Grappling questions

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

1)
Does a character get the +1 from Weapon Focus (grapple)
when making an opposed grapple check?

The feat text states:
"You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected
weapon."

The grapple rules say:
"A grapple check is like a melee attack roll."

IMO the answer is yes. Together with Improved Grapple it's +5.

2)
Can the "Damage Your Opponent" option in a grapple be used together
with the feat "Stunning Fist"?

Stunning Fist has to be declared before the "attack roll" and the
opponent must be "damaged by your unarmed attack".

Again I'd say yes.

LL
428 answers Last reply
More about grappling questions
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Lorenz Lang wrote:
    >

    Grapple rules are Really Weird. That said, here's how I interpret them:

    > 1)
    > Does a character get the +1 from Weapon Focus (grapple)
    > when making an opposed grapple check?

    I'd say yes. But I'd _really_ like someone official to finally state
    unequivocally what bonuses DO and DO NOT apply to opposed grapple
    checks.

    > The feat text states:
    > "You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected
    > weapon."
    >
    > The grapple rules say:
    > "A grapple check is like a melee attack roll."
    >
    > IMO the answer is yes. Together with Improved Grapple it's +5.

    I would agree.

    > 2)
    > Can the "Damage Your Opponent" option in a grapple be used together
    > with the feat "Stunning Fist"?
    >
    > Stunning Fist has to be declared before the "attack roll" and the
    > opponent must be "damaged by your unarmed attack".
    >
    > Again I'd say yes.

    I would say no to this one, mostly for flavour reasons. Stunning fist,
    is, IMO, a punch or kick, not a choke.

    But I'm not at all strong in my convictions here.

    > LL

    Laszlo
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Lorenz Lang wrote:
    > 1) Does a character get the +1 from Weapon Focus (grapple)
    > when making an opposed grapple check?

    They probably should. It wasn't weapon focus "touch attack", after
    all.

    > 2) Can the "Damage Your Opponent" option in a grapple be used
    > together with the feat "Stunning Fist"?
    > Stunning Fist has to be declared before the "attack roll" and the
    > opponent must be "damaged by your unarmed attack".
    >
    > Again I'd say yes.

    Your conclusion impugns your competence. Please consult the
    grappling rules again. Notice there is a *separate provision* for
    making attacks and unarmed strikes. This is the mechanism by which the
    stunning fist manifests - not tacking it onto an opposed grapple check.


    -Michael
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Lorenz Lang wrote:
    > On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 05:38:51 -0700, laszlo_spamhol wrote:
    >
    > > Lorenz Lang wrote:
    > >>
    > >> 2)
    > >> Can the "Damage Your Opponent" option in a grapple be used
    together
    > >> with the feat "Stunning Fist"?
    > >>
    > >> Stunning Fist has to be declared before the "attack roll" and the
    > >> opponent must be "damaged by your unarmed attack".
    > >>
    > >> Again I'd say yes.
    > >
    > > I would say no to this one, mostly for flavour reasons. Stunning
    fist,
    > > is, IMO, a punch or kick, not a choke.
    >
    > If flavour indicates 'no' and the RAW say 'yes' (or at least
    'maybe'),
    > how about the game balance?
    > Is "Stunning Fist" too strong if allowed with grappling?

    Nope. Balance-wise, I see no problems.

    > > But I'm not at all strong in my convictions here.
    >
    > Talking with people of strong convictions can be exertive :)

    I think any regular reader of this NG is very familiar with that fact.
    :)

    > LL

    Laszlo
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 05:38:51 -0700, laszlo_spamhol wrote:

    > Lorenz Lang wrote:
    >>
    >> 2)
    >> Can the "Damage Your Opponent" option in a grapple be used together
    >> with the feat "Stunning Fist"?
    >>
    >> Stunning Fist has to be declared before the "attack roll" and the
    >> opponent must be "damaged by your unarmed attack".
    >>
    >> Again I'd say yes.
    >
    > I would say no to this one, mostly for flavour reasons. Stunning fist,
    > is, IMO, a punch or kick, not a choke.

    If flavour indicates 'no' and the RAW say 'yes' (or at least 'maybe'),
    how about the game balance?
    Is "Stunning Fist" too strong if allowed with grappling?

    > But I'm not at all strong in my convictions here.

    Talking with people of strong convictions can be exertive :)

    LL
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Lorenz Lang wrote:
    > 1)
    > Does a character get the +1 from Weapon Focus (grapple)
    > when making an opposed grapple check?
    >
    > The feat text states:
    > "You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected
    > weapon."
    >
    > The grapple rules say:
    > "A grapple check is like a melee attack roll."
    >
    > IMO the answer is yes. Together with Improved Grapple it's +5.

    Note that the rules say "is like", not "is". Ask yourself this: If
    someone took Improved Grapple, and made a melee attack while grappling,
    would the +4 bonus apply to the attack? No, because the feat states
    that

    >From the 3.5 D&D FAQ, in reference to attack bonuses conferred by a
    feat called Vow of Poverty (Book of Exalted Deeds):

    "The touch attack made to start a grapple is an attack
    roll (so the bonus would apply to this roll), but a
    grapple check is not an attack roll, and thus the bonus
    wouldn't apply to the grapple check. "

    That seems pretty clear. So if you want to follow that, the bonus from
    weapon focus only applies to the touch attack (seems kinda weak to me).

    > 2)
    > Can the "Damage Your Opponent" option in a grapple be used together
    > with the feat "Stunning Fist"?
    >
    > Stunning Fist has to be declared before the "attack roll" and the
    > opponent must be "damaged by your unarmed attack".

