3.5: Is a natural 1 on an opposed grapple check an auto fail?

[graeylin]

Is a natural 1 on an opposed grapple check an auto fail?

Not all natural 1's are auto fails (skill checks, for example, are not). Per the SRD,


Automatic Misses and Hits
A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit. A natural 20 is also a threat—a possible critical hit.

So, a natural 1 is a miss on an attack roll.

So, is an opposed grapple check an attack roll?


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...


Well, it's LIKE an attack roll. But it doesn't say it IS an attack roll, just that it's LIKE an attack roll.

Rules of the game further clarifies it a bit, under their section on grappling:


A grapple check is just like a melee attack roll, except that a special size modifier replaces your normal size modifier.

Which seems to imply that they are the same EXCEPT for one difference, that special size modifier.

However, the 3.5 FAQ says this about grapples:


When using Combat Expertise or Power Attack, does the penalty you take also apply to opposed attack rolls (such as when you are involved in a disarm or sunder attempt)? What about on grapple checks?

Yes and no. Anything described as an attack roll (even an opposed attack roll) can be affected by Combat Expertise or Power Attack. A grapple check isn’t an attack roll, so you can’t use Combat Expertise or Power Attack in conjunction with it.


I have a monk with the Vow of Poverty feat (BE). Does the exalted strike bonus apply to grapple, sunder, disarm, and trip attempts?

The exalted strike bonus gained by a character who has taken Vow of Poverty applies only on attack and damage rolls. Unless something is described as an attack roll or a damage roll, the bonus doesn’t apply.

• The touch attack made to start a grapple is an attack roll (so the bonus would apply to this roll), but a grapple check is not an attack roll, and thus the bonus wouldn’t apply to the grapple check. Likewise, the touch attack made to start a trip attack would gain the bonus, but the Strength check you make to trip the defender is not an attack roll and wouldn’t gain the bonus.

• To attempt a disarm attack or a sunder attack, you make an attack roll opposed by the defender’s attack roll, so the exalted strike bonus would apply.

So, it's not an attack roll...

Final result?

It is an attack roll? No, not likely by the rules
It is LIKE an attack roll? Yes! With only one exception.
It ISN'T an attack roll? Yes....

Is it an opposed attack roll? Yes, kind of.

Ugh. So it isn't an attack roll, but it's like an attack roll, in every way except one. or two. or three ways.

Which is it?

[Doctor Awkward]

I was going to call it an ability check, on the grounds that a Factotum adds Intelligence to grapple checks with Brains over Brawn, but after double-checking, that's apparently not correct.
And then grapple isn't mentioned in the skill section anywhere.

Eh, I'd just go with the FAQ. It's rare to see such consistency with CustServ.
It's not an attack roll, natural 1's do not auto-fail.

[Crake]

A natural 1 on an attack roll is an automatic miss. The result of a grapple check is irrelevant for hitting and missing, as it is an opposed check, so regardless of whether or not you call it an attack roll or not, the roll does not determine a hit or a miss, merely the score your opponent needs to contest in order to beat your grapple check.

It is worth noting that the same applies to other kinds of special attacks that specifically call for attack rolls, such as disarm, or the wall of blades maneuver to block an attack. A natural 1 is not an automatic failure, merely an automatic miss. In a circumstance where the attack roll is not being used to determine a hit or a miss, the natural 1 or 20 is irrelevant.

[graeylin]

Thanks guys!

[animewatcha]

On a semi-related note with grapple checks. While Power attack don't decrease from grapple checks, will it still increase damage dealt? I.E. I power attack for full bab of 5, taking no penalty on my grapple check, but do my unarmed strike damage plus 5.

[Riculf]

I seem to remember a thread that specifically stated that you could NOT apply Power Attack to Grapple UA damage.:smallbiggrin:

[Crake]

You could however use the 'attack with a weapon' option in a grapple, which lets you attack at a -4 penalty, rather hefty yes, but you are keeping someone in a grapple, so that's the tradeoff. In this circumstance you could power attack for extra damage, but at an even larger penalty.

[SinsI]

Definitely not. It is opposed check. Who wins if both are 1?

[Curmudgeon]

You could however use the 'attack with a weapon' option in a grapple, which lets you attack at a -4 penalty, rather hefty yes, but you are keeping someone in a grapple, so that's the tradeoff. In this circumstance you could power attack for extra damage, but at an even larger penalty.
That's only good for light weapons, which explicitly don't work with Power Attack. You'll have to use unarmed strikes (Edit: or other natural attacks) if you want to use Power Attack while grappling.

