Grappling questions

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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. "

 

[Guest]

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

Apologies to all. My newsreader munged up my post really good.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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 ).

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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
> >newsan.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...
)

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

 

[Guest]

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

"Lorenz Lang" <lang@netlife.invalid> wrote in message
newsan.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

 

[Mouse]

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
>newsan.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

 

[Guest]

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".

 

[Guest]

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
>newsan.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...)

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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!

 

[Guest]

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."

 

[Guest]

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