    >From the 3.5 SRD, Stunning Fist Feat:
    "You must declare that you are using this feat before you make your
    attack roll ".

    It also says in regard to "Grapple - Damage Your Opponent":

    "While grappling, you can deal damage to your opponent equivalent to an
    unarmed strike"

    It says you deal damage in the amount of an unarmed attack, but does
    not say you perform an unarmed attack.

    If you accept that a grapple check is not an attack roll (from the
    FAQ), then no, you can't use Stunning Fist with Damage Your Opponent
    (because it's not an attack).

    Of course, you can take an attack while grappling, at -4, and Stunning
    Fist could be used there. Note that you should not apply the +4 bonus
    from Improved Grapple to this, since it would only apply to a grapple
    check.
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    >
    > Incorrect. Stunning Fist affects foes "damaged by your unarmed
    attack"
    > (SRD, "Feats"). It's not limited to unarmed strikes; it works with
    any
    > unarmed attack that deals damage, including attacks with natural
    > weapons.

    >From SRD 3.5, Stunning Fist Feat:
    "You must declare that you are using this feat before you make your
    attack roll (thus, a failed attack roll ruins the attempt). "

    Note the text: "attack roll". It is limited to attacks.

    > Is grappling an unarmed attack?

    According to the 3.5 D&D faq, page 10, a grappling check is not an
    attack.

    > The grappling rules explicitly
    > state that "you deal damage to the target as if with an unarmed
    strike"
    > (SRD, "Combat II"). It deals damage as an unarmed strike, so Stunning
    > Fist should work normally (i.e, declare it before the grapple check,
    and
    > add the effect to the unarmed strike damage).

    Nope. It is only referring to the amount of damage, not how it is
    delivered.

    >From the 3.5 SRD:
    "While grappling, you can deal damage to your opponent equivalent to an
    unarmed strike. "
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Apologies to all. My newsreader munged up my post really good.
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:19:52 +0200, "Lorenz Lang" <lang@netlife.invalid>
    scribed into the ether:

    >1)
    >Does a character get the +1 from Weapon Focus (grapple)
    >when making an opposed grapple check?
    >
    >The feat text states:
    >"You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected
    >weapon."
    >
    >The grapple rules say:
    >"A grapple check is like a melee attack roll."
    >
    >IMO the answer is yes. Together with Improved Grapple it's +5.

    Grapple isn't a weapon...but I think I'd allow the bonus to grappling if
    you took weapon focus (unarmed).

    >2)
    >Can the "Damage Your Opponent" option in a grapple be used together
    >with the feat "Stunning Fist"?
    >
    >Stunning Fist has to be declared before the "attack roll" and the
    >opponent must be "damaged by your unarmed attack".

    Nothing about the stunning fist description says that you need warm up
    time, or room to maneuver...so yes.
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    >>2)
    >>Can the "Damage Your Opponent" option in a grapple be used together
    >>with the feat "Stunning Fist"?
    >>
    >>Stunning Fist has to be declared before the "attack roll" and the
    >>opponent must be "damaged by your unarmed attack".
    >
    > Nothing about the stunning fist description says that you need warm up
    > time, or room to maneuver...so yes.

    Think of it as Stunning Noogie!

    Peter
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    MisterMichael wrote:
    > Your conclusion impugns your competence. Please consult the grappling
    > rules again. Notice there is a *separate provision* for making
    > attacks and unarmed strikes. This is the mechanism by which the
    > stunning fist manifests --

    Incorrect. Stunning Fist affects foes "damaged by your unarmed attack"
    (SRD, "Feats"). It's not limited to unarmed strikes; it works with any
    unarmed attack that deals damage, including attacks with natural
    weapons. Is grappling an unarmed attack? The grappling rules explicitly
    state that "you deal damage to the target as if with an unarmed strike"
    (SRD, "Combat II"). It deals damage as an unarmed strike, so Stunning
    Fist should work normally (i.e, declare it before the grapple check, and
    add the effect to the unarmed strike damage).
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    >> Is grappling an unarmed attack?

    decalod85 wrote:
    > According to the 3.5 D&D faq, page 10, a grappling check is not an
    > attack [roll].

    But the D&D 3.0 FAQ said the opposite: "For the attacker (that is, the
    character trying to disarm a foe or accomplish something with a grapple
    check) a natural 1 fails and a natural 20 succeeds, no matter what the
    defender rolls." The reasoning is that an offensive grapple check is an
    attack roll. Likewise, Weapon Focus (grapple) only makes sense if the
    grapple check is an attack roll.

    And regardless of whether a grapple check is an attack roll, it's
    definitely an (unarmed) attack action.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    > Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    > >> Is grappling an unarmed attack?
    >
    > decalod85 wrote:
    > > According to the 3.5 D&D faq, page 10, a grappling check is not an
    > > attack [roll].
    >
    > But the D&D 3.0 FAQ said the opposite: "For the attacker (that is,
    the
    > character trying to disarm a foe or accomplish something with a
    grapple
    > check) a natural 1 fails and a natural 20 succeeds, no matter what
    the
    > defender rolls." The reasoning is that an offensive grapple check is
    an
    > attack roll. Likewise, Weapon Focus (grapple) only makes sense if the
    > grapple check is an attack roll.
    >
    > And regardless of whether a grapple check is an attack roll, it's
    > definitely an (unarmed) attack action.

    Grapple is a Special Attack...

