Grappling and Sneak Attack Question

[Saradominist]

Hi all,

I've been looking around for grapple information a lot; I'm thinking of building a more martial grappler (monk/fighter/psywar; plus a little warblade - I like a few of the least-flashy, low-level ToB maneuvers). However, I'm running into a complication regarding one key use of grappling.

Every thread I look at indicates that a grappled opponent can be sneak attacked by your allies. However, the "Combat Modifiers" section of the SRD seems to say that, if someone attacks an enemy you're grappling, they have a 50% chance of hitting you.

So: thoughts? Clarifications? Is there something real obvious I am missing?

-Christian

[Khedrac]

Hi all,

I've been looking around for grapple information a lot; I'm thinking of building a more martial grappler (monk/fighter/psywar; plus a little warblade - I like a few of the least-flashy, low-level ToB maneuvers). However, I'm running into a complication regarding one key use of grappling.

Every thread I look at indicates that a grappled opponent can be sneak attacked by your allies. However, the "Combat Modifiers" section of the SRD seems to say that, if someone attacks an enemy you're grappling, they have a 50% chance of hitting you.

So: thoughts? Clarifications? Is there something real obvious I am missing?

-Christian

Yes there is - ranged attacks have a chance of hitting any of the grapplers, melee atacks do not.

[Powerdork]

That note is found only in the ranged column. Melee can disregard it. Per Rules Compendium, "If you make a ranged attack against a grappler while not engaged in the grapple, you roll randomly to see which grappler your attack strikes."

So the rogue is just fine pulling out a knife and choosing when to strike whom in the chaos of the melee.

[Particle_Man]

So if a reckless ranged-attacking rogue shoots a shortbow into a grappling enemy, fails the 50% and fires into the friend, does the damage of the shortbow's sneak attack apply to the ally?

[tyckspoon]

So if a reckless ranged-attacking rogue shoots a shortbow into a grappling enemy, fails the 50% and fires into the friend, does the damage of the shortbow's sneak attack apply to the ally?

I would argue that this counts as a concealed/obscured target and you can't actually Sneak Attack here anyways.

But yes if your DM believes you can ranged sneak attack into a grappleball, you would Sneak Attack whichever target you hit. There is no allowance for initially wanting to Sneak Attack and then retroactively removing that choice once you find out what you actually hit - if you could pick your target that precisely in the first place than there wouldn't be a random chance involved at all!

[Psyren]

I'm actually going to dissent on the "accidentally sneak attack your ally" bit. First, because the conditions for sneak attack like awareness still need to apply (and there are a number of ways for your ally to know you're there even if the enemy doesn't), and second, because even if you qualify for sneak attack against both creatures, I don't see how accidentally hitting someone you didn't mean to hit means you veer for their vital spots.

[Saintheart]

So if a reckless ranged-attacking rogue shoots a shortbow into a grappling enemy, fails the 50% and fires into the friend, does the damage of the shortbow's sneak attack apply to the ally?

RAW stupidity that says since both grapplers are the recipient of the 'Grappled' condition, both are consequently denied DEX bonus to AC, and accordingly sneak attack applies.

On the other hand, it's possible (under feats at least) to choose to forego sneak attack for some other effect, so it may be possible for the rogue to choose not to impose sneak attack damage on his ally.

Alternatively, the sneak attack condition deals extra damage any time the rogue's "target" would be denied DEX bonus to AC. Presumably the ally was not the reckless rogue's target, the ally was only hit due to an imposition of random chance, so necessarily sneak attack would not apply.

[Fouredged Sword]

If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.


The operative word here is "can". Can implies a choice. I am under the opinion that a rogue may always choose not to deal sneak attack damage. It makes sense. A sneak attack takes some degree of skill and effort. A rogue may always simply choose to not put that skill and effort into a strike.

The mechanic for a particularly lucky or unlucky attack dealing extra damage already exists - critical hits.

