Armor Spike Clarification [Archive] - Wizards Community

Armor Spike Clarification [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Osiris Memnoch
05-11-05, 10:29 AM Hang on a second here. Did I read this right?

You may attack with armor spikes in a grapple the same way you would deal unarmed damage in a grapple? You know, with a grapple check and not an attack roll at -4?
chocobochicken
05-11-05, 10:37 AM Yep, you read it right. It's like hugging a porcupine! :D For further clarification, here's a quote from the 3.5 FAQ:

When grappling, you can damage your foe with your spikes by making a regular grapple check (opposed by your foe’s check). If you succeed, you deal piercing damage to your foe (see Table 7–5 in the Player’s Handbook) rather than the unarmed strike damage you’d normally deal when damaging your foe with a grapple check. Since you can use armor spikes as a light weapon, you can simply use them to attack your foe. You suffer a –4 penalty on your attack roll when attacking with a light weapon in a grapple (see page 156 in the Player’s Handbook), but if your foe is bigger or stronger than you, this might prove a better tactic than trying to deal damage through a grapple check because there is no opposed roll to make—you just have to hit your opponent’s Armor Class. You can’t attack with two weapons when grappling, even when one of those weapons is armor spikes (see the section on grappling in Chapter 8 of the Player’s Handbook).
Greyman
05-11-05, 11:37 AM Hang on a second here. Did I read this right?

You may attack with armor spikes in a grapple the same way you would deal unarmed damage in a grapple? You know, with a grapple check and not an attack roll at -4?You read it right. One of the main reasons to spike your armor is so you can Damage Your Opponent during a grapple in just that way, and deal 1d6 points of lethal damage doing so.

As chocobochicken points out, sometimes it is better to simply Attack Your Opponent, even with the -4 penalty to your roll. It all depends on the relative values of the opposing grapple roll and the opponent's AC. The tricky thing is judging which is the best option, and size and apparent strength are pretty good indicators.
kjenks
05-11-05, 01:46 PM There are two ways of looking at that FAQ entry. Either it's a change to the PH rules or it's a new rule that provides an additional option to the PH rules.

The PH says that armor spikes inflict extra piercing damage after a successful grapple check. That word "extra" is new from 3e to 3.5e. Extra damage would mean that you inflict your unarmed strike damage as usual then you add more damage on top of that. Per the usual rules for extra damage, it's not multiplied in situations where you would normally multiply damage (critical hits, Spirited Charge, whatever). Your DM may interpret that FAQ entry as eliminating this "extra damage" concept and reverting armor spikes to their 3e version, where you must choose whether to inflict unarmed strike damage OR piercing damage but not both.

On the other hand, your DM may interpret that FAQ entry as granting the grappler a new option, in addition to the PH rules, where the grapple could choose to (A) inflict unarmed strike damage and extra piercing damage (per the PH rules) or (B) inflict only unarmed strike damage or (C) inflict only piercing damage. Options (B) and (C) would be nice to have if you don't really want to kill your opponent.

I suspect that FAQ entry is really just a mistake made because Skip Williams (the author of Sage Advice and the FAQ at the time) didn't realize that armor spikes changed from 3e to 3.5e. So I choose the latter interpretation of the FAQ entry and allow (A), (B) or (C).
chocobochicken
05-11-05, 02:14 PM Hmm... you're right. The PHB does say "extra piercing damage" while the FAQ says "rather than the unarmed strike damage." On the other hand, 1d6 damage is definately "extra" compared to 1d3 damage, so maybe it was just a loose translation of "more?"

I think I'll submit that to WotC Customer Service and see how they respond.
chocobochicken
05-11-05, 06:03 PM Here's my reply from WotC Customer Service:

Hey there Jeremy! The “extra” in this case appears to be a bit of a misnomer—the spike damage replaces your normal unarmed damage. You’re definitely dealing “more” damage than you normally would (because armor spikes deal more damage than a typical unarmed attack), but it’s not “bonus” damage (in the sense of adding another die to the damage rolled). So you do 1d6 instead of the normal 1d3, and it's piercing damage. Have fun and good gaming!

Trevor K.

