5 total average of 8. 3rd level you have on average a chance to down em in one shot. 11.5. By level 7 even better. 15 average. Not counting DEX bonus for finesse.

Or just drug the guard and then off them.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;917613If you really sneak up silently behind him and strike solidly he's dead.  Just like if you come upon Ultimate Bigbadguy and he's sound asleep and you hit him squarely in the face with a battle axe, he's dead.  Fuck hit points, fuck level.  You hit somebody in the face with a battle axe, he's dead.

The rules are there to serve me, not I them.

100% agreement!

Ultimately true, but for your group you need to consider the impact, on enjoyment, of how you interpret the rules one way or another. It seems to be a truism but you need to get it out of the way in order to have a conversation that doesn't descend into more vapid truisms or sophistry.

In this case there are a bunch of interesecting elements including fairness of treatment between PCs and NPCs, and what it means to be "high level" particularly in D&D, along with your interpretation of hit points. In my opinion, high-level characters, if not high-HD monsters, all deserve to benefit from "fictive oomph".

This takes us to the meaning of the imaginary action vs dice roll. As people have said, the to-hit/damage roll can be interpreted as a resolution of the whole question "Do I successfully get into position for the insta-kill?" rather than taking the latter as established purely by description and/or stealth rolls. As such, just as a high-level character has improved saves that can be seen as any combination of luck, sixth-sense reaction, hardiness, and skill--all of them overcoming what might otherwise be sure death based on previous description--so the higher hit points and the dice roll can mean the big baddy standing at the battlement just plain ain't gonna be dispatched that way. He also won't be frozen by being caught flat-footed by a guy with a crossbow. Is it realistic? No. But at some point the leveling up process breaks free of realism and you just have to accept under some circumstances (based on your reading of the rules) Kirk/Bond/Conan is always going to find a way, or get lucky, and avoid the surprise killing blow.

Quote from: Omega;917553The other problem is that say slitting someones throat from behind is going to blow your sneak the second you start to reach around them.

Get a friend. Hand them a ruler or butter knife and have them stand behind you and then reach around to try and get your neck.

Assuming a 5e Rogue with sneak attack and surprise then you have two rounds to poke this guard to death.

I'm not aware of any method of covert knife-fighting that has ever advocated slitting someone's throat like this. It's a Hollywoodism. (edit but it looks cool!)

I personally know several people that have killed people with knives (Vietnam) covertly and every single one of them has done it by stabbing from the rear and up into the rib-cage. My father's friend used to love to debate on the efficacy of stabbing someone through the kidneys first as the shock usually rendered them unable to scream initially (or not enough to where they couldn't muffle them) which bought them time to give them a few more pokes on the way down. My father was more of an "under the rib-cage and stir" fan. The original Special Forces from WWII era used stilletto-style blades (though they were double-edge) largely for this purpose (puncturing is what kills you - not slashing).

So - yeah I'd agree with you. But at the same time, I use all of this as an assumption that if you have the Backstab ability - you know how to do this. I wouldn't dream that just *anyone* could pick up a knife and do this accurately. How you want to express this in the game is up to you. This is why the 5e Assassin ability is given the weight that it has - despite the many means of foiling it.

Context, context, context and more context.

Rogue is sneaking around or infiltrating some building guarded by mooks? Hell yes: auto kills.

In the heat of battle? Nope, dice rolls: everyone one else is, so fair's fair.

Rogue is in a hurry to sneak in or out of somewhere? They kill the guy without rolling BUT I make them do a skill test or luck roll to see how well they do it (or if the body makes a lot of noise as it crumples or falls off a balcony or whatever).

If the rogue is being belligerent and ignoring the warning signs that the fortress of Elite Assassin Lords of Hell is a bid deal, then yeah, dice rolls.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;917661Hollywood rarely gets throat cutting right. The blade needs to enter the neck from the side and then pushed outward cutting the throat from the inside out.

Thats just basic blade safety- cut away from yourself.

It also ensures you cut the windpipe to prevent yelling.  In the movie Proof of Life, Russell Crowe takes out a sentry that way.  A Marine buddy said that was pretty accurate to how they were trained.

Quote from: Necrozius;917944Context, context, context and more context.

Rogue is sneaking around or infiltrating some building guarded by mooks? Hell yes: auto kills.

Except that the slip up or failure to kill is going to get you in combat ASAP. Thats the risk of trying to sneak attack.

Now if Im pretty sure that the Rogue can kill the guard in one go, especially with a really good sneaking roll. Then sure. No point in rolling really. Though Id probably still ask for the to-hit just to see if things go weird as they off this poor shlub. Critical? Decapitation! Rolled a 1? Hit him so hard the knife broke. He's still dead though.

Quote from: Omega;918122Except that the slip up or failure to kill is going to get you in combat ASAP. Thats the risk of trying to sneak attack.

Now if Im pretty sure that the Rogue can kill the guard in one go, especially with a really good sneaking roll. Then sure. No point in rolling really. Though Id probably still ask for the to-hit just to see if things go weird as they off this poor shlub. Critical? Decapitation! Rolled a 1? Hit him so hard the knife broke. He's still dead though.

Yep, that's what I'm thinking. There are still risks and consequences but I don't see the point in making damage rolls if the guards are mooks. Sure other things could go wrong (knife breaks, guy screams, body falls over a balcony, someone else saw it happen etc...).

But yeah, raiding a castle of elite professionals or whatever... that's another matter.

Quote from: Arminius;917778Ultimately true, but for your group you need to consider the impact, on enjoyment, of how you interpret the rules one way or another. It seems to be a truism but you need to get it out of the way in order to have a conversation that doesn't descend into more vapid truisms or sophistry.

In this case there are a bunch of interesecting elements including fairness of treatment between PCs and NPCs, and what it means to be "high level" particularly in D&D, along with your interpretation of hit points. In my opinion, high-level characters, if not high-HD monsters, all deserve to benefit from "fictive oomph".

This takes us to the meaning of the imaginary action vs dice roll. As people have said, the to-hit/damage roll can be interpreted as a resolution of the whole question "Do I successfully get into position for the insta-kill?" rather than taking the latter as established purely by description and/or stealth rolls. As such, just as a high-level character has improved saves that can be seen as any combination of luck, sixth-sense reaction, hardiness, and skill--all of them overcoming what might otherwise be sure death based on previous description--so the higher hit points and the dice roll can mean the big baddy standing at the battlement just plain ain't gonna be dispatched that way. He also won't be frozen by being caught flat-footed by a guy with a crossbow. Is it realistic? No. But at some point the leveling up process breaks free of realism and you just have to accept under some circumstances (based on your reading of the rules) Kirk/Bond/Conan is always going to find a way, or get lucky, and avoid the surprise killing blow.

Of course, some players want the "fictive oomph" of everyone set to low or zero, as not everyone wants to game heroic film fiction. If players do want realism and don't want dramatic scale-tipping, these questions can be handled by explicit rules (and/or GM estimates) for position, detection, and injury.

Sure, that's what I meant when I wrote

Quoteyou need to consider the impact, on enjoyment, of how you interpret the rules one way or another.

(Minor point: what I mean by "fictive oomph" is the quality of fictional protagonists that they tend to benefit from things going their way, by pure chance or coincidence. In the best stories, it's made extremely plausible yet there's no denying the hero's good fortune in spotting an enemy in the mirror, having a haystack to land in, etc. It's my own coinage so I can't really complain, but I don't know what you're trying to make it mean aside from "preference".)

If players want pure realism then there are ways to get it. It could be that a trained commando will be able to silently dispatch an unsuspecting guard with near 100% certainty. But to be realistic, there still should be risk at some point in the overall situation--the question is when and where, starting with the decision to infiltrate the castle and ending when the PCs get back home. You can get this either by enforcing the factor of "the unknown" or by abstracting "the unknown" through randomness.

For example, as you come upon the guard, what exactly determines that "the guard doesn't hear you, he is looking out over the battlement seemingly oblivious"? Has the GM previously determined that the guard is in this location at this time, that he's looking in that direction, that he's inattentive? If yes to all the above, then fine, he's dead meat. If not, then there's a step missing, which could be handled by resorting to the dice. In D&D you kinda have that with the stealth roll, but what about PCs who don't have the stealth skill? It seems to me that once you figure out the baseline for a character who lacks the skill, the skill should enhance rather than substitute for that base chance.

Quote from: Skarg;918165Of course, some players want the "fictive oomph" of everyone set to low or zero, as not everyone wants to game heroic film fiction. If players do want realism and don't want dramatic scale-tipping, these questions can be handled by explicit rules (and/or GM estimates) for position, detection, and injury.

You can also handle it through glacial XP pacing, setting demographic norms, level caps, etc. to keep outlier heroics, well, outliers. Lots of ways to change the setting conceits with the basic engine. Seems like a lost art nowadays, controlling one's campaign through setting, pacing, or editing. There's definitely a cultural preference for Salvation Through Widgetry.

