Attacking Someone Who Is Being Grappled

[el-remmen]

I cannot find any rules for attacking someone who is being grappled, except that they lose their dex adjustment.

Shouldn't there be a chance to hit the other person grappling as well?

I have been rulling that both grappling people gain 50% cover and a miss by the amount of the cover bonus (+4) means you hit the other person,

Thus, if the target has an AC 13 normally, with the cover it would be 17, so if the attacker hits between AC 13 and 16 the other person grappling gets hit instead.

It seems to make sense if you keep in mind that the two people are wrestling around and are in constant motion.

Are there any actual rules for this somewhere, though? It seems strange that such a topic would be overlooked in both 3.0 and 3.5

 

[shilsen]

By the RAW, there is no chance to hit the wrong target in a grapple with melee weapons. There is a chance to hit the wrong target with ranged weapons, however. Considering that the ranged weapon aspect is specifically dealt with, I don't think that it has been overlooked. The designers presumably didn't think it was necessary that there be a problem with melee weapons.

 

[Coredump]

Like most issues, however, I beleive that DM involvement is the best answer.

If you are using a dagger, not a problem. If you are using a whip, big problem. Also may be a bit problematic if using other flail or large weapons. Pin-pointing your target with a flail or greatsword may be a bit difficult, and I could see a chance at failing. Or perhaps the attacker can take a -X to be sure not to hit his buddy. (like the -4 for range attacks into melee.)

IMNSHO, the billions of variables inherrent in running a RPG make consistent rules impossible to make sense. That is why we have DM's.... (That, and so we have someone to blame when our stupidity leads to TPK)

.

 

[DrSpunj]

Are there any actual rules for this somewhere, though? It seems strange that such a topic would be overlooked in both 3.0 and 3.5

I have to agree with shilsen, since they addressed a ranged attack randomly affecting any target involved in a grapple I think it was a conscious design decision on their part, just not a good one.

IMC my House Rule uses the same chance as that defined in the Core Rules for attacking someone in the middle of a Bull Rush attempt, that is, a 25% chance to hit an unintended target with a melee attack. If so, all other targets involved in the grapple have an equally random chance of being struck. This random chance does not occur if your intended target is pinned or is pinning another creature, as then they aren't rolling around and therefore it's easier to strike your target.

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[Andromeda Sprain]

I cannot find any rules for attacking someone who is being grappled, except that they lose their dex adjustment.

The answer you are looking for is in a hard to find spot. It's a footnote to the Armor Class Modifiers table in the PH. I'm at work so I don't have a page for you. When attacking someone who is in a grapple (and you are not), you roll randomly to see which grappling combatant you strike. That defender loses any Dexterity bonus to AC.

Hope this helps.

AS

 

[Ferox4]

The answer you are looking for is in a hard to find spot. It's a footnote to the Armor Class Modifiers table in the PH. I'm at work so I don't have a page for you. When attacking someone who is in a grapple (and you are not), you roll randomly to see which grappling combatant you strike. That defender loses any Dexterity bonus to AC.

Hope this helps.

AS

Really? Wow - I'll go check that out.

IMC we play it just like DrSpunj - seems to work fine.

 

[DrSpunj]

The answer you are looking for is in a hard to find spot. It's a footnote to the Armor Class Modifiers table in the PH.

I believe you're referring to Table 8-6 on page 151, but it doesn't support your statement. The Grappling line lists +0 for both Melee and Ranged attacks, however the footnotes are different between the two.

For Melee there is a '1' which does indeed state the Defender loses their Dex bonus to AC.

For Ranged there is a '1' and a '3'. The '3' says "Roll randomly to see which grappling combatant you strike. That defender loses any Dexterity bonus to AC."

Heh, never noticed #3 incorporated #1 making the #1 redundant for the Ranged entry. Anyway, the point is there doesn't seem to be a miss chance in the Core Rules for targeting a grappler with a Melee Attack, only for Ranged Attacks. Why they address a very similar situation with Bull Rushes but don't here seems silly to me, hence my House Rule above.

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[Andromeda Sprain]

I believe you're referring to Table 8-6 on page 151, but it doesn't support your statement. The Grappling line lists +0 for both Melee and Ranged attacks, however the footnotes are different between the two.

Yep that's the table I was thinking of. I thought the randomness applied to both ranged and melee attacks but I guess I can't read. Forget everything I said earler...

AS

 

[argo]

I have to agree with shilsen, since they addressed a ranged attack randomly affecting any target involved in a grapple I think it was a conscious design decision on their part, just not a good one.

On the contrary, I think the decision that you can target whichever grappler you want with a meele attack makes perfect sense. In fact I would go so far as to say that it is half of the point of grappling in the first place. It is the old "I'll hold him, you hit him" routine.

And when the one doing the hitting hapens to be the party rogue.....

Remember, grappling does not have to mean that the two of you are rolling around on the ground like a couple of fish out of water. It can also include arm and wrist locks and many other upright holds where it would make perfect sense for a person not involved in the grapple to simply take one step left and stab their target in the back without any danger of hitting the wrong person.

 

[GodPhoenix]

So you mention the dex thing...here it is from the SRD:

No Dexterity Bonus: You lose your Dexterity bonus to AC (if you have one) against opponents you aren’t grappling. (You can still use it against opponents you are grappling.) [/QUOTE

It implies that you can be attacked while grappling from a someone outside the grapple...that plus the table strongly imply that you can

Also, Skip Williams mentions grappling in All About Sneak Attacks pt 2...again implying that yes you can.

Probably wouldn't hold up in a court...but it's pretty good evidence.