|
"Damage: You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon. This damage can be either lethal or nonlethal."
Should one-handed weapon be included on this list?
Should armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon deal damage included in "This damage can be either lethal or nonlethal."
|
"Damage: You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon. This damage can be either lethal or nonlethal."
Should one-handed weapon be included on this list?
Should armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon deal damage included in "This damage can be either lethal or nonlethal."
Only light weapons (or natural weapons) can be used while grappling.
(armor spikes = light weapon)
No, Andrew is right. One of the several changes to the grappled condition is that you can now make attacks with a light or one-handed weapon. Potentially that could include iterative attacks. You can also cast spells, though the check is a tough act. Basically, if you can do it with one hand, you can do it grappling (...)
Note that there are two references to one-handed weapons being admissable, so it's not likely an error.
You can also attack creatures within your reach.
The non-lethal damage thing is annoying. I think that's probably a leftover from 3.5, but it's not for me to say. Personally my hunch is that it needs an erratum.
"Damage: You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon. This damage can be either lethal or nonlethal."
Should one-handed weapon be included on this list?
Sure. Note that not having two hands free gives you a -4 penalty on grapple checks, though.
Should armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon deal damage included in "This damage can be either lethal or nonlethal."
Probably not.
|
|
Note that there are two references to one-handed weapons being admissable, so it's not likely an error.
You can also attack creatures within your reach.
The non-lethal damage thing is annoying. I think that's probably a leftover from 3.5, but it's not for me to say. Personally my hunch is that it needs an erratum.
Two references, check.
Threaten while Grappled with penalties, check.
Suggest erratum for non-lethal damage from sharp object, I agree.