Quote from: Arminius;918237Sure, that's what I meant when I wrote

(Minor point: what I mean by "fictive oomph" is the quality of fictional protagonists that they tend to benefit from things going their way, by pure chance or coincidence. In the best stories, it's made extremely plausible yet there's no denying the hero's good fortune in spotting an enemy in the mirror, having a haystack to land in, etc. It's my own coinage so I can't really complain, but I don't know what you're trying to make it mean aside from "preference".)

If players want pure realism then there are ways to get it. It could be that a trained commando will be able to silently dispatch an unsuspecting guard with near 100% certainty. But to be realistic, there still should be risk at some point in the overall situation--the question is when and where, starting with the decision to infiltrate the castle and ending when the PCs get back home. You can get this either by enforcing the factor of "the unknown" or by abstracting "the unknown" through randomness.

For example, as you come upon the guard, what exactly determines that "the guard doesn't hear you, he is looking out over the battlement seemingly oblivious"? Has the GM previously determined that the guard is in this location at this time, that he's looking in that direction, that he's inattentive? If yes to all the above, then fine, he's dead meat. If not, then there's a step missing, which could be handled by resorting to the dice. In D&D you kinda have that with the stealth roll, but what about PCs who don't have the stealth skill? It seems to me that once you figure out the baseline for a character who lacks the skill, the skill should enhance rather than substitute for that base chance.

Yes, exactly. I'm really interested in the details of cause and effect, and gaming those out, or at least having appropriate abstract rules that give chances that make sense, as opposed to narrative choices or rules or GM choices that don't make sense to me.

The GM is much more important than the rule set. This last post of yours would give me confidence in your GM assessment of the odds, even if we were playing a game system I wasn't impressed with. And I have played systems I do like with GMs who apply the rules in ways that botch many situations, making the more detailed rules pointless or counter-productive.

For "fictive oomph", I was imagining a factor that would have things go the PC's way for no concrete reason other than that it does because they're special. I'd rather model the actual qualities of the character that lead to things going their way, than just have things go their way and then make up reasons later. I could even see it still being abstract and using the same mechanic, but I'd want to think of it as "actual oomph" or oomph from various qualities that are below the detail level of the sim but still have and effect. The fictive part is the issue for me.

So for example the actual historical Red Baron had amazing success in aerial dogfights in very deadly conditions, and the reasons could be abstracted into a generic factor, and I'd be satisfied as long as it worked out as I imagine it correlates to reality. That is, I'd give him very high chances to survive encounters and get kills, particularly against lesser pilots, but there would always be some chance of failure, injury or death, so I wouldn't want a pile-o-hitpoints mechanic unless there were also at least some small chance of an unexpected immediate demise. I imagine that there may have been other pilots who were just as good as he, but who just happened to catch a bullet much sooner.

And, I'd also be very interested in a simulation that did a decent job of actually modeling many of the factors that go into making that oompf, and that allow players to get involved in making the decisions that lead to appropriate adjustments to the odds of one outcome or another. i.e. a game that is actually about the situation and the causes and effects and risks of that situation, and not just about "the Red Baron was SO great and legendary and makes a great story and puffs my ego to fantasy roleplay as him".

Not to say that it's badwrongfun if some players do want to have mechanics that just drive story expectations or PC life insurance and don't mind it being fictive rather than reason-based.

Quote from: Opaopajr;918240You can also handle it through glacial XP pacing, setting demographic norms, level caps, etc. to keep outlier heroics, well, outliers. Lots of ways to change the setting conceits with the basic engine. Seems like a lost art nowadays, controlling one's campaign through setting, pacing, or editing. There's definitely a cultural preference for Salvation Through Widgetry.

Yeah, good point. D&D seems much more interesting to me with very low level caps (or hitpoint caps) and again the GM can make all the difference.

Quote from: Opaopajr;918240You can also handle it through glacial XP pacing, setting demographic norms, level caps, etc. to keep outlier heroics, well, outliers. Lots of ways to change the setting conceits with the basic engine. Seems like a lost art nowadays, controlling one's campaign through setting, pacing, or editing. There's definitely a cultural preference for Salvation Through Widgetry.

That's because Game Designers can't sell Good GMing, what they can do is sell mechanic after mechanic in a snake-oil attempt to prevent Bad GMing.

Salvation Through Widgetry - I love it.

About von Richthofen, I'm sure he was a skilled flyer. However, although I haven't read a detailed account of all his victories or a summary analysis, I seem to remember reading a list of "instructions" to his men which suggest that a lot of his success came simply from never giving a sucker an even break. I  remember things like "don't get into a dogfight", "attack while diving out of the sun", "always ambush", "don't get isolated/stay with your wingman". In short he took a very scientific, organized approach which paid dividends not only in maintaining situational awareness and avoiding tunnel vision but also in maintaining energy needed for maneuver.

On top of that, he was probably lucky. Again, not saying he wasn't good, but war is chaotic and the difference between survivors and victims often comes down to luck, especially over the long haul. In the end Richthofen's luck ran out (and he also may have violated some of his own rules by fixating on a target). So you can't reliably replicate his performance or that of any of the other aces such as Bishop, Fonck, or Rickenbacker without either (a) accepting that the particular names of the top-scorers and survivors is going to be different from history, even if the distribution is similar, or (b) adding in an artificial fudge factor/luck factor to recreate what is really a post-facto survivor bias.

Quote from: Opaopajr;918240You can also handle it through glacial XP pacing, setting demographic norms, level caps, etc. to keep outlier heroics, well, outliers. Lots of ways to change the setting conceits with the basic engine. Seems like a lost art nowadays, controlling one's campaign through setting, pacing, or editing. There's definitely a cultural preference for Salvation Through Widgetry.

Well.
A good GM can house rule and hand wave and make the game go well.

However, a good GM running a game that matches the mechanics and expectations doesn't have to break PC expectation, and this is where really memorable games happen.

A good rule set can mitigate some idiocy, but can't make up for a bad GM.  However, the proper setting/system/game match in the hands of a good GM is the best combo.  And having the system help fulfill the expectations of the players and the game being played is just less lifting the GM has to waste time doing.

Quote from: rgrove0172;917270So many times the backstab/sneak attack doesn't work out like the mercy kill its supposed to - at least in theory and it always causes frowns. Most will agree that if you come up behind someone unawares and have any skill at all, they are TOAST. It doesn't matter if they are Uber-level Billy Bad Ass, a knife in the head is pretty effective, as is a bow shot to the neck, a spear to through the chest, an axe beheading you or whatever.

I have, many times, simply allowed the player to dispatch the NPC if they aren't anybody important and reward them for their stealth but when its a major NPC you hate to jump passed the rules that far. (Despite what some will remember from my other posts, I do follow the rules a vast majority of the time.)

So whats the answer? Should you just let the thief get his +1d6, doing a pretty good number on the guard but then let the armored and better armed guard turn around and start beating the shit out of him despite his awesome sneakiness? Or do you just let him kill him and move on?

House rules maybe? Quadruple super damage? Instant Kill Shot possibility?

1: Except backstab/sneak isnt the insta-kill you seem to think it is. Therein lies the problem. Its akin to believing that if you shoot someone with a gun, (or an arrow) then they die instantly.

2: The thing here is that the thief has just snuck up on the guard. Nothing else. Assuming from the mere 1d6 sneak attack damage then this is a level 1-2 Rogue. Still relatively fresh out of training. This guy has alot to learn. Like. Oh. Better vital points. Or better angles to slip in under armour. Or even just how to better judge the odds of pulling off an insta-kill. (Around level 5 if its against a bog standard 5e Guard.)

3: If the sneak was really good then add another die of damage. Possibly look at the massive damage rules since sounds like they scored well more than half the guards HP so that might apply. Or the Rogue can learn the hard way that they still have alot to learn about this stabby-stabby stuff.

4: Look first at the existing rules and then look at what bonuses might apply. But keep in mind the characters level vs the target. Sometimes its just not possible due to the target being more alert or just plain lucky. But after a point things like this being done to low level NPCs IS possible. By level 5 the Rogue has as noted in earlier comments an average 14 damage output from backstab that exceeds the Guards 11 HP before you even apply stat bonuses with just a dagger. Add in an extra die of damage for a really good sneak or to-hit and yes the guards toast.

With a little prep and some gold spent even a level 3 can pull that off by using a rapier. Average of 11.5. At level 1-2 though even with a rapier and poison your average is 10.5. So a really good sneak and/or to-hit might warrant. Or good enough stat mod. Or the aforementioned massive damage rules.

Otherwise gently remind the player that their character is still kinda new at this. Or dramatically describe this guard turning around and facing the Rogue with a freaking knife sticking out of his neck or a hole going through him you can see through! ...cue Terminator BGM...

Quote from: LordVreeg;918509Well.
A good GM can house rule and hand wave and make the game go well.

However, a good GM running a game that matches the mechanics and expectations doesn't have to break PC expectation, and this is where really memorable games happen.

A good rule set can mitigate some idiocy, but can't make up for a bad GM.  However, the proper setting/system/game match in the hands of a good GM is the best combo.  And having the system help fulfill the expectations of the players and the game being played is just less lifting the GM has to waste time doing.

True, eventually you have to assess the system used honestly to see if it provides the feel desired. But expectations are one of those things that's notoriously hard to manage in a group, let alone communicate. I'm personally OK with "authorial/artistic control" to the "directing raconteur," as it were. As long as the GM is getting the expected result, or at least know how close they are with minor adjustments, I feel they're golden.

