stunned vs grapple

[j_spencer93]

Can you try to resist a grapple while stunned? My players and I are a little confused on it. I would think so though

[Oddman80]

In order to resist a grapple, one must win the opposed grapple check. Performing the opposed Grapple Check is listed as a Free Action.

However, per the SRD "A stunned creature drops everything held, can’t take actions, takes a –2 penalty to AC, and loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any)."

A free action is still an action that a stunned individual would not be able to take. As such, your result would be 0. So long as the person trying to make the grapple doesn't end up with a negative number (due to low roll, and negative modifiers) on the opposed roll, I would think you are going to get grappled. I'm pretty sure a natural 1 doesn't even automatically fail, as its not an attack roll.

[Extra Anchovies]

Oddman is correct. However, an attack roll of some sort is still required to get a chance at starting the grapple, whether a touch attack, unarmed strike, or natural attack. They wouldn't automatically succeed there, but they'd get to take advantage of the stunned target being at -2 to AC.

[Theobod]

If opposing a grapple is a free action how come it can be done out of turn? (Enemy bear grabs me on my turn yet i get to resist being grappled there and dont have to wait to my turn to resolve the attempt)

[backwaterj]

For once, the rule of common sense agrees with RAW. If you're stunned, you're not resisting anything.


Oddman is correct. However, an attack roll of some sort is still required to get a chance at starting the grapple, whether a touch attack, unarmed strike, or natural attack. They wouldn't automatically succeed there, but they'd get to take advantage of the stunned target being at -2 to AC.

Not to mention losing any Dex bonus you might have.


If opposing a grapple is a free action how come it can be done out of turn? (Enemy bear grabs me on my turn yet i get to resist being grappled there and dont have to wait to my turn to resolve the attempt)

The short answer is that the grapple rules were written before immediate actions were a thing. There's probably an errata on this somewhere (Rules Compendium maybe?) but I'm too lazy to look it up.

[Zombimode]

The short answer is that the grapple rules were written before immediate actions were a thing. There's probably an errata on this somewhere (Rules Compendium maybe?) but I'm too lazy to look it up.

Are you suggesting that the grapple check from the defender should cost an immediate action? That... would not work at all. You could only make one grapple check per turn and only if you have not used your immediate action for something else. You would also be unable to resist a grapple if you're flat-footed. In short, this rule change would severely affect the grapple dynamics.

The claim that the opposed grapple check for the defender is a free action is also false (it is true for the attacker, though). Making opposed grapple checks as the defender has no action requirement.

Yes, that also means that a stunned creature will not be automatically be grapple if the touch attack succeeds. Remember, you're not helpless while stunned. You do defend yourself, albeit with reduced efficiency.

[backwaterj]

Are you suggesting that the grapple check from the defender should cost an immediate action? That... would not work at all. You could only make one grapple check per turn and only if you have not used your immediate action for something else. You would also be unable to resist a grapple if you're flat-footed. In short, this rule change would severely affect the grapple dynamics.

You're right, I hadn't really thought this through.


The claim that the opposed grapple check for the defender is a free action is also false (it is true for the attacker, though). Making opposed grapple checks as the defender has no action requirement.

Yes, that also means that a stunned creature will not be automatically be grapple if the touch attack succeeds. Remember, you're not helpless while stunned. You do defend yourself, albeit with reduced efficiency.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, since I'm AFB, but SRD reads "make an opposed grapple check as a free action". Since it does not specify attacker or defender in this case, it could easily be argued it's a free action for both. Remember this came from the source book that essentially said free actions happen only on your turn except when they don't (see feather fall). :smallbiggrin:

So basically, if we say that it's a free action for the defender, then the grapple check automatically succeeds. But if we say it's a non-action for the defender, then the defender gets an opposed check as normal. Sounds like a DM call to me, unless as surmised previously it's been errata'd somewhere.

That said, you could easily rule the opposed check to resist a grapple as being akin to a saving throw (albeit with a variable DC) and therefore not an action in and of itself. Again, sounds like a DM call.

[Zombimode]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, since I'm AFB, but SRD reads "make an opposed grapple check as a free action". Since it does not specify attacker or defender in this case, it could easily be argued it's a free action for both.