So there it is: the term "extra" is just a bit misleading, and you deal the armor spike damage instead of your unarmed attack damage. 1d6 may not seem that different from 1d3, but when you enchant the armor spikes as a weapon, it can make a difference.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Osiris Memnoch 05-11-05, 10:29 AM	Hang on a second here. Did I read this right? You may attack with armor spikes in a grapple the same way you would deal unarmed damage in a grapple? You know, with a grapple check and not an attack roll at -4?
chocobochicken 05-11-05, 10:37 AM	Yep, you read it right. It's like hugging a porcupine! :D For further clarification, here's a quote from the 3.5 FAQ: When grappling, you can damage your foe with your spikes by making a regular grapple check (opposed by your foe’s check). If you succeed, you deal piercing damage to your foe (see Table 7–5 in the Player’s Handbook) rather than the unarmed strike damage you’d normally deal when damaging your foe with a grapple check. Since you can use armor spikes as a light weapon, you can simply use them to attack your foe. You suffer a –4 penalty on your attack roll when attacking with a light weapon in a grapple (see page 156 in the Player’s Handbook), but if your foe is bigger or stronger than you, this might prove a better tactic than trying to deal damage through a grapple check because there is no opposed roll to make—you just have to hit your opponent’s Armor Class. You can’t attack with two weapons when grappling, even when one of those weapons is armor spikes (see the section on grappling in Chapter 8 of the Player’s Handbook).
Greyman 05-11-05, 11:37 AM	Hang on a second here. Did I read this right? You may attack with armor spikes in a grapple the same way you would deal unarmed damage in a grapple? You know, with a grapple check and not an attack roll at -4?You read it right. One of the main reasons to spike your armor is so you can Damage Your Opponent during a grapple in just that way, and deal 1d6 points of lethal damage doing so. As chocobochicken points out, sometimes it is better to simply Attack Your Opponent, even with the -4 penalty to your roll. It all depends on the relative values of the opposing grapple roll and the opponent's AC. The tricky thing is judging which is the best option, and size and apparent strength are pretty good indicators.
kjenks 05-11-05, 01:46 PM	There are two ways of looking at that FAQ entry. Either it's a change to the PH rules or it's a new rule that provides an additional option to the PH rules. The PH says that armor spikes inflict extra piercing damage after a successful grapple check. That word "extra" is new from 3e to 3.5e. Extra damage would mean that you inflict your unarmed strike damage as usual then you add more damage on top of that. Per the usual rules for extra damage, it's not multiplied in situations where you would normally multiply damage (critical hits, Spirited Charge, whatever). Your DM may interpret that FAQ entry as eliminating this "extra damage" concept and reverting armor spikes to their 3e version, where you must choose whether to inflict unarmed strike damage OR piercing damage but not both. On the other hand, your DM may interpret that FAQ entry as granting the grappler a new option, in addition to the PH rules, where the grapple could choose to (A) inflict unarmed strike damage and extra piercing damage (per the PH rules) or (B) inflict only unarmed strike damage or (C) inflict only piercing damage. Options (B) and (C) would be nice to have if you don't really want to kill your opponent. I suspect that FAQ entry is really just a mistake made because Skip Williams (the author of Sage Advice and the FAQ at the time) didn't realize that armor spikes changed from 3e to 3.5e. So I choose the latter interpretation of the FAQ entry and allow (A), (B) or (C).
chocobochicken 05-11-05, 02:14 PM	Hmm... you're right. The PHB does say "extra piercing damage" while the FAQ says "rather than the unarmed strike damage." On the other hand, 1d6 damage is definately "extra" compared to 1d3 damage, so maybe it was just a loose translation of "more?" I think I'll submit that to WotC Customer Service and see how they respond.
chocobochicken 05-11-05, 06:03 PM	Here's my reply from WotC Customer Service: Hey there Jeremy! The “extra” in this case appears to be a bit of a misnomer—the spike damage replaces your normal unarmed damage. You’re definitely dealing “more” damage than you normally would (because armor spikes deal more damage than a typical unarmed attack), but it’s not “bonus” damage (in the sense of adding another die to the damage rolled). So you do 1d6 instead of the normal 1d3, and it's piercing damage. Have fun and good gaming! Trevor K. So there it is: the term "extra" is just a bit misleading, and you deal the armor spike damage instead of your unarmed attack damage. 1d6 may not seem that different from 1d3, but when you enchant the armor spikes as a weapon, it can make a difference.