| 45 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When does armor spikes "extra piercing damage" apply? On any grapple check, or just when grappling to deal damage? The term "grapple attack" is ambiguous and could apply to either case.
Is the "extra" damage from armored spikes it's own variable, or does it reference the fact that a D6 is more than most creatures in the market for spiked armor deal with an unarmed strike?
You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage on a successful grapple attack (see "spiked armor" in the Martial Weapons Table). 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.
Simmons Gene, medium grappler in spiked studded leather and a 16 strength, moves up to a goblin and initiates a grapple. What happens?
Option 1
Round 1) Simmons Gene approaches goblin and grapples.
Round 2) Simmons gene rolls to maintain the grapple and chooses to damage. He deals 1d6+3 damage (because of his 16 strength)
Option 2
Round 1) Simmons Gene approaches a goblin and grapples. This is a grapple attack, he deals 1d6+3 damage.
Round 2) Simmons Gene maintains the grapple. He deals 1d3+3 damage for unarmed, and 1d6+3 for the spikes.
Option 3
Round 1) Simmons Gene approaches goblin and grapples dealing 1d6 damage
Round 2) Simmons Gene rolls to maintain the grapple and chooses to damage. He deals 1d3+3 damage (because of his 16 strength) unarmed and 1d6 extra armored spike damage.
Some other combination ?
I'm strongly leaning on option 1.
"Grapple attack" is an undefined term. I see no reason why the rules would have said "grapple attack" if it had meant "grapple check". So I have to ask "what the heck is a [grapple attack]? "
1) I can very easily see why the rules would have said "grapple attack" instead of the space consuming "when you chose to damage your opponent as part of maintaining a grapple check" There is no reason for grapple attack to exist if all grapples are [grapple attacks]. They could have just said grapple, or grapple check. They did not.
2) 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.
This option specifically calls out the armor spikes and how to use them
2a) This would mean that armor spikes would inflict double damage. You could damage as part of maintaining the grapple , which would set off the armor spikes. Double your damage for 50 gp seems like a bit much.
3) Anaconda Coils Having what amounts to an easier to enchant constrict from a 50 GP purchase seems a bit much compared to the 8,000 gp increase over the base +2 +2 belt.
4) , as it seems like you're planning on, You could get triple damage out of this with grab, constrict, and armor spikes. That's kinda nuts.
5) Grapple is already one of the more powerful combat maneuvers. The only balancing factor is that it doesn't deal damage. I don't see a gray area in the rules making it stronger. No other combat maneuver lets you do the maneuver and deal damage for 50 gp. That's usually in the realm of 6th level and higher feats.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I can think of an option 4.
Simmons Gene grapples his opponent round 1. No damage.
Simmons Gene maintains the grapple, choosing to damage on round 2. He deals 1d3+3 damage (because of unarmed strike and 16 STR) +1d6 extra damage from armor spikes.
So, essentially, the extra damage would only apply when you are already dealing damage. Not on a grapple check that doesn't deal damage.
I've always run it as option 1. The spikes are essentially an "always available" weapon suitable for inflicting lethal piercing damage as part of maintaining a grapple.
|
|
I've had this debate before, on this site, maybe 6 months ago. Armor spikes, like gauntlets, are a mess of rules with very unclear applications and very strong opinions from people that use them. I hit FAQ.
As an aside, can animal companions "Wield" armor spikes? Definitely seems reasonable, provided they are wearing armor and are proficent with armor spikes.
1d6 IS extra damage. Compared to the 1d3 of your average humanoid fist.
The game was written for and by bipedal humanoids (mostly). That shows up in the rules a lot.
|
|
I'm not saying that the ability doesn't work like that, just that usually if it's a situation where it replaces the damage, they'll say so. For example, from Sacred Weapon, "The warpriest can decide to use the weapon’s base damage instead of the sacred weapon damage—this must be declared before the attack roll is made."
Generally when extra is used, it means in addition to. Like from Sneak Attack, "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."
Again, it's entirely possible that option 1 is what they meant. I'm just looking for consistency in the way the phrasing is used throughout the game (good luck with that!).
|
|
Some other combination ?
"Round 2) Simmons Gene rolls to maintain the grapple and chooses to damage. His *oversized* Armor spikes deal 1d8+3 damage and takes no oversized attack penalty because this attack automatically hits."
I don't agree with this one, but it came up in that other thread on the same topic and is difficult to disprove due to the vagueness of the rules on armor spikes.
Personally, I think Option 1 is correct.
