Grapple question...

[Dwarmaj]

A couple of grapple questions:

1) Is a natural "20" an automatic success in a grapple check, conversly, is a natural "1" an automatic failure? The SRD says that a grapple check is "like a melee attack roll."

2) What else can add to the grapple check? The SRD states BAB+ STR mod+ special size mod. Would other melee modifiers also add? Haste, enhancement bonus due to (greater magic fang), insight or moral bonuses?

 

[Thanee]

Since grapple checks are opposed checks, I don't think a natural 1 or 20 makes any difference.

Regular attack bonuses (i.e. GMF) do not add to grapple checks, but the feat Improved Grapple gives a bonus of +4.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Dwarmaj]

In 3.0 we treated grapple checks similar to skill checks. The DC was set by the defenders (BAB+size+Str), while the attacker used their iterative (BAB+size+str).

But the 3.5 SRD states that grapple checks are "like a melee attack roll". If it's like a melee attack roll, wouldn't other attack modifiers add in?

 

[Thanee]

It's not an attack roll. It's only like an attack roll.

Bye
Thanee

 

[AuraSeer]

But the 3.5 SRD states that grapple checks are "like a melee attack roll". If it's like a melee attack roll, wouldn't other attack modifiers add in?

No. If it were the same as an attack roll, the book would say so. It is only "like an attack roll," which implicitly means it's not identical.

 

[Corwin]

This is from the 3.0 FAQ, take it for what it's worth...

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.

 

[youspoonybard]

I'm beginning to see why there's grumbling over some FAQ answers...

 

[The Souljourner]

For opposed rolls, I would rather not have automatic successes and automatic failures. Then again, I guess I'd rather not have them for attack rolls either... it makes the extreme cases a little stupid. Conan the 20th level barbarian with +45 to hit has a 5% chance to miss Timmy, the clumsiest 10 year old in the world? That's stupid. If you are so far below someone else's skill level that a difference of 19 in your rolls can't make up for it, then it should be impossible. Some things just are impossible in real life. I will never ever in my lifetime be able to sink a 3 point shot with Michael Jordan covering me. It's just impossible. That should be the case in D&D too.

Sorry for the minirant, just a pet peeve. By the rules, I'm pretty sure only attack rolls and saving throws have the 20/1 pass/fail mechanic.

-The Souljourner

 

[AuraSeer]

I would have worded that differently. Instead of saying "attacker," I'd say that 1s and 20s have automatic results for the "active character."

That is, if I making checks on my own turn to escape a grapple, a natural 20 will always let me get loose. I think this is what the FAQ answer intends, even though I'm not an "attacker" when I'm trying to escape.

 

[Corwin]

Conan the 20th level barbarian with +45 to hit has a 5% chance to miss Timmy, the clumsiest 10 year old in the world? That's stupid.

WoTC agrees actually. That's why they included the optional rules in the ELH for handling just that very situation.