[hamishspence]

Hi all,

I've been looking around for grapple information a lot; I'm thinking of building a more martial grappler (monk/fighter/psywar; plus a little warblade - I like a few of the least-flashy, low-level ToB maneuvers). However, I'm running into a complication regarding one key use of grappling.


Some Swordsage powers look very "martial grappler" - all the Setting Sun ones that involve throwing the enemy. Perhaps they might make thematic sense here?

[Khedrac]

I think the RAW here is that the rogue can choose to go for a sneak attack (precision damage) but doesn't have to.

If you turn that into an explanation to fit grappling, then a rogue going for precision damage spots a gap in the armor and looses their arrow, but because they are shooting at two people tumbling around together it can turn out to be the wrong person's gap that gets targeted and sneak attacked. I think the decision on whether to sneak attack has to be made before the random determination of targets.

One common house-rule (I think) is that if the grapplers are of different size then the chance of hitting one or the other depends on the relative sizes. Indeed if one is much larger than the other then many DMs will allow the attack to be made without the chance of hitting the wrong target.

[liquidformat]

I would argue that this counts as a concealed/obscured target and you can't actually Sneak Attack here anyways.
I'm actually going to dissent on the "accidentally sneak attack your ally" bit. First, because the conditions for sneak attack like awareness still need to apply (and there are a number of ways for your ally to know you're there even if the enemy doesn't), and second, because even if you qualify for sneak attack against both creatures, I don't see how accidentally hitting someone you didn't mean to hit means you veer for their vital spots.

I can't disagree with you more, this is a blatant misinterpretation of the rules. Both grappling opponents are denied their dex bonus so are valid targets for sneak attack. There is nothing in the rules about grappling giving you cover.
Secondly you decide whether an attack is a sneak attack when you initiate the attack not after you have succeeded and are about to deal damage. So you must either declare it is a sneak attack and risk accidentally sneak attacking your ally or not be an idiot and ranged attack into a grapple...

[InvisibleBison]

I can't disagree with you more, this is a blatant misinterpretation of the rules. Both grappling opponents are denied their dex bonus so are valid targets for sneak attack. There is nothing in the rules about grappling giving you cover.
Secondly you decide whether an attack is a sneak attack when you initiate the attack not after you have succeeded and are about to deal damage. So you must either declare it is a sneak attack and risk accidentally sneak attacking your ally or not be an idiot and ranged attack into a grapple...

While you're right RAW, this is one area where the RAW is stupid and the DM should overrule it. Making a sneak attack and accidentally hitting the wrong target are conceptually incompatible; if you do one, you can't also do the other.

[hamishspence]

Making a sneak attack and accidentally hitting the wrong target are conceptually incompatible; if you do one, you can't also do the other.
The point of Sneak Attack is "catching someone off-guard, by surprise, For Massive Damage".

It's not to hard to imagine Friendly Fire incidents for this sort of thing. Say you are an assassin, who's sent minions to keep your target distracted - and then, as you're taking the shot, something goes wrong and one of your minions gets in the way. It doesn't matter that your shot wasn't aimed at them - they're in the way, so it hits them.


"The tactics of the assassin" and "accidentally hitting the wrong person" combining, is a pretty realistic situation.

[liquidformat]

While you're right RAW, this is one area where the RAW is stupid and the DM should overrule it. Making a sneak attack and accidentally hitting the wrong target are conceptually incompatible; if you do one, you can't also do the other.

I am not seeing an argument here, I can very precisely aim at the wrong thing in a chaotic situation. If your assertion were true friendly fire wouldn't be a thing...

[InvisibleBison]

I am not seeing an argument here, I can very precisely aim at the wrong thing in a chaotic situation. If your assertion were true friendly fire wouldn't be a thing...

That's not how shooting into a grapple works, though. You don't aim at some body part in the grapple, and discover whose body part it was when you resolve the attack. You aim at one creature, and potentially hit the other creature by accident. While it is in theory possible to accidentally hit a vital point, that's represented by critical hits, not sneak attack. It's not possible to make a sneak attack by mistake.