    The 3.5 FAQ says that the bonuses from feats would apply to disarm or
    sunder, which it says use opposed attack rolls. My 3.0 handbook says
    that a grapple check is "something like a melee attack roll" - which in
    my book means it is not. If it was, they would just say so.

    In both 3.0 and 3.5, they never say "opposed attack roll" when they
    mean "grapple check". I would say the 3.0 FAQ makes a mistake when it
    talks about grapple and disarm as both using an opposed attack roll. I
    think that it muddies the waters on this issue, by implying that a
    grapple check is an opposed attack roll. Perhaps on those grounds, the
    FAQ is incorrect in claiming that 1 or 20 should have special
    significance on a grapple check.

    The could also just be saying that opposed attack rolls and grapple
    checks work the same way, but are not the same thing.

    You have to admit, the 3.5 FAQ is pretty clear.

    I have to admit, I really love these little arguments. It really
    sharpens me up to deal with my players ( a smart bunch of software
    engineers who would probably have an average INT of 15 or 16 in D&D
    terms ).
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mere moments before death, Bradd W. Szonye hastily scrawled:
    >Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    >>> Is grappling an unarmed attack?
    >
    >decalod85 wrote:
    >> According to the 3.5 D&D faq, page 10, a grappling check is not an
    >> attack [roll].
    >
    >But the D&D 3.0 FAQ said the opposite: "For the attacker (that is, the
    >character trying to disarm a foe or accomplish something with a grapple
    >check) a natural 1 fails and a natural 20 succeeds, no matter what the
    >defender rolls." The reasoning is that an offensive grapple check is an
    >attack roll. Likewise, Weapon Focus (grapple) only makes sense if the
    >grapple check is an attack roll.
    >
    >And regardless of whether a grapple check is an attack roll, it's
    >definitely an (unarmed) attack action.

    Not when you're the defending grappler, it's not.


    Ed Chauvin IV

    --
    DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
    use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
    kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
    modifier G @ 11.

    "I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
    --Terry Austin
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Sun, 01 May 2005 19:14:38 -0700, decalod85 wrote:

    >>From the 3.5 SRD:
    > "While grappling, you can deal damage to your opponent equivalent
    > to an unarmed strike. Make an opposed grapple check in place of an
    > attack."
    >
    > "in place of an attack." You aren't making an attack. You are
    > dealing damage with a grapple check. The words "equivalent to an
    > unarmed strike" deal with the amount of damage, not how it is
    > inflicted.
    >
    > The text you are quoting is from 3.0, and it still indicates that
    > "Damage Your Opponent" and an unarmed strike are different things.
    > It says "as if with an unarmed strike". What does that mean?
    >
    > I looked up "as if" at dictionary.com.
    >
    > as if
    > conj.
    > In the same way that it would be if: looked as if she were made of ice.
    >
    > That: It seemed as if the meeting would never end.
    >
    > So, if I succeed on my grapple check for "Damage Your Opponent",
    > I would deal damage as if I had executed an unarmed attack. This
    > statement does not mean I performed an unarmed attack.

    I'll allow boni from WF and IG to the grapple check and even allow
    SF together with a grapple check as a house rule, because I simply
    don't like the above line of reasoning. It's quite concise, but the
    conclusion isn't satisfying (to me).

    Besides, the FAQ 3.5 isn't clear beyond doubt on the subject IMO.
    The 'Vow of Poverty' answer says:
    '...a grapple check is not an attack roll...'
    Later in another answer I read:
    '...you make a grapple check, which is like a melee attack roll...'
    with a reference to the grapple rules in the PHB.

    Either a grapple check 'isn't a melee attack' or 'it is like'?
    Better question: To what degree is it like a melee attack,
    or what qualities does a grapple check lack?

    The most important difference is the determination of success.
    With a grapple check you don't have to beat the opponents AC,
    you have to beat his roll. The opponents 'sets the AC' for your
    'attack' with his grapple check - as I'm inclined to interpret the
    rules.

    IG gives an advantage of at least +4 to expert grapplers. (It's a bit
    more than plain +4 to attack because of the tie ruling.)
    IMO this advantage shouldn't vanish, when the expert grappler
    wants to use another feat (which can be used in unarmed fighting
    like SF).

    > So, if you can accept that no unarmed attack was performed (and
    > according to 3.5, it wasn't)

    Well, I could, but I rather wouldn't :)

    > then you can accept that attack
    > bonuses do not apply to the grapple check, and that Stunning
    > Attack can not be used.

    <grumble, grumble...>
    Would anybody let alone a monk take IG under this cruel ruling?
    ;-)

    > Just make the attack at -4. The loss of their dex modifier will
    > help make up for it anyway.

    You don't loose your Dex mod against your opponent in a grapple,
    you loose it against opponents _out_ of the grapple.
    So that's cold comfort...

    LL
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    David Alex Lamb wrote:
    > In article <8Jsde.3942$GQ5.3360@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    > Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
    > >"Lorenz Lang" <lang@netlife.invalid> wrote in message
    > >news:pan.2005.05.02.12.34.24.527521@netlife.invalid...
    > >> Besides, the FAQ 3.5 isn't clear beyond doubt on the subject IMO.
    > >> The 'Vow of Poverty' answer says:
    > >> '...a grapple check is not an attack roll...'
    > >> Later in another answer I read:
    > >> '...you make a grapple check, which is like a melee attack
    roll...'
    > >> with a reference to the grapple rules in the PHB.
    > >>
    > >> Either a grapple check 'isn't a melee attack' or 'it is like'?
    > >
    > > You *do* realize, don't you, that these two statements do not
    conflict?
    >
    > Maybe yes, maybe no -- he's German, remember?