I've always thought it was (1), but now that you've drawn my attention the that 'extra' I'm leaning toward Ferious Thune's (4). FAQ'd.
|
|
The term extra indicated to me that it only deals this damage if you are already dealing damage, and unless you have constrict you don't deal damage on the first round of a grapple.1d6 IS extra damage. Compared to the 1d3 of your average humanoid fist.
The game was written for and by bipedal humanoids (mostly). That shows up in the rules a lot.
Where that gets confusing is that constrict is worded as dealing damage on a successful grapple check, and the FAQ confirmed that means every time you make a grapple check (even if there's no damage from the check itself). Armor spikes say they deal extra damage on a successful grapple attack, but a "grapple attack" isn't defined anywhere. So if a "grapple attack" is equivalent to a "grapple check," then per the constrict FAQ, there's a good argument that you apply armor spikes on everything (but not on the constrict, because that's not a separate check. It's just damage).
|
|
Some other combination ?"Round 2) Simmons Gene rolls to maintain the grapple and chooses to damage. His *oversized* Armor spikes deal 1d8+3 damage and takes no oversized attack penalty because this attack automatically hits."
I don't agree with this one, but it came up in that other thread on the same topic and is difficult to disprove due to the vagueness of the rules on armor spikes.
Personally, I think Option 1 is correct.
Are there rules for wearing oversized armor? I think there's a pretty good case to be made that you can't put large armor spikes on medium armor.
|
|
Finally (for now, I think), BNW quoted another piece of relevant rules text in his second message, but did not mark it as a quote.
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.
Is that a restatement of the rule in the armor spikes description, clarifying that they can only replace the weapon damage? Or is it a separate option to use the armor spikes when you don't have another good option for damage. Like, if you don't have Improved Unarmed Strike, but you need to deal lethal damage (like to a construct or undead immune to non-lethal).
If you grapple and deal the armor spikes as additional damage, all your other damage would be non-lethal, including strength and power attack and whatever other static bonuses. But if you elect to forego the unarmed strike damage and use the armor spikes as your main weapon, you don't deal any extra damage, but all of the damage you do deal, including static modifiers, would be lethal.
Which is right? I have no idea.
|
|
Are there rules for wearing oversized armor? I think there's a pretty good case to be made that you can't put large armor spikes on medium armor.
Like I said, the vagueness of the rules. Nothing in the rules to prevent Large Armor Spikes on Small armor (making them two handed weapons for a small character with what should be a -4 attack penalty).
And the CRB says, in the grapple section, that you can deal damage with "unarmed strike, a natural attack, armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon."
So with strict RAW, a two handed variant of armor spikes (oversized 2 steps) is allowed to damage in a grapple because the grapple rules themselves state all that light weapons, one-handed weapons, and ARMOR SPIKES are able to deal damage with no mention regarding the size of the armor spikes. I know, clearly not the intention, but that is what it says.
The CRB has the annoying habit of crossreferencing rules within the CRB to be helpful, but in hindsight, it creates lots of rules issues, especially with regards to newer content. I believe their intention is that the armor spikes are mentioned to cross reference that armor spikes can also be used in a grapple.
Another one, if I like my armor, but want to replace the Armor spikes I have with fancy new cold iron armor spikes, can I? Are the armor spikes built into the armor making the two one item, or can I remove a set of armor spikes from my armor and replace them with different armor spikes?
And the big one, can I wield armor spikes without wearing armor?
|
|
Murdock - I mean, if large armor spikes were allowed to be added to medium armor, and you're intending to use the armor spikes in the grapple, then I would impose the -4 penalty on the grapple check. You're so far into ambiguous rules without any support at that point, that it's a GM's call.
Basically, if there isn't a rule to address it, and it's legitimately unclear whether it should work, that doesn't mean that it definitely can be done. That means that the GM needs to decide how they think it works, and go with that ruling.
I'd have to dig farther, but the armor table only lists armor spikes with a +50 cost and a +10 weight. I think it's strongly implied that you don't purchase them separately. I think that prevents wielding armor spikes without armor. Where I'm less clear is if you can add and remove armor spikes from existing armor, or if you need to purchase them at the time you purchase the armor. Since the second option is the more restrictive one, that's what I'm currently planning to do with my grapple build. Which means if I decide to switch to mitral armor later, I'll have to buy new armor spikes (making them masterwork) at the same time.
|
|
Murdock - I mean, if large armor spikes were allowed to be added to medium armor, and you're intending to use the armor spikes in the grapple, then I would impose the -4 penalty on the grapple check. You're so far into ambiguous rules without any support at that point, that it's a GM's call.