When the system matches stylistically the GM's setting vision, I am not going to recommend discarding it if the issue is merely syncopation.

My big point is people forget that just because you accept a system does not mean all features are 'On' let alone at 'Full Throttle' for 'Max Velocity'.

Case in point, TSR D&D spoke extensively about zero magic campaigns and not using (or severely editing) magical classes. Game still works fine in that milieu; perhaps that's due to being partially designed with no-magic settings in mind. Either way that example shows there was little in the way of re-syncopating the system to table expectations. System shopping was not as needed, and not my first 'go to' answer when conflict arises.

Basically, like clothes, find the style you need, get it in the correct size, then tailor as needed to proper fit. That said, a good amount of clothes is really retreading the same foundational patterns. At that point you acknowledge most work is really fabric choice, fit, & details. D&D is like the men's 3-piece suit of rpg systems — by the time you got it down you already know so much about pattern and fit, fabric and details shouldn't overwhelm you.

Quote from: Arminius;918505About von Richthofen, I'm sure he was a skilled flyer. However, although I haven't read a detailed account of all his victories or a summary analysis, I seem to remember reading a list of "instructions" to his men which suggest that a lot of his success came simply from never giving a sucker an even break. I  remember things like "don't get into a dogfight", "attack while diving out of the sun", "always ambush", "don't get isolated/stay with your wingman". In short he took a very scientific, organized approach which paid dividends not only in maintaining situational awareness and avoiding tunnel vision but also in maintaining energy needed for maneuver.

Yes, I'd say that's very true, though there were also other factors (he himself mentioned marksmanship - few pilots had much ability to hit). It's also why I like simulationist games that model the situation so that players get choices about what to do and how to approach situations, and have them have logical consequences that flow from lower-level mechanics, instead of being unavailable because the game abstracts everything, or even allows those choices but abstracts the cause & effect (e.g. a game designer might decide that an approach always has the same sort of effect, but a detailed simulation would show that it only has that effect with certain circumstances/enemy-tactics, but not others, which can be more complex (or impossible) to represent at an abstract level, compared to a detailed one).

QuoteOn top of that, he was probably lucky. Again, not saying he wasn't good, but war is chaotic and the difference between survivors and victims often comes down to luck, especially over the long haul. In the end Richthofen's luck ran out (and he also may have violated some of his own rules by fixating on a target). So you can't reliably replicate his performance or that of any of the other aces such as Bishop, Fonck, or Rickenbacker without either (a) accepting that the particular names of the top-scorers and survivors is going to be different from history, even if the distribution is similar, or (b) adding in an artificial fudge factor/luck factor to recreate what is really a post-facto survivor bias.

Absolutely. He could've been shot or crashed on day one, while others who did die sooner might have been as good or better but just caught a bullet. When you insist someone have a predictable survivability, you force fate in an unrealistic way. I want to play in a game where it is about actually being in the situation modeled, and I don't believe in predestiny, fate, or super-heroes. I do believe in exceptional people, but also in the lethality of weapons and accidents, etc. I am very interested in the challenge of making choices and thinking of clever logical tactics and trying to beat hard situations. I am not interested in just playing a certified uber or winning character with mechanics that don't have much to do with the situations they pretend to be about.

In old-school D&D, an "attack on a totally unaware opponent" IS a backstab. It's what a backstab is supposed to be about. It's only in later editions where a rogue can backstab in 1000 different ways, often while looking a totally-aware opponent right in the face.  It's why I can't stand later-edition rogues.

Quote from: CRKrueger;918428That's because Game Designers can't sell Good GMing, what they can do is sell mechanic after mechanic in a snake-oil attempt to prevent Bad GMing.

Salvation Through Widgetry - I love it.

Yeah, that's good.  Back in my coding days we referred to that as "putting on so many patches it looks like The Mummy."

Quote from: RPGPundit;920841In old-school D&D, an "attack on a totally unaware opponent" IS a backstab. It's what a backstab is supposed to be about. It's only in later editions where a rogue can backstab in 1000 different ways, often while looking a totally-aware opponent right in the face.  It's why I can't stand later-edition rogues.

:rolleyes:  Yes, we can't have everyone do well in combat, can we?  We have to force a player to sit back, do nothing, while the real damage machine, the Magic User (I believe that's what the name of the class was) does all the work.  And no, a good Thief NEVER engaged in a fight, because with their small weapon dice, and severe lack of armour, but still requiring to be in the middle of monsters, like all good meat walls, would simply get them killed, and we can't have that, not if they want to feel useful when a door or a trap comes around. After all, in combat foes are always aware, and there's no way to pull off a stealth in that chaos, nope.  The Thief has to be alone and in the dark to Backstab a bitch.  Very team oriented that class.

Now, if you're lucky, the DM will make every combat encounter near a trapped/locked door, so that the poor player can feel useful while the Fighter stands there, chipping away, as the Cleric heals and does little else, while the Magic User, the truly effective class, gets to show off by using selected spells.

Assuming they're more than level 1, this is also assuming that their porters and NPC army that they brought is dead by now, the Magic User can often end a fight in a minute or two (1 to 2 Rounds), especially if they have Save of 'Die' spells like Sleep on hand.

And if they don't, you're screwed.  HP attrition is not in the player's favour, and hopefully the DM allows you to run away, and the monsters don't have ranged attacks to pick you off.


I simply don't get the appeal of forcing people to feel useless in a game.  I don't get it.  We bitch and moan when players find something else to do, like play on their phones, when their turn is not up, and yet, in my limited experience that's exactly what the older (Or at least, back to Rules Cyclopedia) editions seem to promote.

I guess I'm too stupid for this hobby after all.  I just like my players to have fun, and so far, having them feel useful seems to work...  I guess I'm just not hardcore enough.

I miss having a tiny violin emoticon.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;920901:rolleyes:  Yes, we can't have everyone do well in combat, can we?  We have to force a player to sit back, do nothing, while the real damage machine, the Magic User (I believe that's what the name of the class was)

You love being wrong on this don't you? Yes. Yes you do.

Once again lets point out that the fighter outperforms the Magic User in sheer damage output. The wizards powerful to be sure. But its a very different and oft fragile power. (Least pre 3e) And in 5e the Fighter out-performs every other class that I've checked so far.

Really. Sometimes I think you post like this just to make me point out again just how much casters suck compared to a fighter. :cool:

Quote from: Bren;920904I miss having a tiny violin emoticon.

(http://www.mydyingbride.net/forum/images/smilies/nopityA.gif)

Quote from: Omega;920906(http://www.mydyingbride.net/forum/images/smilies/nopityA.gif)

Responding to my whining about not having a tiny violin icon with a tiny violin icon is ironic and helpful. Well played sir. Well played.

In my OD&D games, its pretty easy because most guards are going to have 1D6 HP and if you get +1D6 on the backstab (surprise attack), then its 1D6 HP vs. 2D6 damage. Most of the time, that is going to result in a dead guard.

If the guard survives, I am happy use the luck aspect of HPs to describe how the guard turned at the last moment so you could not completely slice their throat.

But it's harder in other game systems. Like Shipyard Locked said, players will generally avoid instant-kill rules once they learn they could be used on their PCs.

If the guard has armour it probably includes neck armour & helmet, and IRL it would be very very hard to disable him with a single surprise attack.

If the guard has lots of hit points, in most editions of D&D and other games that's because he's superhumanly heroic & naturally will be hard to defeat.

I generally find that most editions of D&D at any rate allow for the "single surprise kill" by having that the natural result when high level Thief/Assassin surprises a low level mook. The big exception is 4e D&D where even low level mooks have tons of hit points. The 4e GM has to either make the surprised mook a 1 hp minion (which then doesn't feel 'real'), or not use the combat system at all - maybe a skill challenge/sequence of skill rolls would work, with final roll being an attack roll. But 4e is by far the least naturalistic D&D edition so this is unsurprising.

I think if players want their low level PCs to auto-kill high level armoured Kingsguard just because they snuck up on them, that's a misreading of genre expectations as well as not being particularly realistic.

Quote from: Omega;920905You love being wrong on this don't you? Yes. Yes you do.

Once again lets point out that the fighter outperforms the Magic User in sheer damage output. The wizards powerful to be sure. But its a very different and oft fragile power. (Least pre 3e) And in 5e the Fighter out-performs every other class that I've checked so far.

Really. Sometimes I think you post like this just to make me point out again just how much casters suck compared to a fighter. :cool:

'Damage'?  What the fuck are you wasting spells on 'damage'???  OF COURSE the fighter will out perform on raw damage.  That's why you go for spells that shut a fight down in a single go, the ones recently termed 'Save or Die', like Charm Person/Monster, Sleep, Disintegrate, Grease (this one was a favourite in 3.x, can't speak for anything earlier), Flesh to Stone, these are the truly effective magics, you rarely go for those that do damage, simply because the monsters, unless they have spells too, will have more hit points and do more damage over all.  Pure raw damage, the monsters will invariably win.  There are often more of them, then the PC party.

