[Help Plz] Do grapple checks include penalties/bonuses from defenseive fighting, etc?

[Camarath]

So, well, couldn't a grappler misuse the system a bit by declaring he is "fighting defensively", gaining an AC bonus, but then only making opposed grapple checks to do damage, where the penalties don't apply?

If the argument is that you can't fight defensively unless you make attacks, the savvy grappler could make a single attack, and make the rest of the grapple checks (2 equally valid ways of doing damage in grappling).

From SRD
Grappling Consequences
While you’re grappling, your ability to attack others and defend yourself is limited.
No Threatened Squares: You don’t threaten any squares while grappling.
No Dexterity Bonus: You lose your Dexterity bonus to AC (if you have one) against opponents you aren’t grappling. (You can still use it against opponents you are grappling.)
No Movement: You can’t move normally while grappling. You may, however, make an opposed grapple check (see below) to move while grappling.

You could do this. But AC does not help you in opposed grapple checks. The AC bonus would still help you if the opponent grappling you attacked you rather than using an opposed grapple check to damage you. And since your Dexterity bonus to AC does not apply to opponents not grappling you, the dodge bonus granted by expertise and fighting defensively would not apply as well (since dodge bonus are lost when you lose your dex bonus). But the Natural Armor bonus would still apply to opponents not grappling you. So IMO you could make grapple checks to damage your opponent at no penalty and then use your last attack action to attack your opponent and take a penalty to increase your Natural Armor (and your dodge bonus if you wanted).

If you find this distasteful you can rule that the penality is not to attacks per say but to your BAB and since your grapple checks use your BAB the penalty would apply to grapple checks as well as any other ability based on your BAB.

So the effects of bless, bane, greater magic fang, amulet of mighty fists, recitation, harmony, etc, also don't apply when dealing damage through grapple checks?

Yes all special abilities that grant a strait (i.e. do not require an attack) bonus to damage would apply to grapple checks to damage.

I'm just trying to flesh out this gray area so I fully understand grapple, and don't have to waste time on this during games....since I'm playing a monk that grapples often AND running a different game where monsters grapple often.

Skaros

That is cool. I hope I have been helpful. It is all way best to sort out these things outside of the game.

 

[Camarath]

Oh, by the way I am assuming you are using 3.5. If you are not please tell me and I will look at the 3.0 grapple rules to see if there are any mechanical differences.

 

[reapersaurus]

"In the place of" means they are not attacks. On actions taken "in place of each of your attacks" you can not use feats and abilities that modify your attacks. But there are two primary way of damaging your opponent one of which is an attack the other is not.

No, "in the place of" means you THINK they are not considered attacks.
If you have a WotC reference that specifically says they aren't attacks, than I'm all ears. Seriously.
As far as I can see, you are just hypothesizing (nothing wrong with that, BTW). However, you immediately contradict your blanket statement above, by specifiying the couple "special grappling options" that DO qualify as "attacks" in your eyes.

I don't see how you didn't just invalidate the SRD quote there.
IOW, the SRD said that "they take the place of your attack".
You conclude that means that grapples aren't attacks.
Then you point out 2 options that ARE attacks (Attack Your Opponent and Use Opponent's Weapon).
So you cannot use the "take the place of an attack" description to prove anything, since it's quite obvious that grapples can have an attack component. One must conclude that the "take the place of an attack" wording is just descriptive text, making it clear that one can't grapple and do normal attacks (especially full attacks).

This is not an attack but a special grapple option. So you can not use abilities that modify your attacks when using this option.

This hypothesis has no basis other than descriptive text that describes one as an "attack" and not another.

I am of the simplistic opinion that anything that does damage, is an attack.

 

[Camarath]

No, "in the place of" means you THINK they are not considered attacks.
If you have a WotC reference that specifically says they aren't attacks, than I'm all ears. Seriously.
As far as I can see, you are just hypothesizing (nothing wrong with that, BTW). However, you immediately contradict your blanket statement above, by specifiying the couple "special grappling options" that DO qualify as "attacks" in your eyes.

How about this reference.

PHB 3.5 page 304
Attack: Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent. The outcome of an attack is determined by an attack roll.

No attack roll means no attack.

I don't see how you didn't just invalidate the SRD quote there.
IOW, the SRD said that "they take the place of your attack".
You conclude that means that grapples aren't attacks.