    Guten Abend David,

    not to be translated as good abend...
    :o)

    I *do* realize that "isn't" and "is like" do not conflict in all
    contexts and I know that 'like' can mean 'same', 'nearly same'
    or merely 'similar'.

    In the context of the game rules in PHB and FAQ I see some ambiguity,
    as I said above. The question if the '...statements do not conflict?'
    is quite unimportant to me.

    How much "unlike" can "is like" be? Some posters argued "is like"
    is "not at all like" or "nearly not at all like", while I hold the
    view that it's "100% like" except that you roll your attack against
    the opponent's defense roll instead of his AC.

    Preemptive disclaimer:
    My view *does* conflict with the FAQ 3.5, I know...

    If feats like WF (grapple) and Stunning Fist can't be used while
    grappling[1], Improved Grapple becomes very unattractive, some kind
    of a featless dead-end, especially for monks.

    [1] the 'Attack at -4' option during a grapple is not really
    grappling, it's trying to attack normally while hindered by a
    grappling opponent.

    So far I think my idea is an acceptable if not good house rule
    and I would like to read your opinion and that of others on
    this subject...
    ....as long as you agree with me ;-)

    LL
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Lorenz Lang" <lang@netlife.invalid> wrote in message
    news:pan.2005.05.02.12.34.24.527521@netlife.invalid...
    > Besides, the FAQ 3.5 isn't clear beyond doubt on the subject IMO.
    > The 'Vow of Poverty' answer says:
    > '...a grapple check is not an attack roll...'
    > Later in another answer I read:
    > '...you make a grapple check, which is like a melee attack roll...'
    > with a reference to the grapple rules in the PHB.
    >
    > Either a grapple check 'isn't a melee attack' or 'it is like'?

    You *do* realize, don't you, that these two statements do not conflict?

    -Michael
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Mon, 02 May 2005 16:39:32 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
    <mistermichael@earthlink.net> raised a finger to the sky and
    proclaimed:

    >"Lorenz Lang" <lang@netlife.invalid> wrote in message
    >news:pan.2005.05.02.12.34.24.527521@netlife.invalid...
    >> Besides, the FAQ 3.5 isn't clear beyond doubt on the subject IMO.
    >> The 'Vow of Poverty' answer says:
    >> '...a grapple check is not an attack roll...'
    >> Later in another answer I read:
    >> '...you make a grapple check, which is like a melee attack roll...'
    >> with a reference to the grapple rules in the PHB.
    >>
    >> Either a grapple check 'isn't a melee attack' or 'it is like'?
    >
    > You *do* realize, don't you, that these two statements do not conflict?
    >
    >-Michael
    >

    I think most of my arguments with rules-lawyers have been based on
    that very fact. They find two things that are similar, or are listed
    somwhere in the book as being "like" each other, then attempt to prove
    that they must needs be similar in all respects.

    Not accusing you of this, Lorenz - just anecdotizing the thread

    --
    Either way, I hate you Count Chocula, if I didn't already.
    - Drifter Bob, rec.games.frp.dnd
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    > decalod85 wrote:
    > > So, if I succeed on my grapple check for "Damage Your Opponent", I
    > > would deal damage as if I had executed an unarmed attack.
    >
    > Exactly.

    That's your opinion. You keep ignoring the meaning of "as if".

    > > This statement does not mean I performed an unarmed attack.
    >
    > That doesn't matter. So long as it works as if you had, anything that
    > follows from unarmed damage should work.

    Here is something from 3.5 SRD, Stunning Fist:
    "You must declare that you are using this feat before you
    make your attack roll".

    That means you have to make an attack roll, not a grapple check.

    3.5 FAQ says "grapple check is not an attack roll".
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <8Jsde.3942$GQ5.3360@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    Michael Scott Brown <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
    >"Lorenz Lang" <lang@netlife.invalid> wrote in message
    >news:pan.2005.05.02.12.34.24.527521@netlife.invalid...
    >> Besides, the FAQ 3.5 isn't clear beyond doubt on the subject IMO.
    >> The 'Vow of Poverty' answer says:
    >> '...a grapple check is not an attack roll...'
    >> Later in another answer I read:
    >> '...you make a grapple check, which is like a melee attack roll...'
    >> with a reference to the grapple rules in the PHB.
    >>
    >> Either a grapple check 'isn't a melee attack' or 'it is like'?
    >
    > You *do* realize, don't you, that these two statements do not conflict?

    Maybe yes, maybe no -- he's German, remember?
    --
    "Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
    http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    decalod85 wrote:
    > So, if I succeed on my grapple check for "Damage Your Opponent", I
    > would deal damage as if I had executed an unarmed attack.

    Exactly.

    > This statement does not mean I performed an unarmed attack.

    That doesn't matter. So long as it works as if you had, anything that
    follows from unarmed damage should work.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd wrote:
    >> I didn't say it was. I said that it deals damage as an unarmed strike.
    >> You might want to try reading instead of ranting. It deals damage as if
    >> it were an unarmed strike, so anything that triggers off unarmed strike
    >> damage should also work.

    Michael Scott Brown wrote:
    > You will have an amusing time reading some variants of swallow whole
    > rules that say the gullet does the same damage as a tail slap, with
    > the "logic" you are using.