Well, in 2e and later.  Previous editions you got to hire minions, although I often have to wonder how most PC's survive past level 1 in those, simply because you often don't have enough gold to hire much after getting some basic gear.   Unless of course, you have a 15 man PC party and 23 Henchies, then the numbers game is reversed.

Quote from: S'mon;921001The 4e GM has to either make the surprised mook a 1 hp minion (which then doesn't feel 'real'), or not use the combat system at all - maybe a skill challenge/sequence of skill rolls would work, with final roll being an attack roll.

I never had a problem with that. When you had PCs doing a minimum of 4-7 damage with their at-will attacks, then it didn't matter if the Minion had 1 HP or 7 HP. The end result was the same thing. In OD&D, the 1D6 HP vs. 1D6 Weapons meant that all 1HD creatures (men, orcs, etc) were 1 hit kills 50% of the time.

Quote from: Spinachcat;921011I never had a problem with that. When you had PCs doing a minimum of 4-7 damage with their at-will attacks, then it didn't matter if the Minion had 1 HP or 7 HP. The end result was the same thing. In OD&D, the 1D6 HP vs. 1D6 Weapons meant that all 1HD creatures (men, orcs, etc) were 1 hit kills 50% of the time.

In 4e a 1st level NPC typically has around 28 hit points, where an at will attack might do 9-10 damage. Like I said, this is a specifically 4e issue, other editions of D&D work fine IME.

I make mooks by giving them the least possible HP that they can have via thair statblock. So if a human soldier gets 1d10+3 hp, i'll give them 4hp each.

I also make mooks do morale checks or outright surrender/retreat if they're dropped to nearly zero hp. So even if I did make the rogue roll damage, odds are that their target will be out of commission in some way.

In later editions, "Backstab" was changed to "Sneak Attack" to broaden the opportunities for use. Now its whenever the rogue can exploit an opening for a dirty strike. I'm cool with that, and would probably house rule older editions to work the same way. At my table, anyway.

I don't care if that's not old school, to be honest.

Edit: i hated 4e and stopped playing it, so that game's issues for sneak attack did not concern me.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;920901:rolleyes:  Yes, we can't have everyone do well in combat, can we?  We have to force a player to sit back, do nothing, while the real damage machine, the Magic User (I believe that's what the name of the class was) does all the work.  And no, a good Thief NEVER engaged in a fight, because with their small weapon dice, and severe lack of armour, but still requiring to be in the middle of monsters, like all good meat walls, would simply get them killed, and we can't have that, not if they want to feel useful when a door or a trap comes around. After all, in combat foes are always aware, and there's no way to pull off a stealth in that chaos, nope.  The Thief has to be alone and in the dark to Backstab a bitch.  Very team oriented that class.

Now, if you're lucky, the DM will make every combat encounter near a trapped/locked door, so that the poor player can feel useful while the Fighter stands there, chipping away, as the Cleric heals and does little else, while the Magic User, the truly effective class, gets to show off by using selected spells.

Assuming they're more than level 1, this is also assuming that their porters and NPC army that they brought is dead by now, the Magic User can often end a fight in a minute or two (1 to 2 Rounds), especially if they have Save of 'Die' spells like Sleep on hand.

And if they don't, you're screwed.  HP attrition is not in the player's favour, and hopefully the DM allows you to run away, and the monsters don't have ranged attacks to pick you off.


I simply don't get the appeal of forcing people to feel useless in a game.  I don't get it.  We bitch and moan when players find something else to do, like play on their phones, when their turn is not up, and yet, in my limited experience that's exactly what the older (Or at least, back to Rules Cyclopedia) editions seem to promote.

I guess I'm too stupid for this hobby after all.  I just like my players to have fun, and so far, having them feel useful seems to work...  I guess I'm just not hardcore enough.

You may be too stupid but it doesn't have much to do with being hardcore or not.

When WOTC took control of D&D and released 3rd edition, the game focus shifted almost exclusively to combat. Thus to feel "useful" EVERY character class had to perform on nearly the same level in combat. This is why the rogue killed the fighter and took his stuff.

The fighter, to inflict decent damage, had to get full attacks each round which in most instances relied on the character standing stock still like a statue and playing whack-a-mole. Meanwhile the rogue danced around with paired weapons flanking enemies and hitting multiple times for what amounted to fireball damage on every hit.

So what you end up with is a game with a class called 'fighter' that ends up being on the mediocre end of fighting effectiveness among all the classes. That doesn't make much sense from a logic perspective.

The old TSR thief only seems useless because the class wasn't geared to be strong in combat. Gary and Dave designed a game with a class that was designed to FIGHT and do it well. They named that class the FIGHTING MAN so even those a little slow on the uptake could tell at a glance which character was the combat machine.

The Fighting man was one role out of three to choose from (the thief would make 4). There were a lot of things to do in the game besides fighting so not all classes were designed to excel in combat. The thief is one of those classes. Sure they can be occasionally dangerous if they get the drop on an unsuspecting foe, but they are weak in open battle as they should be. Their lower XP requirement to gain levels is a sure indicator that the class was weaker than most others, so why the expectation that they should be whirling death machines?

TLDR version: When you turn a game of fantasy exploration featuring a variety of classes with different specialties into a fighting game, then things are going to suck.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;921021You may be too stupid but it doesn't have much to do with being hardcore or not.

When WOTC took control of D&D and released 3rd edition, the game focus shifted almost exclusively to combat. Thus to feel "useful" EVERY character class had to perform on nearly the same level in combat. This is why the rogue killed the fighter and took his stuff.

Wait, are you saying the game was never about combat?  I find that hard to believe when most of the effective spells affect combat, always have.  Even the least effective ones, like Fireball or Lightning Bolt, which admittedly isn't as effective as Sleep or a Charm spell to end a fight, because it does damage, but it still ends fights.  Better than most non-casters, simply because they hit multiple targets at once.

I find this hard to believe.  Not saying it isn't true, just...  Implausible.  Especially since it's roots are a fantasy WAR GAME that used miniatures and extensive combat rules, in which, if I remember correctly started out with two 'classes', Fighting Man and Magic User.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;921021TLDR version: When you turn a game of fantasy exploration featuring a variety of classes with different specialties into a fighting game, then things are going to suck.

'Fantasy Exploration'?  This is a game about getting loot and getting stronger so we can get better loot at it's most basic.  Fantasy Exploration is what us fancy-prancy non-Wargamers player coddlers who came in during the 'Advanced' days turned the game into.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;921024Wait, are you saying the game was never about combat?  I find that hard to believe when most of the effective spells affect combat, always have.  Even the least effective ones, like Fireball or Lightning Bolt, which admittedly isn't as effective as Sleep or a Charm spell to end a fight, because it does damage, but it still ends fights.  Better than most non-casters, simply because they hit multiple targets at once.

I find this hard to believe.  Not saying it isn't true, just...  Implausible.  Especially since it's roots are a fantasy WAR GAME that used miniatures and extensive combat rules, in which, if I remember correctly started out with two 'classes', Fighting Man and Magic User.



'Fantasy Exploration'?  This is a game about getting loot and getting stronger so we can get better loot at it's most basic.  Fantasy Exploration is what us fancy-prancy non-Wargamers player coddlers who came in during the 'Advanced' days turned the game into.

I never said combat wasn't a part of the game. The key word here is PART.  Getting loot to attain power was the main focus of play. That required exploration to go find it. Sometimes it had to won in combat. It could also be discovered trapped without any monsters, gotten by trickery or deceit, etc. The point is that the players decided primarily how they would go after the loot.

You want to find out what drives play? Follow the XP. TSR D&D rewarded gaining loot far more than fighting. WOTC threw that out and based XP on 'encounters'. This meant that any characters that were not that great in a fight got reduced to non-entities.

The original game started out with 3 classes; Fighting Man, Cleric, and Magic User. One third of those classes was designed almost purely for combat. Once the thief was introduced the fighting classes were at one quarter of available classes. If the game were all about fighting why would the latest class addition be a weakling in combat?

The basic point I'm trying to get across is that if you start with the premise that EVERY class must contribute more or less equally in battle why do you need a class such as 'Fighter'?

" So fella, what do you do?"

" I'm a fighter. I fight."

" No shit. We all fight, and do it well. What else ya got?"

" Umm....."



Battle expertise is pointless as a core class ability when every class gets that as a baseline.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;921024Wait, are you saying the game was never about combat?

No he said the game was not only about combat.

QuoteI find that hard to believe when most of the effective spells affect combat, always have.

I'm not at all surprised that you find that hard to believe. It's obvious that for you "effective spell" and "affects combat" are essentially equivalent. Anyone who accepts your definition of "effective spell" will agree with your belief. Others may find spells like "Knock" or "Hold Portal" highly effective in an exploration setting but not effective in combat per se.

QuoteI find this hard to believe.  Not saying it isn't true, just...  Implausible.

We're back to the difference between "never about combat" and "not only about combat."

QuoteEspecially since it's roots are a fantasy WAR GAME that used miniatures and extensive combat rules...

The combat (and all the other rules e.g. jousting tables and such) were contained in a 40 page booklet (~ 20 typed pages). Anyone who has played any of the newer and far more voluminous rules has no business calling 20 pages of rules "extensive."

