A situation has occured in my current game where the enemy has grappled a friendly NPC and a nearby PC wants to attack the enemy. The rules in the PHB don't say anything about an outside person trying to atack one of a grappled pair. Does anyone have any insight as to how this would be handled? I assume the PC could end up hitting the NPC or something. Maybe it would just be best if the PC joined in the grapple?
Attacking a Grappled Pair?
- Thread starter RaZZer99
- Start date
The rules DO cover that. Look on page 132, on the table Attack Roll Modifiers.
A grappled target is denied his Dexterity bonus to AC against people outside the grapple. Other than that, melee attacks gain no bonus or penalty to hit him. Ranged attacks may hit any one of the grapplers.
A grappled target is denied his Dexterity bonus to AC against people outside the grapple. Other than that, melee attacks gain no bonus or penalty to hit him. Ranged attacks may hit any one of the grapplers.
Kae'Yoss
First Post
RaZZer99 said:Thanks. The rules are not obviously all in the same place
That's OK. Would be a really crowded page.
The problem is that often pieces of information refer to several rules at once. Reprinting them all at every place needed would be a bit to much.
Though it still needs some tweaking, AD&D was much worse: A Level-Up took you through the whole book, and that's just for the usual stuff like saves, ETW0, skills and spells.
RaZZer99 said:
Are you an evil-minded DM or a character who seeks an excuse for hitting allies?
reapersaurus
Explorer
I'm sure he's just a rational human being.KaeYoss said:Are you an evil-minded DM or a character who seeks an excuse for hitting allies?
I distictly remember when Ubaar grappled an Imp, and it was quite reasonable that a fellow PC's attacks on the Imp would have a chance at hitting the person holding it.
I don't think we came to a very good resolution on that, except for seeing the rules that stated HOW MANY PC's could be grappling a Tiny Imp.
One thing that isn't crystal clear, is: do rogues get sneak attack damage against their ally if they miss their foe with a ranged weapon within 30'?
Grappled foes (and allies) lose their dex bonus to AC. Ranged attacks against grappled foes roll randomly to determine who is targeted. This *almost* sounds like concealment, which would render sneak attack useless (but it's NOT concealment). I've heard arguments that state that the "target" is the foe, and since the ally is not the target (in relation to the rogue), then sneak attack would not apply. Also, "deadly accuracy" that is mentioned sounds like aiming...and you're aiming at your foe, not your ally.
So, what do you think is the letter of the law here? I think the above reasons are not good enough to rule sneak attack would only apply to your foe, or "intended" target. Personally though, I might house rule that it is concealment, and allow no sneak attack on either foe. Note, that this SHOULD be cover (since it is a physical obstacle), but since they already used a rule that incorporates a concealment-like aspect, I chose to just add to that existing rule. As for what's official, I like the idea that a rogue firing at a foe who is grappling with his buddy, might just tag his friend but good. It SHOULD be dangerous to do something like that. But, I'd like to see what others have to say about this.
Grappled foes (and allies) lose their dex bonus to AC. Ranged attacks against grappled foes roll randomly to determine who is targeted. This *almost* sounds like concealment, which would render sneak attack useless (but it's NOT concealment). I've heard arguments that state that the "target" is the foe, and since the ally is not the target (in relation to the rogue), then sneak attack would not apply. Also, "deadly accuracy" that is mentioned sounds like aiming...and you're aiming at your foe, not your ally.
So, what do you think is the letter of the law here? I think the above reasons are not good enough to rule sneak attack would only apply to your foe, or "intended" target. Personally though, I might house rule that it is concealment, and allow no sneak attack on either foe. Note, that this SHOULD be cover (since it is a physical obstacle), but since they already used a rule that incorporates a concealment-like aspect, I chose to just add to that existing rule. As for what's official, I like the idea that a rogue firing at a foe who is grappling with his buddy, might just tag his friend but good. It SHOULD be dangerous to do something like that. But, I'd like to see what others have to say about this.
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
By the letter of the law, a rogues sneak attack damage would probably apply if they hit their friend with a ranged weapon while shooting into a grapple.
On the other hand, this is probably a good spot for several DM adjudications. First, there should be a much better chance of hitting a large creature grappling a small character than of hitting the character. The rules don't indicate that.
The other one is this: sneak attacks require the ability to precisely target an attack. If you weren't aiming at a target (such as your friend when shooting into a grapple), you can't get sneak attack damage against that target.
On the other hand, this is probably a good spot for several DM adjudications. First, there should be a much better chance of hitting a large creature grappling a small character than of hitting the character. The rules don't indicate that.
The other one is this: sneak attacks require the ability to precisely target an attack. If you weren't aiming at a target (such as your friend when shooting into a grapple), you can't get sneak attack damage against that target.
Similar Threads