    Where's the conflict?
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    >
    > I'm not ignoring "as if"; I'm using it the same way that rulebooks
    and
    > similar specifications do. Specs usually use "as if" to mean that a
    > feature works exactly like some other feature. In this case, grapple
    > damage works exactly like unarmed strike damage. Since Stunning Fist
    > works any time you deal unarmed attack damage, and grappling damage
    > works as if it were an unarmed attack, Stunning fist also works when
    you
    > deal grappling damage.

    "As if" is a way of explaining that they work the same, while at
    the same time avoiding saying that they are the same.

    In 3.5 it says "While grappling, you can deal damage to your
    opponent equivalent to an unarmed strike." If it was an
    unarmed strike, they would say "While grappling, you can deal
    damage to your opponent with an unarmed strike."

    Please note that equivalent does not mean "exactly the same".
    It means the damage is calculated in the same way...

    > Since a grapple check is explicitly like an attack roll, and
    grappling
    > damage works as if it were an unarmed strike, I would interpret that
    to
    > mean that the grapple check is equivalent to an attack roll for this
    > purpose.

    Except for the part in the FAQ where it says "a grapple
    check is not an attack roll", and the part in the book
    where it never says attack roll, but says grapple check
    over and over. You can't deny this, but you continue
    to ignore it.

    If you don't make an attack roll, you can't have Stunning
    Fist. How can you have Stunning Fist if you don't roll
    your attack?

    Stand still, Laddie!
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    > Regarding how a grapple check "is like" an attack roll:
    >
    > Lorenz.Lang@gmx.de wrote:
    > > Preemptive disclaimer:
    > > My view *does* conflict with the FAQ 3.5, I know...
    >
    > Not really. While it's not exactly like other attack rolls, it still
    > uses the same basic mechanics, including the natural 1 & 20 rules
    > (according to the 3.0 FAQ). As you say, the only major difference is
    the
    > opposed roll for the difficulty class, instead of a static DC (armor
    > class).

    "A grapple check is not an attack roll."

    Sure, you calculate it in almost exactly the same way, and
    that is why they use "attack roll" when they are describing
    what a grapple check is.

    There is another major difference you missed: feat bonuses
    that are granted on attack rolls don't apply to grapple
    checks.

    Why, you might ask?

    Because, "A grapple check is not an attack roll."
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
    news:slrnd7cvad.qv5.bradd+news@szonye.com...
    > Bradd wrote:
    > >> I didn't say it was. I said that it deals damage as an unarmed strike.
    > >> You might want to try reading instead of ranting. It deals damage as if
    > >> it were an unarmed strike, so anything that triggers off unarmed strike
    > >> damage should also work.
    >
    > Michael Scott Brown wrote:
    > > You will have an amusing time reading some variants of swallow whole
    > > rules that say the gullet does the same damage as a tail slap, with
    > > the "logic" you are using.
    >
    > Where's the conflict?

    The part where the gullet isn't the tail, Bradd. Kindly get eaten by a
    shark and experience the difference for yourself.
    Gullet <> Tail.
    Unarmed strike <> Grappling damage.

    In each case, the "does damage as" phrasing just sets the appropriate
    scale of the damage (for gullets, so that when the monster is advanced, we
    know what value to pick for its gullet .. for grappling, so that we know
    what dice to pick for ..). It does not somehow transform the one into the
    other.

    You are being a moron.
    Stop.


    -Michael
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    decalod85 wrote:
    >>> So, if I succeed on my grapple check for "Damage Your Opponent", I
    >>> would deal damage as if I had executed an unarmed attack.

    Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    >> Exactly.

    > That's your opinion. You keep ignoring the meaning of "as if".

    I'm not ignoring "as if"; I'm using it the same way that rulebooks and
    similar specifications do. Specs usually use "as if" to mean that a
    feature works exactly like some other feature. In this case, grapple
    damage works exactly like unarmed strike damage. Since Stunning Fist
    works any time you deal unarmed attack damage, and grappling damage
    works as if it were an unarmed attack, Stunning fist also works when you
    deal grappling damage.

    >>> This statement does not mean I performed an unarmed attack.

    >> That doesn't matter. So long as it works as if you had, anything that
    >> follows from unarmed damage should work.

    > Here is something from 3.5 SRD, Stunning Fist: "You must declare that
    > you are using this feat before you make your attack roll".
    >
    > That means you have to make an attack roll, not a grapple check.

    Since a grapple check is explicitly like an attack roll, and grappling
    damage works as if it were an unarmed strike, I would interpret that to
    mean that the grapple check is equivalent to an attack roll for this
    purpose.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Regarding how a grapple check "is like" an attack roll:

    Lorenz.Lang@gmx.de wrote:
    > How much "unlike" can "is like" be? Some posters argued "is like" is
    > "not at all like" or "nearly not at all like", while I hold the view
    > that it's "100% like" except that you roll your attack against the
    > opponent's defense roll instead of his AC.

    I agree.

    > Preemptive disclaimer:
    > My view *does* conflict with the FAQ 3.5, I know...

    Not really. While it's not exactly like other attack rolls, it still
    uses the same basic mechanics, including the natural 1 & 20 rules
    (according to the 3.0 FAQ). As you say, the only major difference is the
    opposed roll for the difficulty class, instead of a static DC (armor
    class).
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    decalod85 <decalod85@comcast.net> wrote:
    > "A grapple check is not an attack roll."

