[Fantasy] Assassin Backstab?!

[Joseph R]

Also agree.

One of the PCs in my group uses what we call the "Grab and Stab" - it's simply the All-Out Grapple and Strike rules in the Grab and Smash! box on p.118 of Martial Arts.

Using wrestling and knife skills (both at skill 17), she grabs the torso (17), then stabs the vitals (14) for +2 damage. Even using her ubiquitous small knife, this has proved a near lethal strike against lightly-armoured targets.

[Diogenes]

Hm. if that simulates the classic backstab, then it's fine. Considering the length of the combat rounds in that classical system, an additional second won't hurt, except the victim :)

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

Dungeon Fantasy also offers an -80% modifier to Striking Strength for "surprise attacks from behind when the target doesn't even know you're there." A couple of levels of that, a few points in the Targeted Attack (Swing/Neck), and a Telegraphed Attack from behind and you'll be backstabbing your foes into decapitation.

-80%?

ISTR it was -60%.

Also we had a thread, on here, some months ago, about how to interpret it, and Kromm's idea of how often it should be applicable was markedly more generous than that of most other posters.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Kuroshima

Personally, I give Fine rondel daggers to my assassin NPCs. They're not that expensive, and with TA/Chinks in Armor/Vitals maxed, they end up rolling against skill-3 only. Add Telegraphic attack and Dirty Fightingx3 and even skill 12 assassins roll against 16. Oh, and any assassin worth his name will use reversed grip for the first strike.

What's the Chinks in Armor rule? Where can I find it? Is it a Perk, Technique, or just something anyone can try to do?

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

-80%?

ISTR it was -60%.

If we're going with the Thief template from DF, then it's -60%. If there's some other number from some other book, I'm not aware of it.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

What's the Chinks in Armor rule? Where can I find it? Is it a Perk, Technique, or just something anyone can try to do?

Sidebar, page 400

You may use a piercing, impaling, or tight-beam burning attack to target
joints or weak points in a suit of armor, vehicle, etc. Roll at -8 to hit
a chink in the foe’s torso armor, or at -10 for any other location (face,
eyes, vitals, arm, etc.), instead of using the usual hit location penalty. If
you hit, halve DR. This is cumulative with any armor divisors.

EDIT: Our Space Opera sniper went for chinks in power armor alot, as it was about the only way he could do some serious damage to them.

[Joseph R]

Originally Posted by Diogenes

Hm. if that simulates the classic backstab, then it's fine. Considering the length of the combat rounds in that classical system, an additional second won't hurt, except the victim :)

I'm not sure if this is response to my post. If so, then I'll assume you don't have the MA book :)

The "All-Out Grapple and Strike" rules combine the benefits of AoA (Double) and AoA (Strong) in one second. Double to grapple and strike the opponent in one turn, and Strong to give damage bonus to the second attack.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

If we're going with the Thief template from DF, then it's -60%. If there's some other number from some other book, I'm not aware of it.

I replied to a post which referred to GURPS DF, unless I'm mistaken.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

I replied to a post which referred to GURPS DF, unless I'm mistaken.

Right, but I meant to emphasize "template." According to the thief template, his Striking Strength option has a -60% limitation. I don't know where the other guy gets -80%.

My post could have been clearer, sorry about that.

[Diogenes]

It is a response to your post, Unwitting Pawn. However, I do own a copy of MA, but didn't bother to learn it by heart. Neither did I bother to look up the particular rule, which may explain my post, because I calculated two consecutive All-out Attacks.

Where is that rule to be found, exactly? It might be of interest for me.