It is not ambiguous at all. The text is instructing the creature making the grapple attempt. This creature is addressed as "you". The sentence in question "Make an opposed grapple check as a free action." still uses 2nd pers. singular. There is no reason to assume that any other creature is referenced by this sentence.


Remember this came from the source book that essentially said free actions happen only on your turn except when they don't (see feather fall). :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, you could really feel how the desingers grasped for a concept that was simply not there in the rules. It is not surprising that this got changed almost immediately: with the Miniatures Handbook, the very first splatbook in 3.5's run.

[backwaterj]

It is not ambiguous at all. The text is instructing the creature making the grapple attempt. This creature is addressed as "you". The sentence in question "Make an opposed grapple check as a free action." still uses 2nd pers. singular. There is no reason to assume that any other creature is referenced by this sentence.

Except it can also be plural, and in the context of an opposed check, it's valid to assume that it's being used that way. Not that this is the only interpretation, but it's an interpretation.
Note that being naked without my PHB, maybe there's something there that's not in SRD. If so, ignore all this.


It is not surprising that this got changed almost immediately

I see what you did there. :smallwink:

[Zombimode]

Except it can also be plural, and in the context of an opposed check, it's valid to assume that it's being used that way.

Shouldn't it then read "they make" or "both make"? Just "Make an opposed grapple checks" sounds like an imperative to me. It would be very strange indeed if the text would suddenly just change its perspective (from instructional to descriptive) and then jump back just shortly thereafter.

But english is not my first language, so I might miss something here.

Anyway, even if you could read it as referring to both creatures, I don't know why you should. You need to make assumptions about the text that you otherwise wouldn't have to. Requiring a free action from the defender would also complicate matter by a large margin. By RAW, a creature can take free action accompanying other action or during its own turn. Since the grapple checks for the defender usually occur not during its turn and are not accompanied by other action, the creature would actually not by allowed to take the action - which is ludicrous and would break the grapple mechanic.


I see what you did there. :smallwink:

Well, its hard to pass an opportunity like this :smallwink:

[Andezzar]

Except it can also be plural, and in the context of an opposed check, it's valid to assume that it's being used that way. Not that this is the only interpretation, but it's an interpretation.
Note that being naked without my PHB, maybe there's something there that's not in SRD. If so, ignore all this.
If both participants were meant, no one could oppose a grapple check ever. You cannot take free actions outside your turn. So unless you wish to break the game, opposing a grapple check (i.e providing a DC for the grappler) must be a non-action. Stunned does not negate the use of non-actions, like saving throws etc.

[Crake]

I think think the all about grappling article said that opposed grapple checks are actually non-actions, and thus can be used while stunned.

Considering that the stunned person is not helpless, i'd say they get the ability to resist the grapple. Otherwise mindflayers would just stun and then immediately devour people's brains

edit: this (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050301a) article, exact quote:


Once you grab someone, you must establish a hold, and you do that by making an opposed grapple check against your foe. The rules say the opposed grapple check that follows a successful grab is a free action for you, but it's really not an action at all. You make the grapple check as part of the attack you used to make the grab. Likewise, the opposed check your foe makes to resist you is not an action for him.

[Psyren]

Skip's articles often inject his own houserules in place of RAW. Any place they contradict the existing rules can be safely discarded.

[backwaterj]

If both participants were meant, no one could oppose a grapple check ever. You cannot take free actions outside your turn. So unless you wish to break the game, opposing a grapple check (i.e providing a DC for the grappler) must be a non-action. Stunned does not negate the use of non-actions, like saving throws etc.

A free action can be taken outside one's turn when the rules text says it can, such as in the feather fall description.

Here's where it gets a little hazy, but "Make an opposed grapple check as a free action" can legitimately be read as a plural imperative due to the multiple subjects implied by the opposed check. If this is the case, then this is another instance where the specific rules text trumps the general rule that free actions can only be taken on your turn.

That said, I'm leaning toward the other interpretation myself.

[Oddman80]

I did not claim that the stunned individual was defenseless. I was assuming that the character trying to make the grapple had already succeeded on the touch attack needed to begin the grapple.
So in order for the melee touch attack to succeed, it had to beat the stunned character's touch ac, which includes size and deflection bonuses (dexterity is not added in, as the stunned player can not move). If the character trying to start the grapple fails the initial touch attack, this would be representative of the stunned character resisting the grapple.

