Precision damage // Grappled when stunned

[Artoomis]

You seem to have your rules confused. You don't have the option of using Dex to resist a grapple, only BAB+Str+Size. You're thinking of an opposed Trip attack.

I'd say that you can in fact attempt to resist a grapple check when stunned, as you are not helpless. I'd probably apply a circumstance penalty of at least -2, but you should get it.

If you don't allow opposed grapple checks while stunned, mind flayers become even deadlier than they already are.

Quite right about the rules - my mistake; I was, indeed, thinking of Trip. Same point, though.

It is regrettable that this was not really covered by the rule - it should have been. While opposed Trip and Grapple checks clearly are not "actions," as in they do not count against your number of actions, it is left unlcear as to whether they should be allowed when you are not allowed to take ANY actions.

If allowed, certainly a circumstance penalty is appropriate.

 

[Artoomis]

Precise strike isn't a bonus attack or extra attack. Why would that sentence prohibit you from using it?

You're right - it not a "bonus or extra attack," it's extra damage and that's not covered. I read that wrong.

So I'll retract that.

 

[Artoomis]

To continue with the Trip analogy:

...If you lose, the defender may immediately react and make a Strength check opposed by your Dexterity or Strength check to try to trip you.

If you are allowed the original opposed check, are you also allowed the second one to attempt to trip the attacker? It's still not an action, in the same sense that original opposed role is not (or a grapple check to resist a grapple). It sure does not feel right, though. How could you attempt to trip your attacker if you are stunned and cannot take any actions? Credibility gap again.

I'd say the most consistent method would be to disallow opposed grapple and trip rolls to resist being tripped or grappled. It's pretty harsh, sure, but I think it comes closest to passing the "common sense" and "simplest interpretation is usually the best" tests.

 

[Caliban]

To continue with the Trip analogy:



If you are allowed the original opposed check, are you also allowed the second one to attempt to trip the attacker?

No, because that is something you are actively choosing to do, not something you are resisting on instinct.

I'd say the most consistent method would be to disallow opposed grapple and trip rolls to resist being tripped or grappled. It's pretty harsh, sure, but I think it comes closest to passing the "common sense" and "simplest interpretation is usually the best" tests.

I disagree. Nothing in the rules disallows resisting opposed checks while stunned, and it makes the game deadlier (and less fun) than it needs to be. There are many ways to stun people (and at higher levels there are no save spells that stun people), if being stunned also gives your an automatic trip or grapple it's just too deadly.

So, not only does being stunned mean that you: Lose your Dex bonus to AC, get a further -2 on your armor class, lose your next turn, drop whatever you are holding, and all your opponents get a free round of (sneak) attacks, but you can also be automatically tripped and grappled on top of it? I sincerely hope not.

 

[Artoomis]

No, because that is something you are actively choosing to do, not something you are resisting on instinct.

To use your own line, "...Nothing in the rules disallows ... opposed checks while stunned." Though you stated "resisting" opposed checks, the same thing holds true for making them for tripping the attacker - nothing in the rules prevents that. Nothing in the rules indicates that the first check is "instinct" and the second check is not.

I disagree. Nothing in the rules disallows resisting opposed checks while stunned, and it makes the game deadlier (and less fun) than it needs to be. There are many ways to stun people (and at higher levels there are no save spells that stun people), if being stunned also gives your an automatic trip or grapple it's just too deadly.

Most things that stun a character also use up a Standard Actions, somewhat mitigating the enemy's potential Trip or Grapple, plus giving time for the "good guys" to come up with a response (the monk's Stunning Attack being a notable exception). There are many higher level spells that are effectively "save or die," or even "die with no save" (not too many of the latter, fortunately) and even allowing a virtually automatic trip or grapple does not raise being stunned to that level.

Allowing Trip or Grapple opposed checks has the effect of partially neutering the monk's Stunning Attack, which is limited to one round and has a saving throw.

Anyway, once again we have pointed out where the rules are problematical and given DMs good logic to use in deciding which way to go.

 

[Ovinomancer]

To weigh in, the grappler still needs to make a touch attack to start the grapple. With this in mind, there still seems to be a chance of failure in the attempt. Nothing is automatic in combat (except 1's and 20's) and trying to quickly grab and control someone, even if they are not actively resisting, can be difficult. There is mass and size and shape, etc. Example: halfing trying to grapple a stunned giant. Should this be automatic? The difference in size alone would be a -8 penalty on the halfing's roll.



I would rule that you still get an opposed roll, but without the benefit of any applying feats, as these represent a skill or ability you choose to use, and a penalty to your roll. -4 seems to be in line with other effects that represent trying do do something you're not good at or are using the wrong tools for the job, like weilding a weapon you are not proficient with. One could argue that you are not proficient with yourself when stunned.

 

[Artoomis]

I would rule that you still get an opposed roll, but without the benefit of any applying feats, as these represent a skill or ability you choose to use, and a penalty to your roll. -4 seems to be in line with other effects that represent trying do do something you're not good at or are using the wrong tools for the job, like weilding a weapon you are not proficient with. One could argue that you are not proficient with yourself when stunned.

Without using any feats? Using them (Improved Grapple and the like) are not actions. Using a skill or ability is not what is prohibited, it's taking "actions."

That justification is not really rules-based, but that's okay, as the rules do seem rather weak in this particular area anyway. The problem with this approach is the variability involved. If I get an opposed grapple check, I want to be able to look on my character sheet at the "grapple check" spot and use that number with whatever situational modifiers apply. Ease of play should come into this equation.

I think I'll stick with the simplest approach - no opposed check. It's certainly no more powerful than touch attack (no save) spells.

 

[Darklone]

Excuse me... using feats to resist a grapple? Correct me if I'm wrong, but all these Improved feats only give that +4 bonus when YOU do something, not when you have to resist such an attack...

As for being stunned: You're not helpless, so sure you can resist any opposed checks.

Edit: Not right, Grapple gives the bonus defensively... bull rush, trip, sunder and disarm only help when you do it actively...