Grapple/Power Attack?

[RigaMortus]

I rule that you can't Power Attack during a grapple, because Power Attack requires that you accept a penalty on your to-hit rolls in order to gain a bonus on your damage rolls.

You don't make a to-hit roll while grappling, so you can't take a penalty. If you can't take the penalty, you can't get the bonus to damage.

This is a good point. However, you can Power Attack with a CdG (although I will assume you disagree with this too).

My arguement is, you can ALWAYS Power Attack, no matter what you do that round. Should you make a melee attack roll, the minuses from Power Attack will apply. Should you make a melee damage roll, the pluses from Power Attack will apply. I can use Power Attack with a ranged attack, which does me no good. But I CAN do it regardless. Nothing is preventing me. I can even Power Attack when casting a spell (which may or may not do anything for me, depending on what spell I cast).

The ONLY stipulation on whether I can PA or not, is that I have to do it before I make any melee attack rolls. That's it. I can Power Attack and then double move if I want too.

So going back to Grapple... Start of the round (before any melee attack rolls are made) I Power Attack for 5. I then choose to "Damage my Opponent" in a grapple, using my unarmed strike. I subtract 5 from any melee to-hit rolls (if there aren't any, I ignore), then I add 5 damage to any melee damage rolls (again, if there aren't any, I ignore).

 

[RigaMortus]

Frankly, I think that particular ruling is ridiculous (as light weapons are a subset of melee weapons), so if someone really, really wanted to Power Attack while grappling, I'd probably allow it - but I would likewise apply the penalty to "all melee attack rolls" to their grapple check.

I could understand there. After all, it says INSTEAD OF making a "to hit roll", make a grapple check. So when applying Power Attack, apply it to the grapple check INSTEAD OF the to hit roll.

 

[DungeonMaster]

I allow it and have run my games for 3 years now with it without a single issue.
It may not be bolstered by careful rules analysis but in play allowing someone to take points off of their grapple check to do more damage is balanced and fair.

The power attack "losing accuracy for more damage" analogy is fundamentally flawed. It's an abstract game mechanic, it's not meant to represent reality anymore than "weapon expertise".
They're fun mechanics that work in game but there's literally no physical reason why one 20th level fighter can do +20 damage to an iron door with his fist and the other 20th level fighter is stuck witling away at it's hardness. Trust me, he's not holding anything back against that door it's just that without the feat he's not able to even scratch it.

 

[azmodean]

You could make the grapple check to attack with a light weapon and power attack with your unarmed strike.

 

[kjenks]

The idea of using Power Attack while grappling has two nuances to it:

1. Does the Power Attack penalty apply to opposed grapple checks?

Grapple checks are a strange beast. The PH and 3e FAQ say they are like a melee attack roll. CW seems to agree. The 3.5e FAQ implies in one place that they are like melee attack rolls (the "grapple while prone" entry has a -4 on grapple checks while prone, implying that they are like a melee attack roll) and in another place says that they are NOT like a melee attack (the Vow of Poverty entry).

This rule confusion seems to represent a fundamental disagreement between the people who write the rules. They don't seem to have gotten together to make up their minds about exactly how grapple really works.

The PH says flat-out, "A grapple check is like a melee attack roll." You would think there isn't much room for ambiguity there, but how much is it like a melee attack roll, and in what ways is it unlike a melee attack roll?

And what about bonuses and penalties that would melee attacks -- do they also apply to grapple checks? The example from the Main 3.5e FAQ mentions a -4 on an opposed grapple check when attacking from prone. That -4 penalty should only apply to a melee attack, not to an opposed Strength check or other check.

If a grapple check is NOT really like a melee attack roll, it appears that one can use Power Attack with great benefits (adding bonus damage to unarmed strike) and little penalty (since Power Attack gives a penalty to all attack rolls, but does nothing to opposed Strength checks or the like).

What about other attack modifiers like flanking, prone opponent, charging, morale, luck, enhancement? The mancatcher (an exotic weapon described in Complete Warrior, page 157) allows the wielder to add his weapon enhancement bonus and Weapon Focus to opposed grapple checks.

So I'd say the jury is still out on this one. The rules state in almost every place that a grapple check is like a melee attack roll, and it works almost exactly like a melee attack roll, including auto-hit and threaten on a natural 20, auto-miss on a natural 1, and all bonuses and penalties that would normally apply to a melee attack roll, except for that pesky "Vow of Poverty" entry in the Main 3.5e FAQ.