[Crake]

That's only good for light weapons, which explicitly don't work with Power Attack. You'll have to use unarmed strikes (Edit: or other natural attacks) if you want to use Power Attack while grappling.

people were talking in the context of unarmed strikes, so yeah, that was already implied.


Definitely not. It is opposed check. Who wins if both are 1?

Same as always, add their grapple modifiers and see who scored higher. In the event of a tie (because they have the same modifier) then you re-roll. Note that if players roll the same TOTAL (the dice roll plus the modifier) the player with the higher modifier wins (unless they have the same modifiers, in which case re-roll).

So player A has +10 grapple, player B has +15. If Player A rolls a 10 and gets 20, and Player B rolls a 5 and gets 20, player B wins, due to the higher modifier.

Note that if player B rolls a 1, for a total of 16, Player A will still lose on any roll lower than 7, because rolling a 6 would result in both players having 16, and B winning due to a higher modifier.

[ZeshinX]

I can't offer any RAW or RAI suggestions, but in games I GM, natural 1's are always failures, with the severity of said failure left to me, as GM, to determine. Natural 20's are always successes, and I let the player of said 20 embellish as they like.

[Crake]

I can't offer any RAW or RAI suggestions, but in games I GM, natural 1's are always failures, with the severity of said failure left to me, as GM, to determine. Natural 20's are always successes, and I let the player of said 20 embellish as they like.

Even for skill checks? I guess 1 in 20 times I try to jump to the moon I'll succeed right?

[Curmudgeon]

Even for skill checks? I guess 1 in 20 times I try to jump to the moon I'll succeed right?
And 1 in every 20 times an acrobat tries to climb a normal ladder they'll fail.

[ZeshinX]

Even for skill checks? I guess 1 in 20 times I try to jump to the moon I'll succeed right?

Essentially, yes. :smalltongue:

To expand a wee bit, natural 1s are always a failure at what action is being attempted. Natural 20s are always a success in the same vein. The nature of how spectacular a failure or how momentous the success remains within the realm of capability and/or plausibility for the character (or NPC) attempting the action that led to the success/failure (so you won't be seeing any jumps to the moon :smallwink:).

Basically, it's the chance, however small, that even the most well-trained and experienced individual can still bork something up that they are, in almost all other cases, exceedingly good at. Same in reverse for successes.

[Khedrac]

So, if you say a Natural 1 is always a failure, back to the grapple check example.

Big Ugly monster has grappled Weed PC, on his turn weedy PC attempts to break free - this is an opposed grapple check, both roll natural 1.

So Weedy PC has failed to break free.
Big Ugly monster has failed to maintain his hold.

So what happens? If a natural 1 is always a failure then Big Ugly Monster is no longer grappling Weedy PC, but Weedy PC is still grappled by Big Ugly Monster...

Unless you decide to invent fumbles off the top of your head for this situation (e.g. Weedy PC is free but stunned) then one of them hasn't failed despite the natural 1.
Randomly inventing fumbles is a terrible idea (I know there are games that use this mechanism, but...) it leads to the severity of a fumble being entirely dependent on the DM's inventiveness at the time and tends to be hideously unbalanced as a result.

Many many years ago (as in mid to late 80s) I was playing in a Traveller game. One character got hit for 3 or 4 points of damage, the DM described the attack as hitting the shoulder and ruled that the arm was nearly useless as a result (he was studying biology with the aim of going to medical school). Someone else was hit elsewhere for slightly less and received a similar but lesser effect (leg I think - don't recall). Then someone was hit "in the back" for 6 or 7 points of damage (this is quite a lot in Traveller) - side effects none because the DM couldn't think of anything particularly vulnerable there.
Two points:
1) The back leads one directly into the torso, more vital organs there than anywhere else, just have to get past the ribcage (and braking that without getting past is nasty).
2) No criticals involved but the character hit for the most damage had the least negative effects from being hit.

Result - the effect of the injury didn't depend on the dice, it depended on the DM's whim.
Edit: the other point is that a 1 in 20 chance of messing up every time you try something is far far too high. Assuming you ride a bike or drive a car, do you really crash it every month?
The one percent chance some percentile systems use is too high a chance for common tasks - this is why D&D invented take 10.

[Doctor Awkward]

And 1 in every 20 times an acrobat tries to climb a normal ladder they'll fail.

I know this is sarcasm, and I agree with you 100% on the whole critical skill checks thing.

I just wanted to mention that if you worked at a warehouse where you saw the maintenance crew fall off the bottom rung of a stepladder as often as I have, you'd probably start to wonder too...

I mean, these are guys who literally climb ladders for a living.