Quote'Fantasy Exploration'?  This is a game about getting loot and getting stronger so we can get better loot at it's most basic.  Fantasy Exploration is what us fancy-prancy non-Wargamers player coddlers who came in during the 'Advanced' days turned the game into.

"Fantasy Exploration" means exploring the world, be that a dungeon, city, or wilderness. That's not at all the same as exploring your fantasies about being a maximized, damage per round, twin-blade wielding combat monster ninja-assassin-thief.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;921004'Damage'?  What the fuck are you wasting spells on 'damage'???  

I dont know. What the fuck are you whining again about spell damage for then if you knew you were wrong?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;920901:rolleyes:  Yes, we can't have everyone do well in combat, can we?  We have to force a player to sit back, do nothing, while the real damage machine, the Magic User (I believe that's what the name of the class was) does all the work.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;921024Wait, are you saying the game was never about combat?

It was not ONLY about combat. That's why you get XP for getting the loot, not for killing the monster.

The theoretically perfect, "platonic ideal" dungeon session in old-school D&D would be the one where you get out of the dungeon with all the loot but without having fought a single round of combat.

The Fighter is supposed to be the fallback for whenever you don't manage to achieve the perfect solution.

Quote from: S'mon;921012In 4e a 1st level NPC typically has around 28 hit points, where an at will attack might do 9-10 damage. Like I said, this is a specifically 4e issue, other editions of D&D work fine IME.

Mook guards are minions. They are there to die like skittles. A NPC with a class and level is an Important Dude who should not be one-shot killed.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;921030The original game started out with 3 classes; Fighting Man, Cleric, and Magic User. One third of those classes was designed almost purely for combat.

I run OD&D/S&W:WB with 3 classes. AKA, no thief or as I say, everyone's a thief.  Also, I use 1D6 for HD and 1D6 for base weapon damage.

Clerics are great fighters. They wear plate and carry a mace which cracks heads, doors and treasure chests.

Mages also don't suck in combat. Sure, they have no armor and lower HP, but that dagger or staff is 1D6-1 damage. In OD&D, the ACs aren't crazy. With a +0 bonus, you hit AC 14 30% of the time, and you do 2.5 damage against foes who don't have piles of HP. Of course, the goal is never to put the mage in combat, but no mage out of spells has to sit in the back with thumb in bum.

Fighters do more than just fight. Because of their higher HP, they can scout. They can take the surprise hit, the sudden trap, and their better saves often keep them alive against non-combat threats.

At the insistence of players, I added the Assassin class. AKA, the Fighter who wears leather, gets +1 Attack & Damage bonus per Level with Surprise Attacks, and +2 Save vs. Traps. My players prefer him to the classic Thief because he's kinda Thief, kinda Ranger and feels right with the other classes. BTW, in calling it Surprise Attack, I killed off all the arguments about backstab and sneak attack. Did you surprise the enemy? Yes? Get your bonus!

Quote from: Luca;921049The theoretically perfect, "platonic ideal" dungeon session in old-school D&D would be the one where you get out of the dungeon with all the loot but without having fought a single round of combat.

That would bore the shit out of me. I'm here to toss dice, eat Cheetos and mosh it up with monsters!

Quote from: Luca;921049The theoretically perfect, "platonic ideal" dungeon session in old-school D&D would be the one where you get out of the dungeon with all the loot but without having fought a single round of combat.

Quote from: Spinachcat;921159That would bore the shit out of me. I'm here to toss dice, eat Cheetos and mosh it up with monsters!

For me, it would depend on the group's operational plan. Sometimes the mission IS to take out certain monsters that pose a threat. Constantly trying to tiptoe past all the monsters can sometimes bite you on the ass and you can be attacked at the worst possible moment. Sometimes it is better to just eliminate a threat on your terms with a good plan than to risk triggering an encounter when you are least prepared to handle it.

A great example of this is the ogre in module B2. Once discovered by scouting, a sound plan can be made to lure the creature out into the ravine into nice kill box set up beforehand. It takes out a big threat and reduces the chances of having to fight the thing AND the goblin tribe at the same time.

Combat certainly has its place in the game but players who are smarter about when and how to engage will generally be more successful.

Quote from: Omega;921045I dont know. What the fuck are you whining again about spell damage for then if you knew you were wrong?

Truthfully, I'm a little confused.  Spell damage has never been a problem.  It's the spells that bypass the damage part that are the issue.  And the latter spells are the ones that, in my experience, have always been seen as superiour, which again in my experience, has proven to be.

Quote from: Spinachcat;921159That would bore the shit out of me. I'm here to toss dice, eat Cheetos and mosh it up with monsters!

And would invalidate most what two of the three original classes are meant to do straight out of the box.

Bypassing all combat is not the point of a fantasy game.  Especially D&D with it's war game pedigree.  Combat is meant to happen in some fashion.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;921422Truthfully, I'm a little confused.

Spell damage has never been a problem.

1: Obvious from every thread where you bitch incessantly about caster/wizards ad nausium.

2: Then why do you keep using it as an example? The wizard has some focused spells. And for the umpteenth time. So what? The gun has an ammo limit. The ammo tends to have a miss factor of some sort, either totally or partially. Or had their effects sometimes diminished. Moreso in 5e. Said ammo may be appallingly rare other than what you pick up naturally. And while not as fragile as before, said gun is still on the fragile side.

X: Back on the subject of the Rogue and backstab. Surprisingly enough the Rogue can output more average damage than the Wizard. Not by much. But dont underestimate teamwork and backstab.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;920901:rolleyes:  Yes, we can't have everyone do well in combat, can we?  We have to force a player to sit back, do nothing, while the real damage machine, the Magic User (I believe that's what the name of the class was) does all the work.  And no, a good Thief NEVER engaged in a fight, because with their small weapon dice, and severe lack of armour, but still requiring to be in the middle of monsters, like all good meat walls, would simply get them killed, and we can't have that, not if they want to feel useful when a door or a trap comes around. After all, in combat foes are always aware, and there's no way to pull off a stealth in that chaos, nope.  The Thief has to be alone and in the dark to Backstab a bitch.  Very team oriented that class.

Now, if you're lucky, the DM will make every combat encounter near a trapped/locked door, so that the poor player can feel useful while the Fighter stands there, chipping away, as the Cleric heals and does little else, while the Magic User, the truly effective class, gets to show off by using selected spells.

Assuming they're more than level 1, this is also assuming that their porters and NPC army that they brought is dead by now, the Magic User can often end a fight in a minute or two (1 to 2 Rounds), especially if they have Save of 'Die' spells like Sleep on hand.

And if they don't, you're screwed.  HP attrition is not in the player's favour, and hopefully the DM allows you to run away, and the monsters don't have ranged attacks to pick you off.


I simply don't get the appeal of forcing people to feel useless in a game.  I don't get it.  We bitch and moan when players find something else to do, like play on their phones, when their turn is not up, and yet, in my limited experience that's exactly what the older (Or at least, back to Rules Cyclopedia) editions seem to promote.

I guess I'm too stupid for this hobby after all.  I just like my players to have fun, and so far, having them feel useful seems to work...  I guess I'm just not hardcore enough.

You've never played D&D correctly, I see.

In my games, I'm pretty sure no Thief feels useless. They just don't get to do more damage every single round than a fighter would. It was one of the worst features of 3e+ that the fighter was the least useful character even in a fight.

The greatest OSR rule-set in terms of characters really working well is DCC for this reason: every character has a strict niche, all of them are absolutely awesome in it.  Magic-users are really cool, but whereas in regular D&D a fighter becomes less and less useful compared to the magic user as you go along, in DCC the fighter becomes more and more useful compared to the magic user. A mid-level fighter in DCC is a killing machine of awesome moves. Likewise, the thief is nowhere near as good in melee combat as a fighter, but he's spectacular in so many other ways, including his Luck mechanic.

But ignoring the best-case scenario, even in plain old D&D, the Thief's role in combat was very important. It just wasn't to be a front-line melee guy doing the best damage while the fighter stood beside his opponent to let the thief flank and therefore 'sneak attack'. Instead, the D&D thief could pull off a backstab, then fall back and use ranged weapons. Or, if backstabbing was out, he would whip out a spear and attack from the safety of the second row, providing an important secondary-combat role.


Oh, and Sleep is not a "save or die" spell. There is no saving throw in Sleep. Which shows your level of expertise on the subject of D&D.

Quote from: Omega;920905You love being wrong on this don't you? Yes. Yes you do.

Once again lets point out that the fighter outperforms the Magic User in sheer damage output. The wizards powerful to be sure. But its a very different and oft fragile power. (Least pre 3e) And in 5e the Fighter out-performs every other class that I've checked so far.

This was something I hammered home over and over again as a Consultant: the fighter MUST be the best combat guy. It took some work to get there.

Quote from: RPGPundit;922151You've never played D&D correctly, I see.

If you're talking about pre-second edition, that's AT ALL.  Of course, that never stops him from blathering incorrectly about the editions he's never played ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Quote from: RPGPundit;922151Or, if backstabbing was out, he would whip out a spear and attack from the safety of the second row, providing an important secondary-combat role.

