Sarabel Hieronymus
|
I agree with CampinCarl127 and Cat-thulhu.
The language of "grab" (if that's what we're talking about) is this: If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity.
So in the situation you're describing the "creature" (the animal companion) has hit and dealt damage as normal (the fact that said damage was then "reduced" to my mind "confounds" but does not mitigate) and so, tra la, attempts to start a grapple as a free action.
| Bob Bob Bob |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm honestly not sure.
Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury poison, a monk's stunning, and injury-based disease. Damage Reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact.So DR can negate a stunning fist attempt. However in grab:
If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity.
It really only specifies hitting with the attack, not damage. I always thought the grab came from, you know, actually getting a claw/tooth into them, but by the rules that doesn't seem to be required.
So I guess I'd say yes you can grab if you fail to beat DR, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone else disagreed.