You mean -2 for oversized? Or do you mean Large Spikes on Small armor?
And it's not an if. They are allowed. Until FAQed otherwise. Just like PCs can have oversized gauntlets. That said, they really aren't very good weapons, and the oversized penalty is normally huge. It's grapple specifically mentioning armor spikes that is the RAW issue here.
I agree, it defies common sense, but it isn't against the rules. There's no such limit on oversized armor spikes, which are listed as a martial melee weapons and the CRB is clear that melee weapons can be oversized.
Regarding penalizing the grapple check, that one creates lots of further problems. The issue is that the act of damaging the target is decided after maintaining the grapple successfully. It would be different if the Armor Spikes were able to add their modifiers to attack onto the grapple check, but they can't as written.
Really, the grapple rules should say that damage can be done with Light weapons or one handed weapons. Mentioning unarmed strikes, armor spikes, and natural attacks is just to cross reference the related rules, all of these should be light weapons. But because they cross referenced them, they created this rules dispute in RAW.
|
|
Put it another way, If I had high positive modifiers to my attack rolls with armor spikes, would you allow them as a bonuses to my grapple check?
Nothing in the grapple rules or the armor spike rules suggests that modifiers on attack with armor spikes carries over to the related grapple check.
I agree, the oversized penalty should apply somewhere, I just don't how it should work in rules interactions while remaining fair.
Though I will note that with armor spikes only a single size oversized, they are one handed weapons, so still eligible for grapple damage even if they weren't armor spikes. Like an oversized dagger.
You take a -4 penalty on the grapple check if you are not proficient with armor spikes. That suggests that something about them affects the attack roll.
It also tells you you're making a grapple check to damage an opponent with armored spikes.
|
|
I'm not sure I follow you. If you are wearing armor spikes, and you are not proficient, you take a -4 penalty on all grapple checks. Unless I'm missing something. So proficiency with the weapon affects the grapple check. All grapple checks. I would submit that as an indication that wearing oversized armor spikes might impose a -2 penalty on all grapple checks as well. Murdoch said nothing suggests that a modifier would carry over to the grapple check, and I provided an example of a modifier that carries over to the check.
I do think he's correct that an enhancement bonus would not apply to the check. And explicitly, there's nothing that says the oversize penalty would apply. But I'm not convinced it's legal to put oversized spikes on medium armor anyway. The spikes are an addition to the armor, not their own individual thing (see above talking about wearing armor spikes without armor), so I think it's reasonable to think they have to be the same size as the armor. I might be wrong about that. There are instances where the spikes are treated as a separate thing, like for enhancements. But I don't think it is clear either way that you are allowed or not allowed to have oversized spikes. And I don't think it's clear of you do whether or not the penalty should be applied. the non-proficiency penalty is an example of a similar penalty (the weapon is one you can't use completely properly) that is applied.
EDIT: Or are you submitting that because the penalty applies to all grapple checks, then it indicates that you are dealing damage with the spikes on all grapple checks?
|
|
I'm not sure I follow you. If you are wearing armor spikes, and you are not proficient, you take a -4 penalty on all grapple checks.
No, what it says is that if you are not proficent, you take -4 to grapple checks when you try to use them.
Merely wearing armor spikes without proficency doesn't affect grapple check results. You have to opt to use them.
Regarding the order of operations, this ability is all screwy. Technically you don't roll grapple checks to damage the opponent. You roll to grapple and then you roll to maintain the grapple on a later round. After successfully maintaining a grapple, you are given the option to damage with armor spikes. This makes for a scewy rules interation where you retroactively apply a penalty to an already successful result, possibly making it unsuccessful.
Regarding Oversized penalties, the issue is that the armor spikes are not being used to preform the grapple itself. That's why the above special rule modifies the grapple check in the way it does (though it's still poorly worded).
If you were using the armor spikes to preform the grapple, then any positive or negaitive modifiers to attack would apply to the check. And then it would be simple, as non-proficency would obviously apply a -4 on attack and that would reduce the grapple check, eliminating need for this special text. If this were the case, then the oversized penalties would apply as you describe.
|
|
The spikes are an addition to the armor, not their own individual thing
Armor Spikes can be enchanted seperately. They can be destroyed seperately. Have you seen the Quillbreaker Defense feat? That was actually the basis for my previous thread on this topic, since I had previously regarded armor spikes to be part of the armor for sunder purposes. Apparently they are able to be destroyed as a seperate piece from the armor itself. That lead me to question if armor spikes could be replaced or added to existing armor. That question lead me to wonder how the armor spikes are supposed to be attached if they aren't part of the armor. Other players suggested that the spikes were probably mounted on some sort of harness that attaches to the armor since they have serperate HP. That lead to the question of wondering if armor spikes could be equiped without armor.
