Attacking Grappled Creatures: Who gets hit?

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
See my edit.

Why, yes - it appears that, at some point in the past, I was attacked by the nefarious .sig virus! How on earth could that have happened?!


Hmmm... not sure if that's sarcastic or not. But anyway it's gone.

Grappling (but attacker is not) Melee:+0;1 Ranged: +0;1,3

I don't understand how this line means you always hit your target in melee. Is this what you're talking about?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The part, which says to randomize is only marked for ranged attacks in the table, not for melee attacks.

And darkmantle are rather special cases, normally a grapple does not work that way, and the rules are for standard situations.

You can always feel free as a DM to rule otherwise, like full damage to the darkmantle, plus half damage (or (d100)% damage) to the PC.

Bye
Thanee
 

Ninja-to said:
Hmmm... not sure if that's sarcastic or not. But anyway it's gone.

It's sarcastic. :)

It's also not gone. .sigs only appear for the first post for a given poster on each page.

Grappling (but attacker is not) Melee:+0;1 Ranged: +0;1,3

I don't understand how this line means you always hit your target in melee. Is this what you're talking about?

The attack roll modifier for melee attacks when the defender is grappling but the attacker isn't is +0, with Note 1. The attack roll modifier for ranged attacks when the defender is grappling but the attacker isn't is +0, with Notes 1 and 3.

Note 1 states that the defender loses its Dex bonus to AC.
Note 3 states that you randomly determine who is actually hit, and the defender loses its Dex bonus to AC.

Since Note 3 does not apply to melee attack rolls, you do not randomly determine who is actually hit by a melee attack. Therefore, a melee attack always hits its intended target.
 

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
Therefore, a melee attack always hits its intended target.
Perhaps he is thinking that you mean by that that the attacker automatically hits his target without a need to make an attack roll rather than there is not randomness to target acquisition.
 


No I just didn't know where you saw that melee attacks aren't subject to a random chance of hitting either creature.

Ok that's lame. I don't like that rule one bit.
 


Let's take for example a creature like a facehugger from Aliens (come on it's just an example). You have your ally 'hugged' and then pick up your trusty two-handed flaming sword and swing at your friend's head. That is some crazy surgery.
 

But that's not a typical grapple example, as explained above.

Take a bear grappling a man. That's a typical grapple example.

Bye
Thanee
 

Thanee said:
I think it makes perfect sense, that melee attacks have more precision against grappling combatants (except for greatswords or lances and the like, but the rule is just to keep it simple).

The size factor I probably have from another game then... but I'd always use size as a factor there.

..., Tiny = ¼, Small = ½, Medium = 1, Large = 2, Huge = 4, ...

So, if one medium creature is grappling with one large creature, chances are 33% vs 67%; medium vs small would be 67% vs 33%; medium vs huge would be 20% vs 80%; and so on.

Bye
Thanee
We handle it exactly the same way :)

Ninja-to said:
No I just didn't know where you saw that melee attacks aren't subject to a random chance of hitting either creature.

Ok that's lame. I don't like that rule one bit.
You know you have to make a touch attack to join a grapple. So if you have a 50/50 chance to touch the wrong one (your ally) you can't start the grapple (or grapple the wrong one). That would be silly. If you stand right beside two grappling people, why would it be hard to hit the right one with a dagger ?
Or do you want to randomly sneak attack your grappling comrade ?
It's a bit far fetched to hit some grappler for sure with a greatsword, but so is sneak attacking with a great axe. It's just simpler to differ in melee and ranged than in some lists of weapons.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top