Grappling a stunned opponent

[Jeb McDonald]

This situation came up the other day--The PC missed a saving throw and, as a result, was stunned for a number of rounds. Sensing the opportunity, the PC's opponent initiated a grapple with the stunned PC.
Under "stunned", the PHB says: "A stunned creature drops everything held, can't take actions, takes a -2 penalty to AC, and loses his Dexterity bonus (if any)."
Can he defend himself against the grapple or is this "taking an action"? If he can defend himself, what sort of circumstance bonus should be given to the initiator of the grapple? If he can't, is the grapple attempt automatically successful?
Just so you know, we ruled the opponent got a +10 circumstance bonus to his grapple check. Were we right? Even close?
Thank you!

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

You are overthinking it. While your approach seems plausible while relying on common sense, it is incorrect with respect to the rules.

A Stunned target gets a normal grapple check (BAB + Str _ Size mod). No penalty there at all. Defending oneself in this manner is not considered an action by the definitions used by the rules.

The disadvantages are straightforward enough:
(1) No AoO for the start of grapple because the Stunned combatant has no threat zone.
(2) Net bonus to touch attack to start grapple because of lower AC.
(3) Target will not attempt to break grapple or counterattack while stunned.
(4) Target has dropped weapon and is unarmed.

That is the rules answer.

The deeper, philosophical answer is that D&D purposely avoids setting up "You are screwed, therefore you are really, really, really screwed" situations. Common sense is irrelevant. It is an issue of attempting to create a certain heroic style to the combats. Being stunned is already sufficient penalty without getting creative about adding new disadvantages.

 

[Hypersmurf]

(1) No AoO for the start of grapple because the Stunned combatant has no threat zone.

That question becomes more complicated with IUS or natural weapons

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

That question becomes more complicated with IUS or natural weapons

-Hyp.

I don't think it's intended to be more complicated. You can't take any actions while stunned, and most DM's would include AoO's in that. (I know that technically, taking an AoO is not an action, but it seems pretty clear what the intent is here.)

 

[Hypersmurf]

(I know that technically, taking an AoO is not an action...)

That's the complication

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

That's the complication

-Hyp.

Only if you choose to ignore the clear intent of the rules.

 

[vezopub]

It does say the checks are made as free actions. Does that count as an action not able to be done while stunned?

 

[irdeggman]

You can only take AoO against a square that you threaten.

And you threaten any square that you can make a melee attack into even if it isn't your turn.

If you can't take any actions - do you threaten since you can't normally make an attack?

 

[Vegepygmy]

You can only take AoO against a square that you threaten.

And you threaten any square that you can make a melee attack into even if it isn't your turn.

If you can't take any actions - do you threaten since you can't normally make an attack?

Exactly the correct analysis. And I assume that was a rhethorical question, but I'll answer it anyway, for the benefit of those who may lack analytical skills: No.

 

[Vegepygmy]

It does say the checks are made as free actions. Does that count as an action not able to be done while stunned?

(1) No, it says the attacker makes the check as a free action.
(2) Free actions are a kind of action; if you can't take any actions, you can't take a free action.