And maybe it was just a poorly considered feat. Dunno, I liked the feat, but it sure lead to many questions.
And the oversized armor spikes were just one more bit on this topic. Very screwy rules interations there.
I hit the FAQ button because I've wondered about this for a while.
I just want to know how effective Thibbledorf Pwent is, I want to build him.
|
|
For some reason I saw a period after on grapple checks instead of the rest of the sentence. So you take the non-proficiency penalty when you try to use armor spikes. That still makes it reasonable to me that you would take the oversized penalty when you try to use oversized spikes. But, I also don't think you are allowed to have oversized spikes on armor. If you don't feel like you should impose that penalty, then don't. It's not clear enough to say one way or the other. A lack of it being addressed directly in the rules isn't enough to me to say it's definitely possible or definitely not.
This item confuses me so much that I'm now just going to work an Unchained Monk level into my build and use Mage Armor, so I won't have to deal with armor spikes at all. (There are lots of other reasons for the dip, like getting two feats I need to take anyway as bonus feats. Just venting frustration with this item.)
|
|
For some reason I saw a period after on grapple checks instead of the rest of the sentence. So you take the non-proficiency penalty when you try to use armor spikes. That still makes it reasonable to me that you would take the oversized penalty when you try to use oversized spikes. But, I also don't think you are allowed to have oversized spikes on armor. If you don't feel like you should impose that penalty, then don't. It's not clear enough to say one way or the other. A lack of it being addressed directly in the rules isn't enough to me to say it's definitely possible or definitely not.
That's fair. Although that's what I think the rules allow, I agree, I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense and it's clearly not intended to interact like this. Armorspikes definitely need rules clarifications.
Though I will note, regarding armor spikes without armor, there's at least one spell that grants armor spikes to affected creatures regardless of them wearing armor. Bone Fists. I know, not the same thing as equipping armor spikes without armor, but notable for this conversation. I just got this book, magic tactics toolbox, which is why I'm using this example. I think there are many others that do this EDIT: Ironbeard too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Always ran this as option 1, mostly for my own sanity.
FAQ'd, if only to see if Paizo supersedes my expectations with this FAQ.
So, based on the information presented, as well as what I think Paizo would do, I'd go with Option 1 as well.
I personally find the intent of Armor Spikes is to be able to use them in place of an unarmed strike or light/one-handed weapon, while not having to have one hand open (and therefore incurring the -4 penalty for not initiating or maintaining with two hands).
If Armor Spikes was allowed to be done in addition to whatever weapon you're doing, then that would give Grapplers a lot of power that I feel Paizo wouldn't be comfortable with them having, even if it is a mere 1D6+Strength modifier, not including enhancement bonuses or even weapon properties (Holy/Bane Armor Spikes!). I could imagine a Tetori with a +5 AoMF and +5 Armor Spikes just grabbing people left and right and shredding them on their non-existent armor spikes.
Especially if they felt TWF with a two-handed weapon and Armor Spikes shouldn't be happening, which is only slightly above its overall paygrade starting out.
"On successful grapple" doesn't appear in any rules I see here.
"These black iron pauldrons are studded with jagged spikes of various lengths. Demonspike pauldrons act as +2 armor spikes and also deal 1d2 bleed damage on a successful grapple attack or melee attack made with the pauldrons. If these pauldrons are worn with normal armor spikes, increase the damage done by the armor spikes to 1d6 (Small) or 1d8 (Medium), and use the greater of the two enhancement bonuses to attack and damage—either from the armor spikes (if any) or the demonspike pauldrons."
It uses the same term: Grapple attack. Which isn't a thing. If they meant grapple CHECK they could have said check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, after glossing over the Combat section regarding Grappling, I found the excerpt of the Damage option for maintaining a grapple. It says the following:
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.
This strongly suggests that Option 1 would be correct, since Pathfinder has multiple precedents of discouraging double-stacking unless something specifically says it does, and it doesn't make sense for Armor Spikes to be able to damage twice without some special ability (such as Greater Grapple).
We have contradictory information at a fundamental level (weapon description vs grapple rules), with no indication which should take priority. Any claim of either position to be RAW is inherently flawed.
