Armor spikes grapple damage automatic?


Rules Questions

Scarab Sages

10 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

If Joey the Grappler is wearing armor with the 'armor spikes' addition, and is proficient in their use, does he automatically apply the 'armor spike' damage as the result of a successful grapple check?
The wording of the armor spikes entry seems to support this, but it's vague, so I'm wondering if it's been clarified anywhere.

Relevant text:

Armor Spikes::
You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see “spiked armor” on Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a –4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can't also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.) An enhancement bonus to a suit of armor does not improve the spikes' effectiveness, but the spikes can be made into magic weapons in their own right.

The sticky bit here is that it specifically says 'extra piercing damage', and I'm wondering what the 'extra' means.
Also, would strength be added to this damage, as normal with most melee weapons?

Example: Joey is having problems with a ruffian and decides to grapple him. Joey has Improved Grapple, so initiating the grapple does not provoke AoO.
Player: Joey grapples the ruffian. *rolls* His Combat Maneuver roll is 19.
GM: That allows him to grapple the ruffian.
Player: Does Joey deal armor spike damage now?
GM: I dunno, let's just keep going. The ruffian tries to break the grapple, and gets a 14.
Player: Joey has a CMD of 18, so that fails.
Round 2:
Player: Joey continues to grapple the ruffian. His Combat Maneuver check is a 17.
DM: That's enough to beat the ruffian's CMD.
Player: Ok, so Joey will pin the ruffian. Do I deal Armor Spike damage now?
DM: I dunno, let's keep going. The ruffian tries to break the pin, and gets a 17, which means he fails.
Round 3:
Player. Well then, Joey will grapple the ruffian again to deal damage. *rolls* His CM check is 17 again, so I deal damage with my armor spikes. When do I deal any extra damage with the armor spikes?
GM: I dunno. Let's look.
*A thorough search of the boards pulls up a few scattered opinions, but no clear consensus.*
Player: Ok, I'm starting a new thread.

TLDR:
Do you deal armor spike damage when initiating a grapple?
When maintaining a grapple to do something else, like move or pin?
When dealing normal damage, do you get 'extra' armor spike damage?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, they deal extra damage in a grapple. Extra to what?

Grapple rules indicate you can deal unarmed damage/natural weapon damage/light weapon damage automatically if you succeed on a (normally) standard action grapple check to deal damage.

So add it to his unarmed damage if that's what he was using, otherwise, this "extra piercing damage" would apply to whatever existing method he was using to deal damage in the grapple.

Seems the easiest interpretation. Now, the spikes themselves are a weapon, but in that case one would have to rule that they were the sole source of damage and not extra.

"Extra piercing damage" also lends me to believe that only the weapon damage roll would be added, as your strength and appropriate factors are added in to the primary damage source. Again, this is assuming you did not use the spikes as the primary weapon but instead as "extra piercing damage."

There isn't a specific rule on this that I can find, so I'm applying it via logic.


A grapple roll is a grapple attack. Even a grapple check to move or pin is a grapple attack; not just dealing damage. So, logically, the damage from armor spikes applies whenever you make a grapple check against the target. Three checks per round (swift, move, standard)? Three iterations of spike damage.


That makes a 50 gold piece item (armor spikes) as powerful as the constrict ability (available for 18,000 gold pieces in the form of Anaconda's Coils).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

Under Normal Grapple rules you deal unarmed damage. This is 1d3 for Medium, 1d2 for small plus str mod. This damage is applied only when you grapple for damage. It makes sense that what armor spikes allow you to do is use them for the grapple damage instead of your unarmed strike damage. This is more in line with the cost and can be what they meant by grapple attack, a grapple for damage.

Extra piercing damage is there because you do more damage than normal and its piercing.

Shadow Lodge

Yeah, I'd like to know the answer to this as well. Thing is, I've been playing it as an extra damage roll on each grapple check and on a 4th level brawler the spikes are more of a novelty thing, but with level six incoming stuff like Greater Grapple, animal fury rage power and Snapping Turtle style feats the reading will eventually cause an escalation of power.

Is there perhaps a dev clarification somewhere?

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's more clear if you actually read the grapple rules.

CRB wrote:

Grapple

...Once you are grappling an opponent, a
successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and
also allows you to perform one of the following actions (as part
of the standard action spent to maintain the grapple).

The following actions being "Move, Damage, Pin, and Tie Up".

If you look at the entry for Damage.

Quote:

Damage: You can inf lict 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.