Unfortunately, it's the most recent rule on the subject (by the new Sage), so it carries a lot of weight.

I believe that a grapple check is like a melee attack roll and all penalties and bonuses that would apply to a melee attack roll -- including the Power Attack penalty -- also apply to grapple checks.

2. Does Power Attack add bonus damage while grappling?

The Power Attack feat description says it does add bonus damage to unarmed strike (it's worded poorly as an exception to the light exception). And damage while grappling (step 3 or Damage Your Opponent) is like an unarmed strike. So I'd have to conclude that Power Attack does give you a damage bonus.

Taking these two nuances together, if you take a penalty from all of your attack rolls (including your grapple checks) you can get a one-for-one bonus on your damage rolls while grappling. That actually balances out pretty well in practice because that penalty lasts until your next round, making it easier for the defender to escape the grapple on his turn.

 

[FCWesel]

Taking these two nuances together, if you take a penalty from all of your attack rolls (including your grapple checks) you can get a one-for-one bonus on your damage rolls while grappling. That actually balances out pretty well in practice because that penalty lasts until your next round, making it easier for the defender to escape the grapple on his turn.

Excellent post.

This looks like the most logical. As long as Grapple checks are "like" Unarmed Attacks and Unarmed Attacks are the exception to the no-Light-weapon Power Attack clause.

If I was your GM, TB42, I would let you use PA in a Grapple, so long as you take that penalty to the Grapple Checks. No one gets anything for free. To get the bonus there has to be the trade off. So long as Grapples are like Unarmeed attacks and Unarmed attacks get to use PA, you'd be okay in my book.

Hey wait a minute...I am your GM...nevermind, it doesn't work, you cannot PA ina grapple. I am in this to make this a rotten time for you afterall.


Side note: in general, I pretty much ignore anything from the Vile-Dark/Shiny-goody-two-shoeness books.

PS: Before you all start with the "He's a richard-cranium" posts, TB42 and I are also brother-n-laws, so we have to give each other a loving hard time...It's actually a state law in Illinois.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Question, kjenks:

including auto-hit and threaten on a natural 20, auto-miss on a natural 1,

Given that grapples are opposed rolls, how can you rule that a natural 20 always succeeds (and, logically, a 1 automatically fails)?

I can understand that logic as applied to the touch attack required to start a grapple, but not to the grapple check itself.

EDIT:

Note that other cases of opposed rolls in combat - Trips and Disarms come immediately to mind - do not work in such a way, nor does the more general case of opposed rolls (Strength checks, Dex checks [like initiative], skill checks [Hide vs. Spot], etc.).

 

[TracerBullet42]

Excellent post.

This looks like the most logical. As long as Grapple checks are "like" Unarmed Attacks and Unarmed Attacks are the exception to the no-Light-weapon Power Attack clause.

If I was your GM, TB42, I would let you use PA in a Grapple, so long as you take that penalty to the Grapple Checks. No one gets anything for free. To get the bonus there has to be the trade off. So long as Grapples are like Unarmed attacks and Unarmed attacks get to use PA, you'd be okay in my book.

That's how I kinda was thinking it would/should work. I wasn't looking for "free" power attack, but I wasn't sure if it could be applied in a grapple check. I figure if you're hurting your chance for a successful grapple in exchange for more damage, it seems fair enough. I'm not sure if that's how the RAW looks at it, but if I were running the game, that's how I'd rule it. Maybe it'll come up in part two of the Rules of the Game: All About Grappling...

PS: Before you all start with the "He's a richard-cranium" posts, TB42 and I are also brother-n-laws, so we have to give each other a loving hard time...It's actually a state law in Illinois.

Whatever, I don't have to give you a loving hard time just cause you say so...screw that! And screw the state law, too! They still owe us for that favor...

 

[kjenks]

Given that grapples are opposed rolls, how can you rule that a natural 20 always succeeds (and, logically, a 1 automatically fails)?

I'm not making up a new rule for this. A grapple check is like a melee attack roll. I follow the rules from the old 3e FAQ, pages 45-46. For the attacker, natural 1 auto-fails, natural 20 auto-succeeds. 1s and 20s are not special for the defender.