    Repeating this does not make it relevant. The rules say that a grapple
    check is like an attack roll, so your comment is irrelevant unless you
    show that the non-attack-roll-like parts of the grapple check matter
    here.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
    news:slrnd7e09s.sfu.bradd+news@szonye.com...
    > decalod85 <decalod85@comcast.net> wrote:
    > > "A grapple check is not an attack roll."
    >
    > Repeating this does not make it relevant.

    Nice try, bitch.

    No-one believes you.

    -Michael
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mere moments before death, Bradd W. Szonye hastily scrawled:
    >You're putting far too much weight on the specific wording of the rules.

    *boggle*

    Isn't that your schtick?


    Ed Chauvin IV

    --
    DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
    use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
    kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
    modifier G @ 11.

    "I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
    --Terry Austin
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Lorenz Lang wrote:
    > 1)
    > Does a character get the +1 from Weapon Focus (grapple)
    > when making an opposed grapple check?
    >
    > The feat text states:
    > "You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected
    > weapon."
    >
    > The grapple rules say:
    > "A grapple check is like a melee attack roll."
    >
    > IMO the answer is yes. Together with Improved Grapple it's +5.
    >

    No. A grapple check is not an attack roll.

    > 2)
    > Can the "Damage Your Opponent" option in a grapple be used together
    > with the feat "Stunning Fist"?
    >
    > Stunning Fist has to be declared before the "attack roll" and the
    > opponent must be "damaged by your unarmed attack".
    >
    > Again I'd say yes.
    >
    > LL
    >

    No. However, you can use the "Attack Your Opponent" option with
    Stunning Fist.
  31. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    > Lorenz Lang wrote:
    >
    >
    > Grapple rules are Really Weird. That said, here's how I interpret them:
    >
    >
    >>1)
    >>Does a character get the +1 from Weapon Focus (grapple)
    >>when making an opposed grapple check?
    >
    >
    > I'd say yes. But I'd _really_ like someone official to finally state
    > unequivocally what bonuses DO and DO NOT apply to opposed grapple
    > checks.
    >

    "I have a monk with the Vow of Poverty feat (from Book
    of Exalted Deeds). Does the exalted strike bonus apply to
    grapple, sunder, disarm, and trip attempts?"

    The exalted strike bonus gained by a character who has
    taken Vow of Poverty applies only on attack and damage rolls.
    Unless something is described as an attack roll or a damage
    roll, the bonus doesn’t apply.
    • The touch attack made to start a grapple is an attack
    roll (so the bonus would apply to this roll), but a
    grapple check is not an attack roll, and thus the bonus
    wouldn’t apply to the grapple check. Likewise, the
    touch attack made to start a trip attack would gain the
    bonus, but the Strength check you make to trip the
    defender is not an attack roll and wouldn’t gain the
    bonus.
    • To attempt a disarm attack or a sunder attack, you
    make an attack roll opposed by the defender’s attack
    roll, so the exalted strike bonus would apply.

    >
    >>The feat text states:
    >>"You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected
    >>weapon."
    >>
    >>The grapple rules say:
    >>"A grapple check is like a melee attack roll."
    >>
    >>IMO the answer is yes. Together with Improved Grapple it's +5.
    >
    >
    > I would agree.
    >
    >
    >>2)
    >>Can the "Damage Your Opponent" option in a grapple be used together
    >>with the feat "Stunning Fist"?
    >>
    >>Stunning Fist has to be declared before the "attack roll" and the
    >>opponent must be "damaged by your unarmed attack".
    >>
    >>Again I'd say yes.
    >
    >
    > I would say no to this one, mostly for flavour reasons. Stunning fist,
    > is, IMO, a punch or kick, not a choke.
    >
    > But I'm not at all strong in my convictions here.
    >
    >
    >>LL
    >
    >
    > Laszlo
    >
  32. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Senator Blutarsky wrote:
    > So if the monster has a feat that says it "hurls an opponent damaged
    > by its tail slap 50 feet through the air," you would declare that its
    > gullet, which "deals damage equivalent to its tail slap," *also* hurls
    > the opponent 50 feet through the air?

    Heh, good example! No, I wouldn't declare that.

    The difference here is that the tail-hurling ability is specific to the
    tail slap, whereas Stunning Fist applies to all of a creature's unarmed
    attacks. That's significant when comparing "likes" and "as ifs."
    Grappling is a special attack that is almost entirely like an unarmed
    attack; therefore, most rules that apply to all unarmed attacks (e.g.,
    Stunning Fist) should also apply to grappling. However, grappling is
    almost entirely unlike a tail slap; therefore, rules that only apply to
    tail slaps (e.g., the rule above) should not apply to grappling.

    I could be wrong here, but it seems like a reasonable interpretation to
    me, and it's obvious how to apply the rule: You must declare Stunning
    Fist before the grapple check, and you force a save vs stunning if you
    succeed.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  33. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    > MisterMichael wrote:
    >
    >>Your conclusion impugns your competence. Please consult the grappling
    >>rules again. Notice there is a *separate provision* for making
    >>attacks and unarmed strikes. This is the mechanism by which the
    >>stunning fist manifests --
    >
    >
    > Incorrect. Stunning Fist affects foes "damaged by your unarmed attack"
    > (SRD, "Feats"). It's not limited to unarmed strikes; it works with any
    > unarmed attack that deals damage, including attacks with natural
    > weapons. Is grappling an unarmed attack? The grappling rules explicitly
    > state that "you deal damage to the target as if with an unarmed strike"
    > (SRD, "Combat II"). It deals damage as an unarmed strike, so Stunning
    > Fist should work normally (i.e, declare it before the grapple check, and
    > add the effect to the unarmed strike damage).