[Arkain]

I am not seeing an argument here, I can very precisely aim at the wrong thing in a chaotic situation. If your assertion were true friendly fire wouldn't be a thing...

You aim for a vulnerable spot, since the grappling target cannot properly defend those, for instance. Then you misfire and go "Whoopsie, didn't mean to hit you in the kidneys, was aiming at the other guy". It seems a bit odd to make this kind of specific attack and then accidentally miss, hit somebody else and power through with the very specific attack anyway both at the same time. I'm guessing it's an issue where abstract rules and imagination cannot quite agree with each other. The rules say yes, but imagining the situation ends up in a big "HOW?".

[hamishspence]

In a grapple case, you might be "the two grapplers are constantly rolling, you're waiting for the person you want to hit to be on top, so you hit them in the kidneys" - and you launch the attack - but by sheer bad luck, it's mis-timed - the wrong person is on top when the attack "goes off".

[Metastachydium]

In a grapple case, you might be "the two grapplers are constantly rolling, you're waiting for the person you want to hit to be on top, so you hit them in the kidneys" - and you launch the attack - but by sheer bad luck, it's mis-timed - the wrong person is on top when the attack "goes off".

…and their kidneys end up just where you don't want them? Okay, I get that it's RAW, but it doesn't make sense.

[hamishspence]

It's more

"you thought the right person was on top, and you struck before you realised your mistake - a moment's misjudgement, represented by the chance of hitting the wrong person when you attack a grapple".



Mechanically speaking, you "attached all the sneak attack damage to the arrow (or other ranged weapon), and fired it" - you can't take the damage off the arrow while it's in the air. No take-backsies once you've Declared a Sneak Attack and rolled the dice.


First, because the conditions for sneak attack like awareness still need to apply (and there are a number of ways for your ally to know you're there even if the enemy doesn't), and second, because even if you qualify for sneak attack against both creatures, I don't see how accidentally hitting someone you didn't mean to hit means you veer for their vital spots.

You can attack someone who is aware of you just by flanking them. They're aware of you, but you still hit for full sneak attack damage. So awareness is irrelevant here.

With a ranged attack at a "grappleball" you're not attacking one person in the grappleball - you're attacking the grappleball itself, and you have accepted the risk that you will hit the "wrong" target in the ball. Choosing to apply sneak attack damage to this "attack on the grappleball" doesn't change the fact that the attack itself hitting the wrong person was an accepted possibility.

[InvisibleBison]

It's more

"you thought the right person was on top, and you struck before you realised your mistake - a moment's misjudgement, represented by the chance of hitting the wrong person when you attack a grapple".

That only works if both parties have the exact same vital organs, though. You won't mistake your friend's kidneys for your enemy's kidneys if your enemy doesn't have kidneys.

[hamishspence]

True. When a grappleball considers of a human and a plant creature, and the Sneak Attack lands on the plant creature - it won't take the bonus damage, because it's immune.

Unless you had Deathstrike Bracers from Magic Item Compendium, and spent one of your "3 times per day" uses, before the attack actually landed.
(Ignore this bit - Deathstrike Bracers only work on melee attacks).


While you're right RAW, this is one area where the RAW is stupid and the DM should overrule it.

I don't think this is a case of Drown-Healing here - the idea that you must "declare a Sneak Attack" before the attack actually lands is pretty firmly established in the rules.

[InvisibleBison]

True. When a grappleball considers of a human and a plant creature, and the Sneak Attack lands on the plant creature - it won't take the bonus damage, because it's immune.

Unless you had Deathstrike Bracers from Magic Item Compendium, and spent one of your "3 times per day" uses, before the attack actually landed.

Even if everyone in the grapple is vulnerable to sneak attack, the idea that you can accidentally sneak attack your friend because you thought they were your enemy only works if your friend and your enemy have near-identical anatomy. If a human is grappling with a dragon, you're not going to mistake one for the other, and even if you somehow did an attack that would be a sneak attack against one would not be a sneak attack against the other.