A spear isn't something one can just "whip out." :p

Quote from: Bren;922160A spear isn't something one can just "whip out." :p

As far as I know, it takes one round to draw a spear, if it's on your person.

Quote from: Bren;922160A spear isn't something one can just "whip out." :p

China disagrees. (Chain whip, essentially a metal whip with a spear tip.)
[video=youtube;iSt_6cUHLYU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSt_6cUHLYU[/youtube]

Quote from: RPGPundit;922175As far as I know, it takes one round to draw a spear, if it's on your person.

If Im reading the 5e rules right its a free action to unsheath/ready a weapon.

Quote from: Omega;922179China disagrees. (Chain whip, essentially a metal whip with a spear tip.)

China can get stuffed. Whip+arrowhead <> spear. Also that guy looks like a cheerleader twirling a baton.

Quote from: RPGPundit;922175As far as I know, it takes one round to draw a spear, if it's on your person.

Draw it from where? :confused: If the thief is using it from the second rank it isn't likely to be the sort of thing that easily fits "on your person" like a sword or dagger. Carried in hand or ported over a shoulder sure, but in either case the spear, unlike the sword or dagger, is already out and not something one needs to draw or "whip out."


One might unsheath a spear if there is a protective sheath over the spear head. But that isn't something I've seen a lot of in real art or fantasy art.

The thief using a spear is edition dependent. OD&D and B/X no problem. An AD&D thief cannot become proficient in spear or any sort of bow or crossbow. club,dagger, dart,sling, and sword are the available weapons (without non proficiency penalty at least).

The thief was a class that could only really excel by denying other classes the activities that they were already doing. I blame the class for the fucked up perception that a character couldn't do anything unless it was specified on the character sheet as an option. The thief truly earned its name stealing the fun from the other classes. As if that were not bad enough, the designers in their infinite wisdom had to pile on elite special forces combat ability rendering the fighter an amateur melee combatant in comparison.

Quote from: Omega;922181If Im reading the 5e rules right its a free action to unsheath/ready a weapon.

Thus removing any significance from the decision to have your weapons ready, or from having a fast-draw skill?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;922251The thief using a spear is edition dependent. OD&D and B/X no problem. An AD&D thief cannot become proficient in spear or any sort of bow or crossbow. club,dagger, dart,sling, and sword are the available weapons (without non proficiency penalty at least).

The thief was a class that could only really excel by denying other classes the activities that they were already doing. I blame the class for the fucked up perception that a character couldn't do anything unless it was specified on the character sheet as an option. The thief truly earned its name stealing the fun from the other classes. As if that were not bad enough, the designers in their infinite wisdom had to pile on elite special forces combat ability rendering the fighter an amateur melee combatant in comparison.

I blame Gary's unclear writing combined with people's shitty reading comprehension, because that's not how the thief worked.

Quote from: Bren;922160A spear isn't something one can just "whip out." :p

"Lemme whip this out..."

Quote from: Omega;920905You love being wrong on this don't you? Yes. Yes you do.

Once again lets point out that the fighter outperforms the Magic User in sheer damage output. The wizards powerful to be sure. But its a very different and oft fragile power. (Least pre 3e) And in 5e the Fighter out-performs every other class that I've checked so far.

Really. Sometimes I think you post like this just to make me point out again just how much casters suck compared to a fighter. :cool:

Obviously he has no idea what "team" means.  He reminds me of people in WW2 games who get the infantry and whine that they don't get to shoot tanks from 2000 meters away.  If you think infantry is useless in a WW2 game it says a lot about your skill but nothing about infantry in WW2.

Same thing here.

Quote from: RPGPundit;922151You've never played D&D correctly, I see.

In my games, I'm pretty sure no Thief feels useless. They just don't get to do more damage every single round than a fighter would. It was one of the worst features of 3e+ that the fighter was the least useful character even in a fight.

A fair number of people, not just Dink Winkerson there, absolutely cannot tolerate a situation in which somebody else can do something they can't.  The notion of "Okay, this one is for the magic users," or "Save your spells, we can handle this with swords" is anathema to them.

I personally think people like this need to learn what "team" means.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;922326"Lemme whip this out..."

You expect to reach the enemy with that? :p  Son, the only person in danger from that spear is the guy in your file standing right in front of you.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;922251The thief was a class that could only really excel by denying other classes the activities that they were already doing. I blame the class for the fucked up perception that a character couldn't do anything unless it was specified on the character sheet as an option. The thief truly earned its name stealing the fun from the other classes. As if that were not bad enough, the designers in their infinite wisdom had to pile on elite special forces combat ability rendering the fighter an amateur melee combatant in comparison.

Except... you know... Not really.

Anything else youd like to get wrong?

Quote from: Skarg;922291Thus removing any significance from the decision to have your weapons ready, or from having a fast-draw skill?

PHB page 190. There is no fast draw in 5e. Or more aptly everyone can unsheath and attack in a round using their free action.

Dual Wielder feat allows you to unsheath and use two weapons.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;922325I blame Gary's unclear writing combined with people's shitty reading comprehension, because that's not how the thief worked.

And thusly some believed you can backstab with a ballista!

https://youtu.be/s4ZeTAfYoY4

LOL

Quote from: Omega;9214671: Obvious from every thread where you bitch incessantly about caster/wizards ad nausium.

2: Then why do you keep using it as an example? The wizard has some focused spells. And for the umpteenth time. So what? The gun has an ammo limit. The ammo tends to have a miss factor of some sort, either totally or partially. Or had their effects sometimes diminished. Moreso in 5e. Said ammo may be appallingly rare other than what you pick up naturally. And while not as fragile as before, said gun is still on the fragile side.

A)  Spells get resisted, or avoided, they do NOT fail.  Ever.  Never have. B) limited ammo means nothing if everything revolves around having it available.  And every player at the table understands that Magic is THE go-juice and will pattern their behaviour around it.  It's not malicious, it's how the game was built.  And C), I've never claimed that damage spells were good, I've always said that most blasting spells/AKA Evokers are among the weakest of the spells.  But then again, even they're pretty good, seeing that half-damage is still damage.  But true power lies in not doing damage, but instant removal of the threat.  Which is what the Save or 'Die' spells do.

Quote from: Omega;921467X: Back on the subject of the Rogue and backstab. Surprisingly enough the Rogue can output more average damage than the Wizard. Not by much. But dont underestimate teamwork and backstab.

'Teamwork' doesn't work with Backstab.  It works with Sneak Attack, which is a 3e construct, but Backstab was in 1-2e (I don't know about earlier) and you have to catch your opponent unaware, which is damn hard in a mass melee.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;922331A fair number of people, not just Dink Winkerson there, absolutely cannot tolerate a situation in which somebody else can do something they can't.  The notion of "Okay, this one is for the magic users," or "Save your spells, we can handle this with swords" is anathema to them.

I personally think people like this need to learn what "team" means.

...So... "OK, you guys sit over there, I've got this." is teamwork?  OK, so it apparently swaps around (Fighter does X, Thief does Y, Cleric heals and Magic-User does everything else :p) but it doesn't look teamwork to me.  It means that everyone sits around while one guy gets to do his 'thing' and they swap when the situation demands it.

But what do I know?  I'm not one of the blessed ones who played at Gary's table to know how it was done right.

Quote from: Skarg;918828Yes, I'd say that's very true, though there were also other factors (he himself mentioned marksmanship - few pilots had much ability to hit). It's also why I like simulationist games that model the situation so that players get choices about what to do and how to approach situations, and have them have logical consequences that flow from lower-level mechanics, instead of being unavailable because the game abstracts everything, or even allows those choices but abstracts the cause & effect (e.g. a game designer might decide that an approach always has the same sort of effect, but a detailed simulation would show that it only has that effect with certain circumstances/enemy-tactics, but not others, which can be more complex (or impossible) to represent at an abstract level, compared to a detailed one).


Absolutely. He could've been shot or crashed on day one, while others who did die sooner might have been as good or better but just caught a bullet. When you insist someone have a predictable survivability, you force fate in an unrealistic way. I want to play in a game where it is about actually being in the situation modeled, and I don't believe in predestiny, fate, or super-heroes. I do believe in exceptional people, but also in the lethality of weapons and accidents, etc. I am very interested in the challenge of making choices and thinking of clever logical tactics and trying to beat hard situations. I am not interested in just playing a certified uber or winning character with mechanics that don't have much to do with the situations they pretend to be about.

Sorry I'm late to the fighter ace party.  

The Aces were effective because they were trying to kill people and all their targets were just flying around.  

Plenty of others were as good at  marks manship, or piloting but they didn't have the will to kill people.   So those guys just flew around until they got killed.

https://www.amazon.ca/Combat-Psychology-Physiology-Deadly-Conflict/dp/0964920549

My source.

Quote from: Omega;922340Except... you know... Not really.

Anything else youd like to get wrong?

The thief class was weak as evidenced by their low XP to advance requirements. The main focus of thief abilities revolved around the use of stealth and trap detection/removal which a member of any other class could do if properly equipped. The thief ability table provided only a second chance last ditch chance to succeed in case normal chances failed.