    The "Damage Your Opponent" option isn't an attack. It's a grapple check.
    The two are not the same.
  34. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
    news:slrnd7fav6.ujb.bradd+news@szonye.com...
    > Senator Blutarsky wrote:
    > The difference here is that the tail-hurling ability is specific to the
    > tail slap, whereas Stunning Fist applies to all of a creature's unarmed
    > attacks.

    You have a simply *amazing* ability to take statements out of context.
    Stop reading each sentence as if it existed in vacuum. The passage as a
    whole makes it very clear that the intended mechanic is "add stunning fist
    effect to an unarmed strike" (which would be used in a grapple via the
    "attack your opponent" maneuver). It's not as if your mistake hasn't been
    decisively demonstrated already - the mechanics of how to use stunning fist
    (attack roll based) do not co-exist with the "damage your opponent" rules.

    > I could be wrong here, but it seems like a reasonable interpretation to
    me,

    Which means that it isn't to anyone else. Just like with the animals,
    you have chosen a *stupid* way to implement your aesthetic preferences (ie;
    that monks in grapples can stun) when there are perfectly good mechanics for
    doing them already (ATTACK).

    -Michael
  35. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    > Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    >
    >>>Is grappling an unarmed attack?
    >
    >
    > decalod85 wrote:
    >
    >>According to the 3.5 D&D faq, page 10, a grappling check is not an
    >>attack [roll].
    >
    >
    > But the D&D 3.0 FAQ said the opposite: "For the attacker (that is, the
    > character trying to disarm a foe or accomplish something with a grapple
    > check) a natural 1 fails and a natural 20 succeeds, no matter what the
    > defender rolls."

    The 3.0 FAQ also said that monsters make grapple checks based on their
    BAB and not their number of natural weapons. That's changed in 3.5:

    http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050322a

    What makes you think otherwise?

    >The reasoning is that an offensive grapple check is an
    > attack roll. Likewise, Weapon Focus (grapple) only makes sense if the
    > grapple check is an attack roll.
    >
    > And regardless of whether a grapple check is an attack roll, it's
    > definitely an (unarmed) attack action.

    The grapple check that accompanies a successful grab isn't an action
    at all, dunderhead:

    http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050301a
  36. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Michael Scott Brown wrote:
    > You have a simply *amazing* ability to take statements out of context
    > .... The passage as a whole makes it very clear that the intended
    > mechanic is "add stunning fist effect to an unarmed strike" --

    Incorrect. Stunning Fist applies to /any/ unarmed attack, not just to
    unarmed strikes. I'm not taking the rule out of context; you're
    /inventing/ a context that does not actually appear in the rules. RTFM.

    >> I could be wrong here, but it seems like a reasonable interpretation
    >> to me ....

    > Which means that it isn't to anyone else.

    I think it's reasonable, therefore it isn't? Tsk tsk, sloppy thinking.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  37. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Lorenz Lang wrote:

    > I'll allow boni from WF and IG to the grapple check and even allow
    > SF together with a grapple check as a house rule, because I simply
    > don't like the above line of reasoning. It's quite concise, but the
    > conclusion isn't satisfying (to me).

    OK.

    > Besides, the FAQ 3.5 isn't clear beyond doubt on the subject IMO.

    Well, it's pretty clear. It just seems to make a change from 3.0. Of
    course,
    some things that were changed were for the better (standing up, for
    example).

    > The 'Vow of Poverty' answer says:
    > '...a grapple check is not an attack roll...'
    > Later in another answer I read:
    > '...you make a grapple check, which is like a melee attack roll...'
    > with a reference to the grapple rules in the PHB.
    >

    A Holstein cow is not a Jersey cow.

    A Holstein cos is like a Jersey cow.

    > Either a grapple check 'isn't a melee attack' or 'it is like'?
    > Better question: To what degree is it like a melee attack,
    > or what qualities does a grapple check lack?
    >

    Hint: they call it a "check" for a reason.

    > The most important difference is the determination of success.
    > With a grapple check you don't have to beat the opponents AC,
    > you have to beat his roll. The opponents 'sets the AC' for your
    > 'attack' with his grapple check - as I'm inclined to interpret the
    > rules.
    >

    There's a variant rule which allows to do the same during normal
    combat. However, you still use a different size modifier during
    grappling than you do during normal melee combat.


    > <grumble, grumble...>
    > Would anybody let alone a monk take IG under this cruel ruling?
    > ;-)
    >

    Sure. Improved Grapple is a very useful feat, especially for Small
    characters to overcome their size penalty. Size does matter, after
    all.

    :-)

    >
    >>Just make the attack at -4. The loss of their dex modifier will
    >>help make up for it anyway.
    >
    >
    > You don't loose your Dex mod against your opponent in a grapple,
    > you loose it against opponents _out_ of the grapple.
    > So that's cold comfort...
    >
    > LL

    No, but your opponent doesn't threaten an area, so there's no AOO.
  38. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    decalod85 wrote:

    > Except for the part in the FAQ where it says "a grapple
    > check is not an attack roll", and the part in the book
    > where it never says attack roll, but says grapple check
    > over and over. You can't deny this, but you continue
    > to ignore it.
    >
    > If you don't make an attack roll, you can't have Stunning
    > Fist. How can you have Stunning Fist if you don't roll
    > your attack?
    >
    > Stand still, Laddie!
    >

    Decalod85, meet Bradd. Bradd, meet Decalod85.
  39. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    I guess since the thread has devolved into a pissing
    match between MSB and Bradd, and since no one is
    making an argument based on the rules or logic that
    hasn't been made 15 times, it's time for me to
    declare complete and total victory.