And 'successful grapple' appears elsewhere in the rules under 'constrict' - I would be surprised if a 50gp item is supposed to effectively grant that ability.
Maaaaaybe read the item you're asking about's description?
I'm just telling you what it says.
You are not telling me what it says. You are either through blatant rules lawyering or carelessness omitting a word that changes the meaning of the sentence.
Since you missed it the item description, in the post you responded to, and the opening post of this thread, here it is again
It uses the same term: Grapple . Which isn't a thing. If they meant grapple CHECK they could have said check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Armor spikes 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."
Maaaaaybe read the item you're asking about's description? I'm just telling you what it says. By raw, my option four is the correct chain of events. And before you say that it might be something that was recently changed, it was like this in the 3.5 PHB, so it's been this way for many years.
I did read it. Numerous times. You're trying to use the bolded part as a means to cement your claim. Problem is, there's no such thing as a "grapple attack" written anywhere within the rules, nor is there a defined game term for us to fall back on for an in-game definition, by that same token.
So, we would go by the general definition of the conjoined term, which is, roughly, a hostile hand-to-hand act whose intent is to harm an individual. In that case, the closest thing to match that definition under the game's rules would be under the Damage entry for maintaining a grapple, listing a sub-option which specifically calls out "attack made with Armor Spikes", instead of having them fall into the general light/one-handed weapons that the rule also lists.
The factor that it calls it out specifically, instead of leaving it to the light/one-handed designation that it would otherwise fall under (as shown by the Weapon table) is a strong indicator that the Grapple entry is more specific (and much more quantifiable) in regards to how Armor Spikes interact with Grappling, and therefore would override the Armor Spikes entry based on that information.
Well, Grapple is a game term. Attack is a game term. Is the thing in question both a Grapple and an Attack? Well then it is a grapple attack. If Grapple Attack is not a Game term, it is 2 game terms, and a regular Grapple Combat Maneuver Check made to Initiate a Grapple fits the definitions of both game terms. Were it neither 1 nor 2 game terms, then it would be an English Language phrase, and a regular Grapple Combat Maneuver Check to Initiate a Grapple would fit the English Language definitions, too.
Even as a conjoined game term, it makes no sense, because it's not used anywhere else within the book, nor does it have a consistent context we can derive itself on, as evidenced by the contradiction within the actual Grapple rules (and hence why a FAQ thread has been made).
For example, Enhancement Bonus is a conjoined game term, Bonus being defined as a numerical increase to a statistic or dice roll, and Enhancement being a denotation of classification of what that Bonus is, usually for the purposes of determining stacking.
In contrast, you can't properly ascertain what "grapple attack" means because it can result in numerous interpretations. Compared to the "Enhancement Bonus" example above, grapple attack could refer to the action in general (though I don't understand why they didn't just shorten it to Grapples), or it could refer to the "Damage" section of the Grapple rules, which is more likely to be the case due to the evidence provided thus far.
I just pressed the FAQ button. Paying 50gp for an extra 1d6 of damage seems to cheap so I am assuming it was bad wording and they did not mean (1d3+str mod+1d6).
|
I think the most literal reading of the rules result in 2. The closest in game definition of "Grapple attack" would be a grapple that is a attack all grapples. So for PFS I feel obliged to let it run as 2 until there is a clarification.
I optionally play 1 for myself. That said, most non-octopus grapple builds pin and tie rounds before the damage matters. On most builds grappling is still poor means of doing damage.
Flavor wise 2 makes the most sense. If I grapple someone and I'm covered in spikes they take damage every time. I would be happy seeing the damage be mandatory and always lethal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PFS runs on the rules. That doesn't mean the most literal interpretation of them.
|
|
I'd have to dig farther, but the armor table only lists armor spikes with a +50 cost and a +10 weight. I think it's strongly implied that you don't purchase them separately. I think that prevents wielding armor spikes without armor. Where I'm less clear is if you can add and remove armor spikes from existing armor, or if you need to purchase them at the time you purchase the armor. Since the second option is the more restrictive one, that's what I'm currently planning to do with my grapple build. Which means if I decide to switch to mitral armor later, I'll have to buy new armor spikes (making them masterwork) at the same time.
Forgot to ask before. If you think Armor Spikes can't be bought seperately, then do you think I can purchase Armor Spikes for Padded Cloth armor? Logically, Padded Cloth armor should be just as eligible as normal clothing, I would think. I can see a fair disagreement in RAW there, but hard to justify spikes on padded cloth and not on non-armor cloth.