This is a "grapple attack". Just because you're making an "attack roll" doesn't mean an action is an attack. Just initiating a grapple is not a "grapple attack".


claudekennilol wrote:
Just because you're making an "attack roll" doesn't mean an action is an attack.

[citation needed]

Grand Lodge

Kazaan wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
Just because you're making an "attack roll" doesn't mean an action is an attack.
[citation needed]

You're going to have give me citation to prove that it is. The rules are what they say they are. You don't prove the rules by pointing out they have nothing to negate it.

You are making a Grapple combat maneuver by making an attack roll and adding your CMB.

For example, under Damage it says "If your attack succeeds, you deal damage." Are you trying to tell me since I tripped someone because I made an "attack roll" I automatically deal some kind of damage (inferred by the above statement under damage, not from the armor spikes rules)? Obviously no. Likewise, attempting a grapple is not a "grapple attack"--the damage option after maintaining a grapple is, though.


claudekennilol wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
Just because you're making an "attack roll" doesn't mean an action is an attack.
[citation needed]

You're going to have give me citation to prove that it is. The rules are what they say they are. You don't prove the rules by pointing out they have nothing to negate it.

You are making a Grapple combat maneuver by making an attack roll and adding your CMB.

For example, under Damage it says "If your attack succeeds, you deal damage." Are you trying to tell me since I tripped someone because I made an "attack roll" I automatically deal some kind of damage (inferred by the above statement under damage, not from the armor spikes rules)? Obviously no. Likewise, attempting a grapple is not a "grapple attack"--the damage option after maintaining a grapple is, though.

I just wanted to see if you had an explicit or implicit rule that stated something along the lines of, "just because it involves an "attack roll" doesn't mean it's an attack." So you're saying that's not, actually, something from the rules but simply something you've extrapolated. That means that, since you are making the argument, you must provide the citation or logical interpretation that supports your argument. You provided nothing of the sort. I offered you the benefit of the doubt before I provided my counterexample. That's all. So...

PRD wrote:
Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don't harm anyone.

Even casting Hold Person is considered an Attack. Grapple Attempt, either to initiate or to maintain, would, logically, be considered a Grapple Attack.

Grand Lodge

Kazaan wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
Just because you're making an "attack roll" doesn't mean an action is an attack.
[citation needed]

You're going to have give me citation to prove that it is. The rules are what they say they are. You don't prove the rules by pointing out they have nothing to negate it.

You are making a Grapple combat maneuver by making an attack roll and adding your CMB.

For example, under Damage it says "If your attack succeeds, you deal damage." Are you trying to tell me since I tripped someone because I made an "attack roll" I automatically deal some kind of damage (inferred by the above statement under damage, not from the armor spikes rules)? Obviously no. Likewise, attempting a grapple is not a "grapple attack"--the damage option after maintaining a grapple is, though.

I just wanted to see if you had an explicit or implicit rule that stated something along the lines of, "just because it involves an "attack roll" doesn't mean it's an attack." So you're saying that's not, actually, something from the rules but simply something you've extrapolated. That means that, since you are making the argument, you must provide the citation or logical interpretation that supports your argument. You provided nothing of the sort. I offered you the benefit of the doubt before I provided my counterexample. That's all. So...

PRD wrote:
Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don't harm anyone.

If you knew where the rule was you could've just quoted it initially instead of being an ass about it. I'm still going to say that the grapple rules are more explicit about when armor spikes can be used in a grapple and as such those trump the generalness of the rules found under the Armor Spikes entry. Are you going to tell me next that you can add in extra armor spikes damage when grappling with a whip via greater whip mastery?


claudekennilol wrote:
If you knew where the rule was you could've just quoted it initially instead of being an ass about it. I'm still going to say that the grapple rules are more explicit about when armor spikes can be used in a grapple and as such those trump the generalness of the rules found under the Armor Spikes entry. Are you going to tell me next that you can add in extra armor spikes damage when grappling with a whip via greater whip mastery?

"Using the 'deal damage' option, you can deal damage equal to {list of damage options including armor spikes}" does not logically proceed to "you can only deal damage with armor spikes when using the 'deal damage' option". So you claim it to be a specific exception when it isn't really. To illustrate, the entry for the Attack action states making a single attack with a melee or ranged weapon is an Attack action. But there are other means by which to deliver a single attack with a melee or ranged weapon so Attack isn't the only method by which to do this. Similarly, when the Grapple entry states you can 'deal damage' with unarmed strike, natural weapon, light/one-handed weapon or armor spikes, that doesn't represent exclusivity on use of armor spikes; simply one valid option. The real debate at hand here is whether this verbiage is accurate to convey the use which the devs intended. If it reads "deal damage on a grapple attack" then that logically means whether you grapple to initiate, damage, move, pin, whatever, the armor spikes are gouging them as part of the combat maneuver check. If it was intended for the spikes to only be used as a damage option (which is kind of redundant, mind you, as they are a light weapon and the 'deal damage' option already includes light weapons), then instead of "on a grapple attack" it should be errata'ed to "when grappling to deal damage".