[hamishspence]

If a human is grappling with a dragon, you're not going to mistake one for the other, and even if you somehow did an attack that would be a sneak attack against one would not be a sneak attack against the other.
That's not established in the rules though.

Sneak attack is just bonus damage (damage that a few creatures are immune to). If the creature is not immune, it takes the damage, regardless of its exact anatomy.


Suppose your job is to assassinate an enemy leader from a distance. They're wearing a long robe, so you can't tell what's underneath the robe - the enemy leader could be an aberration such as an Elan, a Monstrous Humanoid, a half-dragon, a fiend - the point is that they don't have their DEX bonus against you, so the sneak attack works.

In this case, the sneak attack would probably be a headshot. Getting hit in the head massively damages most things that aren't undead or plants.

[Quentinas]

Question if our reckless rogue that shoot in a grapple with his bow is adjacent to the two creature that are grappling would he still be subjected to the random choice of target?

[liquidformat]

That only works if both parties have the exact same vital organs, though. You won't mistake your friend's kidneys for your enemy's kidneys if your enemy doesn't have kidneys.

In general and even in d&d things that can be crit'ed/sneak attacked have vital spots in similar areas so if I am aiming at a human's kidneys who is wrestling a black bear and I instead hit the black bear its going to be a similarly vital area it just might end up being the liver or gut instead. Granted once we start looking at a larger creature grappling something smaller this might fall out. Though it really depends, If the same human in grappling with the head of a dire snake since the snake gets their grapple off its bite and I miss the human's kidneys and instead hit the snake's mouth/head again that is still a vital area.

In the end there is enough from a 'realism' and a RAW point of view here that your claim doesn't hold up.

[Arkain]

In hindsight, I feel like while we were caught up in the grappleball, ludonarrative dissonance rolled really well and hit us right where it hurts, mostly 6s on the damage dice, too.

[InvisibleBison]

That's not established in the rules though.

Sneak attack is just bonus damage (damage that a few creatures are immune to). If the creature is not immune, it takes the damage, regardless of its exact anatomy.

Yes, that's my point - the rules are nonsensical and should be ignored.

[liquidformat]

Yes, that's my point - the rules are nonsensical and should be ignored.

The issue is that they are too general to always apply well not that they are nonsensical. For creatures within a size category of each other that are actively grappling each other their vulnerable areas are generally in the same area so the rules seem very reasonable. On the other hand when you start getting two or more size categories in size difference issues start to arise based on which of the grapplers you are aiming at and what they initiated the grapple with. It isn't as simple as this rule is stupid and should never apply its more that this rule should be the general case and be expanded upon.

[Troacctid]

If the rules are nonsensical, the nonsensical part is definitely the premise that sneak attacks must represent targeted attacks at vital organs. How does a rogue with no ranks in Knowledge or Heal know where to aim to sneak attack? Dragons and aboleths have very different anatomies. Why don't sneak attacks have secondary effects depending on which organ you damaged? If you stab a cyclops in the eye, feels like it should, you know, impair its vision somewhat.

[Psyren]

I mean, for those making the RAW argument, by RAW sneak attack only works on the vitals of "opponents." Furthermore, the rogue must "pick out a vital spot." So I'm comfortable in not allowing this kind of "accidental sneak attack."

[Darg]

The ability description mentions that the sneak attack works against the target (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_target&alpha=), which is a defined term that specifically means the intended recipient. Unintentional recipients are not targets by the rules.

As such, if the ranged attack hits the wrong creature it is not a sneak attack. If it hits the correct creature it is a sneak attack.

[Gruftzwerg]

The ability description mentions that the sneak attack works against the target (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_target&alpha=), which is a defined term that specifically means the intended recipient. Unintentional recipients are not targets by the rules.

As such, if the ranged attack hits the wrong creature it is not a sneak attack. If it hits the correct creature it is a sneak attack.

Agree and nice catch! <3