As far as the opposed grapple roll being a free action for one or both. It is the same roll being made by both parties. The results of the roll have impact as part of the broader grapple mechanic/order of operations, but the opposed grapple itself (representing the struggle between the grappler and grapplee, once the grappler tales hold) is instructed by RAW to occur as a free action.

As far as free actions still being actions and can therefore only occur on ones turn, I read this to be a perfect example of specific trumping general.

"free actions, being actions, may only occur on one's own turn" is the general rule.

The Grapple rules step 3 instructing that the opposed grapple check should be made (requiring both characters to make the roll) and that it is a free action is a specific rule that trumps the general rule.

[Ettina]

The Grapple rules step 3 instructing that the opposed grapple check should be made (requiring both characters to make the roll) and that it is a free action is a specific rule that trumps the general rule.

Why? It doesn't say it trumps any special conditions.

[Extra Anchovies]

Why? It doesn't say it trumps any special conditions.

Specific doesn't need to say it trumps general for it to do so; if every specific instance of something stated whether or not it trumped the general rule, we wouldn't also need a blanket "specific trumps general" rule.

[Andezzar]

It wouldn't, the problem is that if opposing a grapple check is a free action, it cannot be done while stunned. If it is not an action it can be done while stunned, because that condition does not prohibit doing something that is not an action.

[backwaterj]

Hmm, not even Rules Compendium solves the free action conundrum. It would seem easier to just call it a non-action for both parties, but that's apparently not been done officially.

[Curmudgeon]

Even though there isn't a clear RAW answer, the practical difference is small. Either (1) the stunned defender can't make their opposed grapple check and is automatically grappled; (2) they get to oppose the grapple check and lose; or (3) they get to oppose the grapple check and win, but can't do anything else. In any case they're still stunned, and the attacker gets to keep plugging away.

[Oddman80]

Just remember, be careful when decreeing that, so long as it is not classified as an action, a stunned character can do it.

Attacks of Opportunity are not classified as actions. A stunned character with natural weapons, a high dex score, and Combat Reflexes could technically, by that ruling be allowed to make multiple attacks when it is not their turn, yet be unable to perform the same physical operations come their turn.

It may be RAI, and not RAW, but I feel like a stunned character shouldn't be able to perform any physical operations off turn that they could not perform on turn.

[Lord Vukodlak]

The way I see it a stunned character can still make opposed grapple checks because that is not technically an action. However they can not initiate a grapple check on there own because that is an action.
So you can't try and break free on your turn but you can resist the grapple on the grappler's turn


It may be RAI, and not RAW, but I feel like a stunned character shouldn't be able to perform any physical operations off turn that they could not perform on turn.

One should also be careful about moving stunned closer to helpless. A stunned character can't be coup-de-graced for instance.

[j_spencer93]

My only problem is...it says its a free action. So without actually changing the rules myself (my players try to exploit changing rules so i avoid it) then technically a Illithid could do that....which is exactly the circumstance i found myself in when starting this thread. My PC mindflayer went nuts after seeing the (most likely) mistake in the grapple rule.

[Duke of Urrel]

So basically, if we say that it's a free action for the defender, then the grapple check automatically succeeds. But if we say it's a non-action for the defender, then the defender gets an opposed check as normal. Sounds like a DM call to me, unless as surmised previously it's been errata'd somewhere.

That said, you could easily rule the opposed check to resist a grapple as being akin to a saving throw (albeit with a variable DC) and therefore not an action in and of itself. Again, sounds like a DM call.

This all makes good sense. The opposed grapple check, which a grappler makes electively, is explicitly a free action, but the opposing grapple check, which the grappler's opponent makes reactively, is not explicitly a free action.

I agree that saving throws are non-actions. I prefer to call them reactions, myself, and I classify any check or save that the rule books call "reactive" or that you make "reactively" as a non-action.

[j_spencer93]

Actually just reread grapple rules. As dumb as this sounds, and as much as it will make people gripe. It says an opposed grapple is a free action.
Free action is an action.
Can't take free actions while stunned.
So...dumb.

This is a case of specific trumps general. However I find it very dumb. It shouldn't be an action at all for the defender.