Thus in order for the thief to have a protected niche, the activities previously undertaken by members of other classes that duplicated thief functions either became (mistakenly) prohibited or the thief was rendered even weaker as a class. It was a class that could only hold its own by denying other classes the ability to perform everyman functions.

Quote from: rgrove0172;917270Ok the question goes deeper than simply the "backstab" mechanic present in so many games actually but rather ...

How do you handle the attack against a totally unaware target?

How I treat it depends on system.

In DCC, depending on the relative levels, I might allow you to roll a straight-up critical table. Yes, with your attack roll. Unless you're a zero-level sneaking up on an Warrior NPC, then you might "just" get bonus damage.

In Exalted2e, I wouldn't adjust anything. The defence being 0 takes care of this.

In Usagi Yojimbo, I'd probably give you the bonuses for total concealment and be done with it, maybe throw a single advantage dice on top of that. That's likely to be enough, anyway, but I might allow you to replace one of your Criticals (they're like Special Effects in MRQ2/Legend/Runequest6/Mythras, but some weapons have nastier "criticals") with a nastier critical that's not normally available. And/or I might disallow the use of "saving Gifts".

In BRP/MRQ2/Legend/Runequest6/Mythras, I'd probably give you the maximum bonuses, and allow you to add points above 100 to your critical range on a 5-to-1 basis. Maybe allow you to claim the "Maximise damage" Special Effect even if your roll didn't qualify for it.

In ORE, I'd probably give you a free Master Die, that you don't lose from taking a penalty to your roll (something that happens in some variants of ORE). That's usually enough to slit their throat.

In other systems, it might vary even more.
 
It's almost always going to be more lethal than it would be otherwise, though. Why?

It's a proven fact that people are more vulnerable to injury when they don't expect it. Ask any combat arts/sports player: hits you didn't expect hurt the most. There's a scientific explanation for this, but that's entirely besides the point:).
The point is, a backstab attack is, by definition, unexpected. I'm sure you can see where this is going.
Thing is, most systems don't account for this fact. Sometimes, it's necessary to institute houserules.

Then again, see also that post.

Quote from: Crüesader;917273The human body is a funny thing sometimes.  Bullets have bounced off skulls- hell, people have survived with pieces of their skull (and brain) actually missing.  Even a trained assassin can't account for everything.  You backstab a guy- but maybe his gaps in his ribs aren't where you thought because his garments threw off your calculations.  Or maybe you just happened to hit that one buckle on a strap, or maybe the guy coughed or turned at just the right moment. Even wounds that you think would kill someone (especially stabbing wounds) don't have an immediate effect.  A guy I knew in high school got stabbed twice and didn't even realize it until someone started screaming.

I'd put an initiative penalty on the guard at the very least.  He's gonna need a moment to figure out just what happened and get over the shock.  But if you sliced his throat 'wrong', there's a chance his windpipe is completely fucked and he won't be screaming- he'll be gasping.  

But like you said, house rule.  But you can't always make it easy instakill, because there's ways to exploit that.

So yeah, I'd give you bonuses. But if the dice hate you? Well, it's also true that in reality taking out a sentry with a sharp weapon is notoriously unreliable, which is why people today prefer to use silencers and the like.
So, if it's not going to be an instakill, blame Mr. Murphy, not the honest Referee;)!

Quote from: tenbones;922352And thusly some believed you can backstab with a ballista!

Wait? You mean you cant? :(

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;922331A fair number of people, not just Dink Winkerson there, absolutely cannot tolerate a situation in which somebody else can do something they can't.  The notion of "Okay, this one is for the magic users," or "Save your spells, we can handle this with swords" is anathema to them.

I personally think people like this need to learn what "team" means.

I have a minimum bar for players which that feeling falls far beneath... such whining will be chided and not permitted to continue in game. Out of game, they shall be schooled and not indulged. ;)

Quote from: Headless;922416Sorry I'm late to the fighter ace party.  

The Aces were effective because they were trying to kill people and all their targets were just flying around.  

Plenty of others were as good at  marks manship, or piloting but they didn't have the will to kill people.   So those guys just flew around until they got killed.

https://www.amazon.ca/Combat-Psychology-Physiology-Deadly-Conflict/dp/0964920549

My source.

That's certainly an important factor, though I wouldn't discount von Richthofen's input. Separate similar factors are piloting mastery (many WWI planes were tricky/dangerous - if your attention and skill are absorbed with flying, there's less room for effectively doing other things), awareness & vision (keeping track of and appreciating the situation), tactics, and picking one's fights (when to engage or withdraw).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;922331A fair number of people, not just Dink Winkerson there, absolutely cannot tolerate a situation in which somebody else can do something they can't.  The notion of "Okay, this one is for the magic users," or "Save your spells, we can handle this with swords" is anathema to them.

I personally think people like this need to learn what "team" means.

So, "don't bother checking for traps, this is for Thieves" is also fine, right:D?

Quote from: AsenRG;922441It's almost always going to be more lethal than it would be otherwise, though. Why?

It's a proven fact that people are more vulnerable to injury when they don't expect it.

I am under the impression that drunk drivers tend to be less injured in crashes than sober drivers in a similar crash. The explanation I heard was that the drunk driver was more relaxed at the time of impact which decreased injuries vs. the tensed up, because sober, driver.

Quote from: Bren;922518I am under the impression that drunk drivers tend to be less injured in crashes than sober drivers in a similar crash. The explanation I heard was that the drunk driver was more relaxed at the time of impact which decreased injuries vs. the tensed up, because sober, driver.

Source?

Also, not having seen the source, I'd assume that drunk drivers tend to see the crash at least as soon as you see an incoming fist that you don't manage to dodge, so that's not really a good comparison. Besides, the forces at work are and the method of injury often wouldn't be comparable, but at this point, that's getting into technicalities.

Quote from: AsenRG;922538Source?

Stuff I heard from cops and ER folks. If I had an academic source I'd have used different language than "I am under the impression..." and/or have I'd have cited the source.

What's your source?

Also pain, because you were surprised at getting hit, isn't the same as injury. What you quoted "hits you didn't expect hurt the most" says the target experienced more pain, not that they experienced a greater injury. A hangnail and a papercut both hurt like sons of bitches, but as injuries go they are pretty damn minor. On the other hand, when I stepped on a nail, I felt no pain at all until afterwards when I had to pull the nail with the board it was attached to, out of my foot. I consider the puncture a bit more serious than a hangnail. As did my doctor.

EDIT: A quick internet search turned up these three references.

• Straight Dope: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2879/do-drivers-have-a-better-chance-of-surviving-car-wrecks-if-theyre-drunk
  
• From 2009: http://www.dailybreeze.com/article/ZZ/20091001/NEWS/910019838
  
• And here's a UIC study from 2012: https://news.uic.edu/alcohol-provides-protective-effect-reduces-mortality-substantially-after-injury
  

So its safer to dungeoncrawl while drunk!

Quote from: Bren;922542Stuff I heard from cops and ER folks. If I had an academic source I'd have used different language than "I am under the impression..." and/or have I'd have cited the source.

What's your source?

My source is stuff I've been told by martial artists, sport fighters, cops, former criminals*, ERs and personal experience. Also, manuals on sentry removal tactics, and texts on self-defense confirm the idea.

Also, I'd note that yes, being relaxed helps minimize the effect of injury on a direct hit or a whiplash - same source as the above. The two don't contradict each other, and I didn't dispute that. I'm disputing the idea that the drunk drivers are more or less likely to notice the incoming accident.
If we assume that they aren't significantly more likely to notice the accident beginning, the drunk ones would still probably be better off.
OTOH, some attacks just arrive seemingly "out of nowhere", and they're much more likely to result in a KO, because the body can't respond in time to minimize the injury. And a KO is at least temporary injury.
See also: the death of two teenagers following two accidents with a single suckerpunch, 2014, Australia.

*I try to avoid the current ones for reasons that should be obvious:).

QuoteAlso pain, because you were surprised at getting hit, isn't the same as injury.

Stop right here and riddle me this, then! Are HP a measure of your ability to fight, or a measure of how much you're hurt?

And yes, we both know they're both in many systems, with a predominance of one or the other in different systems. Alas, the two simply aren't the same thing, hence lots of cognitive disconnect that different players had experienced over the years;).

QuoteWhat you quoted "hits you didn't expect hurt the most" says the target experienced more pain, not that they experienced a greater injury. A hangnail and a papercut both hurt like sons of bitches, but as injuries go they are pretty damn minor. On the other hand, when I stepped on a nail, I felt no pain at all until afterwards when I had to pull the nail with the board it was attached to, out of my foot. I consider the puncture a bit more serious than a hangnail. As did my doctor.

EDIT: A quick internet search turned up these three references.

• Straight Dope: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2879/do-drivers-have-a-better-chance-of-surviving-car-wrecks-if-theyre-drunk
  
• From 2009: http://www.dailybreeze.com/article/ZZ/20091001/NEWS/910019838
  
• And here's a UIC study from 2012: https://news.uic.edu/alcohol-provides-protective-effect-reduces-mortality-substantially-after-injury
  

There was a substantial debate about cutting vs. stabbing in swordfights back at the time when swords were a war weapon, because lethality vs. incapacitation isn't actually such a no-brainer as you might imagine. So let's first talk about what HPs represent!

