defensive fighting and special attacks

[mostholy2]

If you combine defensive fighting (or combat expertise) with a special attack (such as trip, grapple, disarm, etc...), does the -4 attack penalty from fighting defensively apply to the initial touch attack, the opposed check following the attack, or both?

 

[kjenks]

Trip: the attack penalty applies to your initial unarmed melee touch attack, but has no effect on your Strength check opposed by the defender’s Dexterity or Strength check.

Disarm: the attack penalty applies. If the defender is fighting defensively, he's easier to disarm.

Aid Another: the attack penalty applies.

Grapple: the attack penalty applies to both your initial melee touch attack (step 2) and to all of your grapple checks that round (step 3, Damage Your Opponent, etc., and any opposed check that your opponent makes to escape from the grapple). If the defender is fighting defensively, he's harder to hit with the initial touch attack, but easier to hold after you grab him.

Although the PH clearly says a grapple check is like a melee attack roll, so this penalty should apply, the FAQ is internally inconsistent on whether a grapple check is like a melee attack roll. In the "Vow of Poverty" entry (by Andy Collins), it is not. In the "Grappling while prone" entry (by Skip Williams) it is.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The initial touch attack only, or the opposed attack roll, depending on which combat maneuver you are using.

EDIT:

And I vehemently disagree with kjenks about the grapple checks. A grapple check is like, but is not, an attack roll.

 

[mostholy2]

So to follow this thread up, I've looked through the v3.5 FAQ and didn't find anything specifically relating to fighting defensively. However, since you've mentioned "vow of poverty", they clearly have a equivalent situation (but with an attack bonus instead of attack penalty).

From the v3.5 FAQ it states, "The exalted strike bonus gain by a character who has taken Vow of Poverty applies only on attack and damage rolls. Unless something is described as an attack roll or a damage roll, the bonus doesn't apply....

The touch attack made to start a grapple is an attack roll (so the bonus would apply to this roll), but a grapple check is not an attack roll, and thus the bonus wouldn't apply to the grapple check. Likewise, the rouch attack made to start a trip attack would gain the bonus, but the STr check you make to trip the defender is not an attack roll and wouldn't gain the bonus....

To attempt a disarm attack or a sunder attack, you make an attack roll opposed by the defender's attack roll, so the exalted strike bonus would apply."

If fighting defensively incurs an attack penalty, I would rule that it would mimick the case of VoP attack bonus and only apply on any rolls described as "attack rolls" not strength or grapple rolls. Therefore fighting defensively affects initial touch attacks for special attacks, the attack rolls for disarm and sunder, but does NOT affect grapple check or trip str. check rolls.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

If fighting defensively incurs an attack penalty, I would rule that it would mimick the case of VoP attack bonus and only apply on any rolls described as "attack rolls" not strength or grapple rolls. Therefore fighting defensively affects initial touch attacks for special attacks, the attack rolls for disarm and sunder, but does NOT affect grapple check or trip str. check rolls.

Agreed on all counts.

 

[kjenks]

In that same Main 3.5e FAQ, there is an entry about grappling while prone. In that answer, Bob gets a -4 penalty on grapple checks from being prone.

Now being prone imposes a -4 penalty on melee attacks, but not on ability checks or skill checks. So since Bob gets that -4 penalty, that must mean that grapple checks are like melee attack rolls (just as the PH says).

Earlier, you talked about Bob the fighter, who was
unconscious and later woke up, prone, to find Grog the orc
standing in his space. You said Bob has to stay prone so
long as he remained in Grog’s space, and that Bob would
provoke an attack of opportunity upon leaving that space.
Suppose Bob made a grapple attack on Grog? He can
grapple Grog, can’t he? Bob would be at a negative for
being prone but would not provoke an attack of
opportunity, would he? Assuming Bob establishes a hold on
Grog, how long does the prone penalty last?

Sure, Bob can grapple Grog. Bob’s initial grab attack
provokes an attack of opportunity from Grog unless Bob has
the Improved Grapple feat or some other circumstance prevents
Grog from threatening Bob. (For example, Grog would not
threaten Bob if Grog were wielding a reach weapon.) If Grog
deals damage to Bob with an attack of opportunity, Bob’s
grapple attempt is over.

If Grog doesn’t damage Bob, Bob’s initial touch attack
would suffer a –4 penalty for being prone. If the grab succeeds,
Bob is still prone and still suffers the –4 penalty for being
prone for the ensuing opposed grapple check. [...]

The PH says flat-out that grapple checks are like melee attack rolls, then it describes the single way in which they are different: size modifiers.

Also check out the old 3e FAQ at the bottom of page 45. Auto-success on a natural 20 and auto-failure on a natural 1 are part of attack rolls. Since this FAQ entry applies that concept to grapple checks, that makes them look even more like attack rolls.

And there's a balance issue, too. Since a grapple check is like a melee attack roll, if you use Power Attack to get a damage bonus to your damage, you'll take a penalty on your attack rolls. This includes the touch attack in grapple step 2 and all grapple checks.

If you treat grapple checks as being something completely different from melee attack rolls, Power Attack should impose no penalty on grapple checks -- but you still get the damage bonus on your "unarmed strike" damage. So every grappler with Power Attack would get something for nothing.

 

[mostholy2]

How convoluted is this, that attack bonuses (or penalties) apply differently to different special attack opposed rolls.

So taking this argument one step further, if you have an enchanted or masterwork weapon (or anything) that gives +X to attack rolls, the +X would be applied to all "attack rolls" including, opposed disarm and sunder rolls when using the weapon (or item).

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The PH says flat-out that grapple checks are like melee attack rolls

Yes, and plains are often like seas - of grass.

If the PHB wanted to say that grapple checks were melee attack rolls, they would have said, "Grapple checks are melee attack rolls with a different size modifier: etc."

Instead, they said:

A grapple check is like a melee attack roll. Your attack bonus on a grapple check is:

Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + special size modifier

In fact, the fact that they laid out all the modifiers for a grapple check - as opposed to just referencing melee attack rolls and providing a new size modifier - speaks to them not actually being attack rolls.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

So taking this argument one step further, if you have an enchanted or masterwork weapon (or anything) that gives +X to attack rolls, the +X would be applied to all "attack rolls" including, opposed disarm and sunder rolls when using the weapon (or item).

Yes - if I am attempting to disarm or sunder with my +4 longsword, I get the sword's +4 bonus on the opposed attack roll.

I do not get the sword's +4 bonus on the unarmed melee touch attack to begin a trip, a grapple, or my grapple check.

 

[mostholy2]

kjenks: I see your point on PA during the grapple. Getting something for nothing is a good deal and obscenely abusive. I guess one way around it is to disqualify PA when grappling, as damage during grappling could be considered as "grappling damage" as opposed to "melee damage" and thus could be interpreted to disqualify PA from damage during grapples.

That being said, what is the best way to get an "official" ruling on the specific case of grapple checks? As we seem to all be in agreement on the other special attacks.