[Curmudgeon]

This all makes good sense. The opposed grapple check, which a grappler makes electively, is explicitly a free action, but the opposing grapple check, which the grappler's opponent makes reactively, is not explicitly a free action.
This seems plausible, except for one thing — this "opposing check" appears to be your invention, rather than D&D game terminology. (At least, there were no hits in searches for "opposing check" or "opposing grapple check" on d20srd.org.) The Glossary definition for check (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_check&alpha=C) simply refers to "the opponent's check", without making any statements about actions.

I'm afraid your distinction doesn't help except in creating a house rule.

[Duke of Urrel]

This seems plausible, except for one thing — this "opposing check" appears to be your invention, rather than D&D game terminology. (At least, there were no hits in searches for "opposing check" or "opposing grapple check" on d20srd.org.) The Glossary definition for check (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_check&alpha=C) simply refers to "the opponent's check", without making any statements about actions.

I'm afraid your distinction doesn't help except in creating a house rule.

I can agree with all that, but my claim about the RAW still stands. Only one opposed check here is explicitly identified in the rules (either in the Player's Handbook or in the Rules Compendium) as a free action, and that is the one that the grappler makes who tries to gain a hold. The check made by the defender to avoid being held, whatever we choose to call it, is not explicitly identified here as a free action.

I know of no general rule that states that when one check opposes another, it must belong to the same type of action as the check that it opposes. Indeed, there are two counter-examples close at hand: When you try to damage or pin your opponent while grappling, that's an attack action, but it isn't an attack action when your opponent reacts by making a grapple check to oppose you.

[j_spencer93]

Make an opposed grapple check as a free action.
26 hits on the srd20....on the special attacks page, not sure why you thought someone made it up. However, I would like to state the only time it mentions the free action part on this page is on the holding a grapple as stated above. So maybe it is supposed to not take an action, or it is, really not sure at the moment but it never explicitly states what the defenders action counts as if any. And we we start assuming when an action isnt stated it doesnt take an action we run into much deeper problems.

EDIT: I actually would like to change my view after rereading again. This is an opposed roll so it takes no action on the others behalf, am i am about 30% sure this is actually stated somewhere but do not hold me to it lol

[Curmudgeon]

Make an opposed grapple check as a free action.
26 hits on the srd20....on the special attacks page, not sure why you thought someone made it up.
Except that what Duke of Urrel referred to was a different term, "opposing grapple check".

[j_spencer93]

Aw i see. Someone got picky with wording. Anyways...this may actually prove this entire thing dumb...but does anyone know of any opposed roll that is an action on the defenders part? just curious

[Curmudgeon]

...but does anyone know of any opposed roll that is an action on the defenders part? just curious
Sure, there are a few examples. Disguise takes 1d3×10 minutes of work. The check is made by the DM for you (i.e., secretly). Forgery works the same way (though with a variable time required depending on the number of pages in the document).

In the case of Sniping, a Spot check is opposed by the sniper's move action Hide. Reactive Spot (and Listen) checks take no actions, but you can also make rechecks as move actions for both (and in the case of a sniper who shot you, you know there's someone hiding out there). These opposed checks aren't simultaneous; you use the defender's Hide check from their previous turn for all the opposed Spot checks that round.

[j_spencer93]

Ok those examples lead me to further believe that opposed grapples do not require an action since you roll it exactly when the grappler rolls his.

[Gwendol]

I agree. You should be able to oppose grapple checks while stunned as the OGC is a non-action.

[Extra Anchovies]

I agree. You should be able to oppose grapple checks while stunned as the OGC is a non-action.

I suppose that makes sense; I remember somewhere in the core books there's a fluff description of the stunned condition that says they can still defend themselves albeit at a penalty (hence loss of Dex to AC, and -2 AC), so it fits with that.

Of course, I may very well be misremembering. I nonetheless still agree.

[Gwendol]

Exactly; you are stunned, not helpless.

[backwaterj]

My only problem is...it says its a free action. So without actually changing the rules myself (my players try to exploit changing rules so i avoid it) then technically a Illithid could do that....which is exactly the circumstance i found myself in when starting this thread. My PC mindflayer went nuts after seeing the (most likely) mistake in the grapple rule.

PC mind flayer . . . there's yer problem. :smallwink:

Of course, you could always have his* kinsmen take exception to his* actions. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, after all.
*or her, or its, or other disturbing aberration gender-neutral pronoun's

Or, as a DM you're well within your rights to say that grapple checks don't work that way and allow the opposed roll regardless of how one might interpret RAW.