Additionally and unrelated, many thanks for the study! Now I have argument that going to the pub after practice is good for my health, not a waste of time:D!

Quote from: AsenRG;922632I'm disputing the idea that the drunk drivers are more or less likely to notice the incoming accident.

That's a new and different topic and not one I discussed.

QuoteStop right here and riddle me this, then! Are HP a measure of your ability to fight, or a measure of how much you're hurt?

Depends on the system. If you care about the difference use something like HERO which separates stun effect e.g. pain and physical damage or add a shock roll to a system like Runequest or BRP where HP essentially represent physical damage.

Quote from: Bren;922636That's a new and different topic and not one I discussed.

But it was the one I discussed. I spotted a misunderstanding and decided to clarify.

QuoteDepends on the system.

My point exactly. Now, which of the two do we compare?
In both cases, I refer you to the stories of the sucker punches ending a fight in one hit. Almost none of the people that launched those hits (or those that received them) were trained fighters. Ask your sources whether it's a common occurance. IME, it is.
Almost no fight* between untrained people ends in one hit, though. The reasons for this are a multitude: the body being able to absorb at least part of the attack, the adrenaline cocktail reducing the feeling, sometimes position that facilitates taking the hits, and oftentimes, drugs or alcohol.
However, if you hit people unexpectedly, most of those effects aren't in play (yet). So people often crumble. Sometimes these are the same people.
I'd say that merits quite an increase in damage. You might disagree.

*Meaning, not an assault, but a fight both parties had agreed on. Also known as "monkey dance" in some circles:).

QuoteIf you care about the difference use something like HERO which separates stun effect e.g. pain and physical damage or add a shock roll to a system like Runequest or BRP where HP essentially represent physical damage.

Yeah, thanks, but we're not talking about which system I use. We're talking about what we're trying to represent in different systems. And we're trying to represent two only-partially-connected effects using the same gauge - and then some of us wonder why it often doesn't work;).

Asen and Bren, you two are talking about two different things.  

Asen is talking about sports, fights, etc, where being unaware of an attack or body collision can lead to injury because the body's natural defenses are not engaged.  If the body's defenses are engaged, the body can resist the force of another body and so mitigate the damage better if prepared.

Bren is talking about larger force collisions and impacts against immovable objects or objects much stronger than the human body, like cars, trees, terrain, etc.  There, the body's defenses are of no use because they are not strong enough to resist the force.  Thus in that case it may be better to bend then break, and where being drunk, stoned, etc can help reduce the damage.

The anecdotes you provide are both true, not competing.

Quote from: CRKrueger;922641Asen and Bren, you two are talking about two different things.  

Asen is talking about sports, fights, etc, where being unaware of an attack or body collision can lead to injury because the body's natural defenses are not engaged.  If the body's defenses are engaged, the body can resist the force of another body and so mitigate the damage better if prepared.

Bren is talking about larger force collisions and impacts against immovable objects or objects much stronger than the human body, like cars, trees, terrain, etc.  There, the body's defenses are of no use because they are not strong enough to resist the force.  Thus in that case it may be better to bend then break, and where being drunk, stoned, etc can help reduce the damage.

The anecdotes you provide are both true, not competing.

Actually, no, though the difference in the amount of forces is certainly part of it:).

(For a start, I assume throws and locks are in play as well, which means collisions against cars, trees and terrain are just as expected, and assume that a hitter would know how to create an immovable structure upon contact. I also assume you'll try to bend instead of break and you'll try to engage the body's defences, as appropriate).

However, I'm talking about the fact that it's easier to bend in a timely manner if you know which direction you'll have to move upon contact.
Also, I'm talking about the fact that unexpected pain registers as sharper and is more debilitating.

Once again, it's possible to withstand an unexpected shot or throw, it's just harder than the same strike if it was expected;).

Quote from: AsenRG;922640But it was the one I discussed. I spotted a misunderstanding and decided to clarify.

Drunks have worse reaction time than do otherwise similar sober people so the drunk will react slower, all else being equal, than they would when sober. This too is an obvious truism.  However since the original point was about the effects of being hit when unprepared, not the effect of being unprepared on not being hit, its a bit of a tangent except in the special case of a D&D type system that uses increasing hit points to reflect blocking, evading, and slipping a blow.

QuoteMy point exactly. Now, which of the two do we compare?

First, there are a lot of systems and different systems handle or often don't separately handle physical damage, pain, and shock differently. I suggested using a system that appropriately differentiates and handles the things you care about is a wise and available choice. I'm not particularly interested in doing a detailed comparison system by system. But if you want to do that, by all means proceed.

QuoteYeah, thanks, but we're not talking about which system I use.

You raised the question of systems. If you use a system that doesn't handle and differentiate effects you find of interest, than you have a problem. If you use a system (and such systems exist) that can differentiate the different effects you find of interest, then you don't have that problem. Right now, I can't tell what problem you do or don't have.

QuoteAnd we're trying to represent two only-partially-connected effects using the same gauge - and then some of us wonder why it often doesn't work;).

I'm not sure who the we is that you refer to, but as I said, one can use different gauges or one can live with the ambiguity of mushing unrelated and loosely related things into a single gauge. You picks your poison and you takes your chances.

Quote from: CRKrueger;922641

Yeah, that too.

Quote from: Omega;922450Wait? You mean you cant? :(

I rolled my save against your cunning trap!!!! /runs away!!!!!!

Quote from: tenbones;922695I rolled my save against your cunning trap!!!! /runs away!!!!!!

Lets see, in AD&D thats a free attack on retreating foes. I backstab with the trebuchet!  (Hey! Its a giant sling! The logic is sound!)

Quote from: Bren;922664Drunks have worse reaction time than do otherwise similar sober people so the drunk will react slower, all else being equal, than they would when sober. This too is an obvious truism.  However since the original point was about the effects of being hit when unprepared, not the effect of being unprepared on not being hit, its a bit of a tangent except in the special case of a D&D type system that uses increasing hit points to reflect blocking, evading, and slipping a blow.

I keep forgetting those rules - does alcohol help your HP in D&D? It would be funny if it did, but potentially interesting.
Anyway, it's indeed a tangent, so let's drop it.

QuoteFirst, there are a lot of systems and different systems handle or often don't separately handle physical damage, pain, and shock differently. I suggested using a system that appropriately differentiates and handles the things you care about is a wise and available choice. I'm not particularly interested in doing a detailed comparison system by system. But if you want to do that, by all means proceed.

Not system by system, but different kinds of HP by kinds would be a good idea. So:
In a system where HP are "meat points", you need some bonus to damage, but not nearly as much. Unexpected hits might deliver more injury, or they might not, depends on what happens at the moment of contact (which is notoriously hard to quantify). Still, being unaware of the hit makes it harder to shrug it off - even boxers have been one-strike sucker punched out. They'd definitely have a bonus to hit, especially if you're not going for anything fancy.
In a system where HP are "ready to fight" points, you need a bonus to hit, and a comparatively large bonus to damage: the unexpected attack inflicts more damage, as mentioned above, and more confusion - which is even more detrimental to the ability to keep fighting.
I find the "double the damage" approach in early/OSR D&D quite true to life...for the first three levels or so. Then it should become "triple the HP damage", and so on and so forth:). My point is, even the best should always be afraid of a knife in the back, whether it's a thief wielding it or not. And it probably shouldn't be restricted to the thief (and at least some OSR systems indeed don't restrict it to be a thief-only skill).

QuoteYou raised the question of systems.

Yes, but my point was that the mechanical effects of surprise would be different in different systems. They should end up reflecting the same things, but different systems take different approaches to how the mechanics relfect reality.
The point of raising the question of systems was to suggest how different systems would represent the same thing, as an invitation for you to do the same. Are you still running H+I? It actually represents a knife ambush quite well, IIRC.

QuoteIf you use a system that doesn't handle and differentiate effects you find of interest, than you have a problem. If you use a system (and such systems exist) that can differentiate the different effects you find of interest, then you don't have that problem. Right now, I can't tell what problem you do or don't have.

Mechanically, none whatsoever, especially lately - but thanks for asking;).

QuoteI'm not sure who the we is that you refer to, but as I said, one can use different gauges or one can live with the ambiguity of mushing unrelated and loosely related things into a single gauge. You picks your poison and you takes your chances.

That's almost always true in life.

Quote from: AsenRG;922798Are you still running H+I? It actually represents a knife ambush quite well, IIRC.

Yeah attack with a dagger with suprise, called shot, and a go-for-broke lunge attack, can be quite deadly.

In the end the basic problem was that the OPs player should have never called an instakill in a situation like that. Especially if they were low level.

This is of course system dependant. There are systems that have the PCs start out alot more competent and able to pull stunts like that. But in games where the PCs start out as green recruits fresh out of training then no. Sorry. Gain some experience and then massacre the poor SOB properly.

Quote from: Omega;922181If Im reading the 5e rules right its a free action to unsheath/ready a weapon.

True, I was thinking in terms of old-school D&D.