attacking into a grapple

[fl8m]

last game a dire lion grappled the ranger, the rogue then sneak attacked the dire lion. The dm ruled that because of the confusion of the grapple there would be a 50% miss chance (01-50% hits lion, 51-100% hits ranger) In a bout of astounding bad luck the rogue then sneak attacked the ranger twice.

after looking in the rules (3.5) we couldn't find any reference to attacking grappling opponents at all. other than that they threatened no area and lost thier dex bonus. We all could have sworn we read something about a miss chance when attacking into a grapple.

Are there any rules on this? also, would the difference in size (ranger medium, lion large) make any difference for the attack?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Are there any rules on this? also, would the difference in size (ranger medium, lion large) make any difference for the attack?

If it's a ranged attack you 'randomly determine' which opponent is struck. (No percentages are given; it's reasonable to assume that two creatures of the same size would have equal chances of being hit, but once size categories vary, the DM has to make a judgement.)

If it's a melee attack, there's no chance of the attack going awry. Sneak attack away.

-Hyp.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

last game a dire lion grappled the ranger, the rogue then sneak attacked the dire lion. The dm ruled that because of the confusion of the grapple there would be a 50% miss chance (01-50% hits lion, 51-100% hits ranger) In a bout of astounding bad luck the rogue then sneak attacked the ranger twice.

Although this was a house rule, it's not really a bad call to make on the fly.

Where it goes bad is allowing a sneak attack when there's a "miss chance."

If a rogue can't aim precisely enough to avoid having a miss chance, sneak attack damage shouldn't apply, either on his actual target or on the accidental target. Just makes sense, and dovetails with the actual rule that you can't sneak attack when a target has concealment.

Basically, the DM sorta screwed the rogue by blowing the actual rule, but that's livable, IMO. Grappling is a confusing subset of the rules, after all. But he then compounded the error by screwing the rogue and ranger again, and that's where I'd have kicked up a small fuss.

Are there any rules on this? also, would the difference in size (ranger medium, lion large) make any difference for the attack?

No, there are no official rules on it to my knowledge, but you could reasonably extrapolate from the proportional size rules used in various places (such as monsters' Swallow Whole ability): four Smalls make a Medium, four Mediums make a Large, and so forth. So a Medium in a grapple with a Large would be a 1:4 ratio, which would equate to a 20 percent chance to hit the Medium and an 80 percent chance to hit the Large.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Where it goes bad is allowing a sneak attack when there's a "miss chance."

Well, if you can see invisible, you can sneak attack someone who's blinking, even though you have a 20% miss chance.

If you are using True Strike, and attack a foe with concealment, you're unaffected by the miss chance, but they're still 'a foe with concealment', and thus can't be sneak attacked.

It's the concealment, not the miss chance, that determines whether or not they can be sneak attacked.

No, there are no official rules on it to my knowledge, but you could reasonably extrapolate from the proportional size rules used in various places (such as monsters' Swallow Whole ability): four Smalls make a Medium, four Mediums make a Large, and so forth. So a Medium in a grapple with a Large would be a 1:4 ratio, which would equate to a 20 percent chance to hit the Medium and an 80 percent chance to hit the Large.

The other proportional size rule that directly relates to grappling is in the 'multiple grapplers' section - a creature one size larger counts as double, and more-than-one size larger counts as quadruple.

-Hyp.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

It's the concealment, not the miss chance, that determines whether or not they can be sneak attacked.

Do you think that might be why I said my suggestion "dovetails with the actual rule that you can't sneak attack when a target has concealment"? Doesn't that suggest to you, just a little, that I was aware of the rule?

My suggestion was simply that as long as the DM is using "common sense" to make a house rule, he should continue to apply "common sense," so as to avoid doubly-screwing the players. One way to do so would be to say sneak attack damage doesn't apply, due to the inability to be precise.

The other proportional size rule that directly relates to grappling is in the 'multiple grapplers' section - a creature one size larger counts as double, and more-than-one size larger counts as quadruple.

True, and that's probably a better ratio to use in this case, as it seems to model the two-dimensional proportions (i.e., targetable area) rather than three-dimensional proportions (i.e., volume in some beast's tummy).

 

[Hypersmurf]

My suggestion was simply that as long as the DM is using "common sense" to make a house rule, he should continue to apply "common sense," so as to avoid doubly-screwing the players. One way to do so would be to say sneak attack damage doesn't apply, due to the inability to be precise.

But it doesn't dovetail so nicely with the closest equivalent rule - the random determination of target with a ranged attack.

If a rogue shoots into a grapple, and hits someone who's denied Dex (as grapplers are), it's a sneak attack.

So a house rule that applies the same random determination rule to melee attacks would be consistent with the existing rule if the same applied...

-Hyp.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

So a house rule that applies the same random determination rule to melee attacks would be consistent with the existing rule if the same applied...

Thus doubly-screwing the players, which was explicitly what I was advocating against.

Jesus Christ, but I'm glad you're not my DM!


Jeff

 

[Hypersmurf]

Thus doubly-screwing the players, which was explicitly what I was advocating against.

Oh, I don't recommend house-ruling in the screwing of the players in the first place.

But if you do, the double-screwing maintains consistency.

-Hyp.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

But if you do, the double-screwing maintains consistency.

A writer fella named Emerson had a little something to say about consistency ... it's worth checking out.


Jeff

 

[Hypersmurf]

And yet one of 3E's main 'selling points' was consistency of mechanics.

-Hyp.