This is the same situation that we had with the Sunder maneuver a couple of years ago where it stated that it must be made in place of a melee attack as part of an attack action. Some people claimed that the "as part of an attack action" was superfluous and should just be ignored wholesale. Others (myself included) called out that since "attack action" was established as a defined mechanical term based on the Vital Strike FAQ, contrary to Trip and Disarm which just stated "in place of a melee attack", Sunder actually did demand the Attack Action. I (and others) also included the caveat that if this were not the intent, it shouldn't be "casually dismissed" but rather necessitated intervention from the devs in the form of an errata. In the end, we found that such an errata was, indeed, necessary. That may (or may not) be the case here but, as written, the rules indicate that armor spikes deal damage on all grapple checks, not just damage.

Regarding grapples with a whip, that's a prime example of the argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy. It doesn't illustrate a disproof of my position but, rather, the expansion of the issue in that, while giving a more discrete definition about the function of armor spikes, we also need a specific caveat regarding the interaction (or, rather, lack thereof) between GWM grappling and armor spikes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

[citation needed]
Oh, I have the counter-argument that disproves this.

D**k move that prompted a derailing argument over whose responsibility ti is to prove or disprove an argument. Could have been avoided by saying "Here is an example that disproves your claim, is there another that contradicts it that I overlooked?"

Manners are cooler than being right.

That being said, I think an errata is in order, because one logical leap reads the rules for Grapple and Armor Spikes, finds "attack" only in the parts concerning damage and concludes they must reference each other. And another leap goes further and reads the Attacks definition, finds that everything grapple is a "grapple attack" and concludes that armor spikes deal damage everywhere in the grapple rules.

Neither are wrong, but they do contradict each other.


Patrick Mousel wrote:
Neither are wrong, but they do contradict each other.

*Neither are logically invalid.

Contradiction, by definition, means that one and only one is correct and any others are wrong. So if neither were wrong, it wouldn't be a contradiction. One of them is wrong, we just don't know which at this point given the information available. Furthermore, there is the option that both interpretations are wrong, in which case they aren't contradictory, they are contrary. Contradictory means they can't both be correct, but one of them must be. Contrary means they can't both be correct, but it is entirely possible that both are wrong.

Also, "manners" aren't some tangible force like Good in Golarion. Your views on manners aren't necessary the same as those of others. In my view, the derailing argument could have been equally avoided by the other party a) realizing that the nature of communication on the internet often involves catch-phrases and memetic terms as idiomatic phrases for a larger concept and b) not taking a challenge to his position as some kind of personal affront. But, you know, that's just me.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

technically, nothing is labeled as a grapple attack, so any argument is going to be up to what you consider falls under the term using English language rules and not pathfinder rules.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kazaan wrote:
Patrick Mousel wrote:
Neither are wrong, but they do contradict each other.

*Neither are logically invalid.

Contradiction, by definition, means that one and only one is correct and any others are wrong. So if neither were wrong, it wouldn't be a contradiction. One of them is wrong, we just don't know which at this point given the information available. Furthermore, there is the option that both interpretations are wrong, in which case they aren't contradictory, they are contrary. Contradictory means they can't both be correct, but one of them must be. Contrary means they can't both be correct, but it is entirely possible that both are wrong.

Also, "manners" aren't some tangible force like Good in Golarion. Your views on manners aren't necessary the same as those of others. In my view, the derailing argument could have been equally avoided by the other party a) realizing that the nature of communication on the internet often involves catch-phrases and memetic terms as idiomatic phrases for a larger concept and b) not taking a challenge to his position as some kind of personal affront. But, you know, that's just me.

It's not a personal affront, it's a rules debate, presented using rules. The only 'personal affront' that may have been seen was when you asked me to prove my point only so you could later disprove my point with the rule you were already aware of.


Did this ever get FAQed?


nope, we're still just as divided and unclear as ever.


Sorry to necro this thread and revive the debate but I couldn't find out if this had been clarified.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

FAQing.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Armor spikes grapple damage automatic? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.