Note that other cases of opposed rolls in combat - Trips and Disarms come immediately to mind - do not work in such a way, nor does the more general case of opposed rolls (Strength checks, Dex checks [like initiative], skill checks [Hide vs. Spot], etc.).

Since Disarm uses opposed attack rolls, it should work the same way. For the attacker, natural 1 auto-fails, natural 20 auto-succeeds. 1s and 20s are not special for the defender.

As for the opposed ability check for a Trip attack and such, opposed checks and ties are covered in the Skills section of the PH and SRD:

Opposed Checks
An opposed check is a check whose success or failure is determined by comparing the check result to another character’s check result. In an opposed check, the higher result succeeds, while the lower result fails. In case of a tie, the higher skill modifier wins. If these scores are the same, roll again to break the tie.

Natural 1 and natural 20 are not special (no auto-failure or auto-success) in opposed checks.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I'm not making up a new rule for this.

I didn't claim you were. I was more interested in your logic chain.

A grapple check is like a melee attack roll. I follow the rules from the old 3e FAQ, pages 45-46. For the attacker, natural 1 auto-fails, natural 20 auto-succeeds. 1s and 20s are not special for the defender.

So, step through this with me.

Q: Is a grapple check exactly like a melee attack roll?
A: No. Numerous differences exist. For instance, size modifiers change depending on whether what you are making is actually a melee attack roll with a weapon or a grapple check. Therefore, a grapple check differs in some ways from an actual melee attack roll.

Since the two are not identical, it is a fallacy to assume that all the rules which apply to one necessarily apply to the other. The possibility that they do exists, but it is not mandated.

So, on what do you base your assertion that in an opposed roll situation, that a Natural 20 is an automatic success for the attacker and a Natural 1 is an automatic failure for the defender?

Why, on this:

When rolling opposed attack rolls (such as in a grapple or a disarm attempt), does a natural 1 mean automatic failure as it does for a normal attack roll?

For the attacker (that is, the character trying to disarm a foe or accomplish something with a grapple check) a natural 1 fails and a natural 20 succeeds, no matter what the defender rolls. Although the defender’s roll is called an “opposed attack roll,” the defender is really just setting the DC for the attacker: 1s and 20s aren’t special for the defender. Just apply the defender’s modifiers to set the DC for the attacker. If both the attacker and
the defender roll a 1, the attacker fails. If both the attacker and the defender roll a 20, the attacker succeeds.

Note that you cannot get a hold on a foe two or more sizes larger than you (see page 137 in the Player’s Handbook). All of the foregoing assumes that you are indeed making an opposed attack roll, which is subject to automatic success or failure. Checks are not subject to automatic success or failure. For example, if you are making an opposed check (as you would when making a Hide check opposed by a foe’s Spot check), a roll of 1 or 20 has no special significance.

There is a problem here.

Specifically, you assert that grapple checks are like attack rolls and therefore follow all the rules of melee attack rolls. (And, by extension, Disarm checks operate similarly.)

The problem, of course, is that while Grappling (or Disarming) both the attacker and defender make a check. Therefore, both the attacker and the defender must all the rules for melee attack rolls - including the chances of auto-success or auto-failure. The line "Although the defender’s roll is called an 'opposed attack roll,' the defender is really just setting the DC for the attacker" sets up an unsupportable position. Given that the attacker also makes an "opposed attack roll," the sentence could easily be rewritten as "Although the attacker's roll is called an 'opposed attack roll,' the attacker is really just setting the DC for the defender." Note that those who might argue that, as a standard rule in D&D, the offense must attempt to overcome the defense's DC should check the rules for spell saving throws.

There is no text within the rules that suggest that there should be any difference in the way attackers or defenders are treated, since they are both making checks which follow all the rules of melee attack rolls. The only text to support this position is in an outdated FAQ file - and an FAQ file carries no RAW weight.

Furthermore, if Grapple checks follow all the rules of melee attack rolls, then grappling someone under the effects of a Blur spell carries a 20% miss chance. Anyone attempting to grapple someone under the effects of a Mirror Image spell has a 1 / X chance of actually grappling the correct target. Neither of these spells, and none of the descriptions of Grappling or Disarming, contain any text to the contrary. Do you rule that the above spells have any effect on a continuing grapple?

If you don't, then you have contradicted yourself, since grappling, by your own admission, no longer follows all the rules of melee attack rolls.