I conclude that they are not by default attacks. IMO grapple options that do not use attack rolls are not attacks.

Then you point out 2 options that ARE attacks (Attack Your Opponent and Use Opponent's Weapon).

Those two options use attack rolls so are attacks.

So you cannot use the "take the place of an attack" description to prove anything, since it's quite obvious that grapples can have an attack component.

You should not conculed that anything done in the place of an attack is necessarily an attack. The two options that use attack rolls are attacks. The Damage your Opponent option on the other hand uses an opposed grapple check so IMO it is not an attack.

One must conclude that the "take the place of an attack" wording is just descriptive text, making it clear that one can't grapple and do normal attacks (especially full attacks).This hypothesis has no basis other than descriptive text that describes one as an "attack" and not another.

Takes the place of an attack also it spells out the time it take to perform certain grapple options. It also allow you to use grapple option that are not themselves attacks in the place of attacks.

I am of the simplistic opinion that anything that does damage, is an attack.

You are wrong. Does the ground attack you when you fall? Does hunger attack you when you starve? I am of the opinion that if there is an attack roll then it is an attack. Do you have a WotC referance to support you damage equals attack assertion?

 

[Legildur]

The answer looks pretty simple to me (which is unusual in itself, so that sets off alarm bells that I may be wrong).

I agree with Reapersaurus that grapple checks are in fact attacks (or at least can be used in place of an attack like trip, disarm and grapple). Why do I say this? While IDHMBIFOM, in the SRD footnote 7 (CombatI.rtf, Table: Actions in Combat) lists that trip, disarm and grapple as attacks:

7 These attack forms substitute for a melee attack, not an action. As melee attacks, they can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full attack action, or even as an attack of opportunity.

(My emphasis).

Use of things like Combat Expertise, Power Attack and Fighting Defensively would affect your grapple checks as you are trading hit probability for a benefit.

And since you must declare them at the beginning of the round, and the condition lasts until just before your action next round, I'd say the penalties also apply to your opposed grapple checks.

 

[Camarath]

The answer looks pretty simple to me (which is unusual in itself, so that sets off alarm bells that I may be wrong).

I agree with Reapersaurus that grapple checks are in fact attacks (or at least can be used in place of an attack like trip, disarm and grapple). Why do I say this? While IDHMBIFOM, in the SRD footnote 7 (CombatI.rtf, Table: Actions in Combat) lists that trip, disarm and grapple as attacks:

I believe the chart is talking about an attempt to start a grapple.

I could be wrong about grapple checks not being attacks. The rules do say.

From SRD
Grapple Checks
Repeatedly in a grapple, you need to make opposed grapple checks against an opponent. 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

IMO this is rather ambiguous about whether or not grapple checks actually count as attack rolls. I can not find a rule that deals any more clearly with this issue. If a grapple check is an special kind attack roll, then every option where you use a grapple check would be an attack. It seems odd to me that Draw a Light Weapon, Escape from Grapple, and Move should be considered attacks.

Use of things like Combat Expertise, Power Attack and Fighting Defensively would affect your grapple checks as you are trading hit probability for a benefit.

And since you must declare them at the beginning of the round, and the condition lasts until just before your action next round, I'd say the penalties also apply to your opposed grapple checks.

I would say that is a fair interpretation if you count grapple checks as attacks.

 

[reapersaurus]

IMO this is rather ambiguous about whether or not grapple checks actually count as attack rolls. I can not find a rule that deals any more clearly with this issue.

Ia gree, both that it is ambiguous, and that I can't find a rule that deals with it clearly.


That's WotC for you, and their inattention to rules clarifications.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I've always considered a grapple check to be an attack roll, with the only difference being that you use "special size modifier" instead of "size modifier".

Thus, I allow True Strike to be used on a grapple check - either defensively or offensively - along with all the other examples like Bless, or Bardic Music, or whatever.

-Hyp.

 

[Legildur]

Hypersmurf,

[genuine Q] Does that mean you'd include the enhancement from Greater Magic Weapon (or similar) on the grapple check?

 

[Hypersmurf]

[genuine Q] Does that mean you'd include the enhancement from Greater Magic Weapon (or similar) on the grapple check?

On a monk, you mean?

I'd include it on a Disarm check, so I can't think why I wouldn't include it on a Grapple check...

-Hyp.