Grapple Checks and Natural 1

[Pinotage]

Is a natural 1 on a grapple check an automatic failure? The text says it's 'like a melee attack roll' but it's also a check, so my guess would be no.

Pinotage

 

[Jhulae]

Is a natural 1 on a grapple check an automatic failure? The text says it's 'like a melee attack roll' but it's also a check, so my guess would be no.

Pinotage

On the touch attack to initiate the grapple, yes.

On the opposed roll, no.

 

[shilsen]

What Jhulae said.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Thirded, but I've seen many people allow natural 1's as "automatic failure" and natural 20's as "automatic success." I strongly disagree with that ruling, however, because it creates an unresolvable paradox if both opponents roll the same thing. You can then further houserule it as a tie or whatever, but that doesn't fix the inconsistency.

 

[Gansk]

It doesn't have to be inconsistent. The natural 1 or 20 only need to apply to the opponent performing the attack roll action in the round. The results of the opposed roll become irrelevant if the attack roll is an automatic success or failure.

 

[kjenks]

In 3e, the old FAQ made it clear that a grapple check is REALLY like an attack roll, including auto-failure on a natural 1 and auto-success on a natural 20 (for the attacker only; nothing special for the defender).

But the 3.5e FAQ makes it clear that a grapple check only has a passing resemblence to an attack roll, since (most*) modifiers to attack rolls do not apply to grapple checks.

So I'd say the "spirit of the rules" has shifted, and now a natural 20/natural 1 means nothing for a grapple checks. (This is a major change in my position from a few months ago, for anybody who's keeping track.)

* The Main 3.5e FAQ still has a -4 penalty when grappling while prone, which should not be there if we're really consistent about grapple checks vs. attack rolls.

 

[Infiniti2000]

It doesn't have to be inconsistent. The natural 1 or 20 only need to apply to the opponent performing the attack roll action in the round. The results of the opposed roll become irrelevant if the attack roll is an automatic success or failure.

But, if I want to move a grapple, how can you call that an attack roll? How about escaping from the grapple? The problem is that opposed grapple checks are made for more actions than purely damaging you're opponent.

 

[Gansk]

But, if I want to move a grapple, how can you call that an attack roll? How about escaping from the grapple? The problem is that opposed grapple checks are made for more actions than purely damaging you're opponent.

The actions are not attacks, but they are resolved using the grapple check mechanic. The mechanic for grapple checks is an attack roll where determining success is balanced against an opposed attack roll instead of AC. The attack roll is (or can be, depending on how you look at it) subject to automatic success or failure just like any other attack roll.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

The actions are not attacks, but they are resolved using the grapple check mechanic. The mechanic for grapple checks is an attack roll where determining success is balanced against an opposed attack roll instead of AC. The attack roll is (or can be, depending on how you look at it) subject to automatic success or failure just like any other attack roll.

I was under the impression that it was like any "check" roll; opposed or otherwise. A 1 or a 20 has no special meaning for checks where as saving throws and attack rolls; 1's and 20's are significant.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Infiniti2000]

The actions are not attacks, but they are resolved using the grapple check mechanic. The mechanic for grapple checks is an attack roll where determining success is balanced against an opposed attack roll instead of AC. The attack roll is (or can be, depending on how you look at it) subject to automatic success or failure just like any other attack roll.

Right, they are not attacks, and thus the auto success/failure of attacks shouldn't be used. If they are attacks, then both sides make the attack roll and thus both should have an auto success or failure. But, if both come up you get an impossible situation.

Fwiw, I agree with making it an attack roll enough to warrant penalties from CE, PA, etc., but not for automatic success of failure. At that point, IMO, it's much better to treat it like a opposed skill check, which is really what's closer to resembling--particularly for things like moving the grapple or what not.

Consider if you have two PCs grappling. Both roll a 20. I don't think it's fair that the defender automatically lose even though he rolled an automatic success on his attack roll.