    Huzzah!
  40. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd W. Szonye wrote:

    > So what? It works almost exactly the same way, except for a few minor
    > details that wouldn't change the way the feat works. Just substitute
    > "grapple check" for "attack roll" and the feat makes perfect sense.
    > You're putting far too much weight on the specific wording of the rules.

    Oh, the irony!
  41. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    > decalod85 <decalod85@comcast.net> wrote:
    >
    >>"A grapple check is not an attack roll."
    >
    >
    > Repeating this does not make it relevant. The rules say that a grapple
    > check is like an attack roll, so your comment is irrelevant unless you
    > show that the non-attack-roll-like parts of the grapple check matter
    > here.

    "A Dodge Dart is like a Plymouth Valiant.
    A Dodge Dart is not a Plymouth Valiant."

    And you're the one crowing about your logic skills, O Best Beloved!
  42. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
    > You and others keep citing the FAQ as proof that it's not at all like
    an
    > attack roll, even though the rulebook explicitly says the opposite.

    No, dipshit, we are citing the part of the FAQ that
    explicitly says "a grapple check is not an attack."

    Your arguments that "because they are alike, they
    are the same", in direct opposition to what the
    FAQ very, very plainly states, is just plain
    idiotic.

    Now, please stop publicly embarassing yourself. It
    is pretty painful to watch, almost like watching
    an episode of 'Curb your Enthusiasm'.
  43. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
    news:slrnd7fi6f.ujb.bradd+news@szonye.com...
    > Michael Scott Brown wrote:
    > > You have a simply *amazing* ability to take statements out of context
    > > .... The passage as a whole makes it very clear that the intended
    > > mechanic is "add stunning fist effect to an unarmed strike" --
    >
    > Incorrect. Stunning Fist applies to /any/ unarmed attack, not just to
    > unarmed strikes.

    So you can do a stunning fist with the touch attack to initiate a
    grapple?

    > I'm not taking the rule out of context; you're
    > /inventing/ a context that does not actually appear in the rules. RTFM.

    You first, you illiterate bitch. CONTEXT MATTERS.

    > >> I could be wrong here, but it seems like a reasonable interpretation
    > >> to me ....
    >
    > > Which means that it isn't to anyone else.
    >
    > I think it's reasonable, therefore it isn't? Tsk tsk, sloppy thinking.

    Just a casual observation. You're a *moron* this week.

    -Michael
  44. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd wrote:
    >>>> I could be wrong here, but it seems like a reasonable interpretation
    >>>> to me ....

    Michael "Humpty Dumpty" Brown wrote:
    >>> Which means that it isn't to anyone else.

    >> I think it's reasonable, therefore it isn't? Tsk tsk, sloppy thinking.

    > Just a casual observation.

    This simply proves that you use "sloppy thinking" to mean "only what
    other people do." STFU, Humpty.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  45. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
    news:slrnd7fss4.4cm.bradd+news@szonye.com...
    > Bradd wrote:
    > Michael "Humpty Dumpty" Brown wrote:
    > >>> Which means that it isn't to anyone else.
    >
    > >> I think it's reasonable, therefore it isn't? Tsk tsk, sloppy thinking.
    >
    > > Just a casual observation.
    >
    > This simply proves that you use "sloppy thinking" to mean "only what
    > other people do." STFU, Humpty.

    <yawn>
    It is highly amusing that you think you have a point. Once again, you
    seem to have confused what you think with what is reasonable. Hint: you were
    being mocked.
    <shakes head sadly>
    I am quite happy to agree that it is inappropriate to assert that your
    positions are wrong simply because it was you who posted them.
    Nonetheless, your every judgment this week is in diametric opposition to
    reality. Your idiocy and absurdity have become quite reliable.


    -Michael
  46. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Bradd wrote:
    >> >> I think it's reasonable, therefore it isn't? Tsk tsk, sloppy thinking.

    Michael "Scarecrow" Brown wrote:
    >> > Just a casual observation.

    >> This simply proves that you use "sloppy thinking" to mean "only what
    >> other people do." STFU, Humpty.

    > It is highly amusing that you think you have a point. Once again, you
    > seem to have confused what you think with what is reasonable. Hint:
    > you were being mocked.

    Right. The "I was only joking" defense. If you only had a brain, I might
    believe you.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  47. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
    > Mere moments before death, Bradd W. Szonye hastily scrawled:
    >
    >>You're putting far too much weight on the specific wording of the rules.
    >
    >
    > *boggle*
    >
    > Isn't that your schtick?
    >
    >
    >
    > Ed Chauvin IV
    >

    It's proof that, deep down inside that OCD shell, Bradd really does have a
    sense of humor. That's WHY he's my favorite RGFDer. (Sorry, Ed.)
  48. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Some Guy wrote:
    > The "Damage Your Opponent" option isn't an attack --

    Of course it is, regardless of whether you consider grapple checks to be
    attack rolls. STFU, kook.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
  49. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Some Guy wrote:
    > Hint: they call it a "check" for a reason.

    Yes, because you use it for defense, not just attack rolls. Other than
    that, it works almost exactly like an attack roll. The rulebook even
    says that it's like a melee attack roll.

    You and others keep citing the FAQ as proof that it's not at all like an
    attack roll, even though the rulebook explicitly says the opposite.

    In short: STFU, kook.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games