Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Orchomenos 02-08-08, 08:34 AM	Damage Your Opponent: While grappling, you can deal damage to your opponent equivalent to an unarmed strike. Make an opposed grapple check in place of an attack. If you win, you deal nonlethal damage as normal for your unarmed strike (1d3 points for Medium attackers or 1d2 points for Small attackers, plus Strength modifiers). If you want to deal lethal damage, you take a –4 penalty on your grapple check. and Armor Spikes: You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see 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.) This seems to be a specific case where two different weapon damages are added together on the same attack. If a fighter manage to have both Weapon Specialisation (Unarmed Strike) and Weapon Specialisation (Armor Spike), can he adds both bonuses on his grapple damage?
Eldritch_Lord 02-08-08, 09:02 AM	and This seems to be a specific case where two different weapon damages are added together on the same attack. If a fighter manage to have both Weapon Specialisation (Unarmed Strike) and Weapon Specialisation (Armor Spike), can he adds both bonuses on his grapple damage? Well, you're dealing damage with two separate weapons, so I'd say yes. I don't think there's a specific ruling on the subject.
Mad_Jack 02-10-08, 12:20 PM	No, because when you damage someone during a grapple, you're not making an attack roll, you're making an opposed grapple check. The text simply states that you do damage *equivalent to* your unarmed strike damage. You're not actually making an unarmed strike. So "weapon spec. (unarmed strike)" wouldn't apply in a grapple. The damage you do while grappling (as opposed to attacking with a light weapon during a grapple) is from the grappling itself - i.e., a head lock, arm bar, giving them a wedgie, etc, but it's not an actual unarmed strike because there's no attack roll involved... Weapon spec. (armor spikes) *would* work because the weapon spec. feat says " you do extra damage any time you use this weapon" (specifically, not just when you make an atack roll with it) so the weapon spec. (armor spikes) feat modifies the extra damage that the spikes do during a grapple... "Damage your opponent" and "Attack your opponent with a light weapon (including unarmed strike)" are two separate choices you can make each round when grappling, so you can't do both. You could either choose... 1. to damage your opponent during the grapple (in which the armor spike specialization would work), or 2 to make an attack roll with either unarmed strike (which counts as a light weapon in this case) *or* the armor spikes (which count as a light weapon when making an attack with them), and get the appropriate weapon spec. damage added to your weapon damage.
fatal error 02-10-08, 12:32 PM	But, wouldn't the damage be equivalent to your unarmed strike damage, which has the Specialization bonus added to it? Would you not count an Amulet of Mighty Fists into the Grapple damage?
Neutronium_Dragon 02-10-08, 01:06 PM	Yes, it would. Unless grapple says "... ignoring all of your bonuses and/or other modifiers to unarmed strike damage" you don't do so - and I don't think grapple says that.
Mad_Jack 02-10-08, 01:25 PM	But, wouldn't the damage be equivalent to your unarmed strike damage, which has the Specialization bonus added to it? Would you not count an Amulet of Mighty Fists into the Grapple damage? Well, theoretically, I can see how it could be argued either way. My reasoning goes like this... The text of the "damage your opponent" section of the actions you can take during a grapple says you "deal non-lethal damage as normal for your unarmed strike (1d3 for Medium attacker and 1d2 for Small), plus strength modifiers". I personally think that since you're making an opposed grapple check rather than an attack roll, and since the relavent text doesn't specifically mention "and other modifiers" or something similar, that you wouldn't apply the extra damage from weapon specialization because you're not actually making an unarmed strike. You just do the same damage as a "normal" unmodified unarmed strike - 1d3 plus strength. This is, however, just my personal take on it according to the semantics of the relevant text. However, I could certainly see it being reasonable for a monk or anyone with improved unarmed strike to be allowed to factor in their weapon specialization damage in that situation.
Eldritch_Lord 02-10-08, 04:35 PM	You just do the same damage as a "normal" unmodified unarmed strike - 1d3 plus strength. This is, however, just my personal take on it according to the semantics of the relevant text. However, I could certainly see it being reasonable for a monk or anyone with improved unarmed strike to be allowed to factor in their weapon specialization damage in that situation. You can't have it both ways, really. If you're a monk, is your "normal" unarmed strike damage 1d3 or monk's damage? If you have Weapon Spec: unarmed strike, is your "normal" unarmed strike damage 1d3 or 1d3+2? I'm sure it says "normal + Str" because Str can change with ability damage and such, but if you have a base of 2d6 (for example) that's not going to change until level-up.
jaelis 02-10-08, 04:58 PM	FWIW, the FAQ says that you are actually supposed to deal either your armor spike damage or your unarmed strike damage with a grapple check, not both. In that case, there's no question of WS stacking.
Eldritch_Lord 02-10-08, 05:07 PM	FWIW, the FAQ says that you are actually supposed to deal either your armor spike damage or your unarmed strike damage with a grapple check, not both. In that case, there's no question of WS stacking. Ah. Well. Looks like that answers the question. Why didn't we look there first? :blush:
Orchomenos 02-11-08, 08:21 AM	Why didn't we look there first? :blush: Hmm. Didn't have the latest FAQ at the moment of posting this. Beside, the FAQ seems to contradict the text from the SRD. Armor Spikes: You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. When I read "extra piercing damage", I understand that you add some extra damage (bonus die or bonus damage) which happen to be piercing, not that you replace your unarmed strike by a larger die. :confused: Anyway, my loophole seems to have been squeezed to death! :P
Eldritch_Lord 02-11-08, 01:36 PM	Hmm. Didn't have the latest FAQ at the moment of posting this. Beside, the FAQ seems to contradict the text from the SRD. Armor Spikes: You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. When I read "extra piercing damage", I understand that you add some extra damage (bonus die or bonus damage) which happen to be piercing, not that you replace your unarmed strike by a larger die. :confused: Anyway, my loophole seems to have been squeezed to death! :P Well, when you put the exact text in there, it's obvious that you should get both damages. The FAQ does contradict the SRD. I retract my retraction and stand by my earliest statement.
jaelis 02-11-08, 04:48 PM	Not to deny your points, but if I recall, before that FAQ came out there used to be a lot of argument about whether you dealt unarmed strike plus armor spikes, or just one at a time. (The point being that 1d6 is more damage than 1d3, so dealing 1d6 instead of 1d3 means you're dealing extra damage.) So it's debatable whether the FAQ contradicts the rule or not. I'd tend to read the SRD to mean you add both together, but I also think using one or the other makes more sense. So I'd follow the FAQ here, even if it does disagree with how I'd interpret the rule.
Eldritch_Lord 02-11-08, 08:01 PM	Not to deny your points, but if I recall, before that FAQ came out there used to be a lot of argument about whether you dealt unarmed strike plus armor spikes, or just one at a time. (The point being that 1d6 is more damage than 1d3, so dealing 1d6 instead of 1d3 means you're dealing extra damage.) So it's debatable whether the FAQ contradicts the rule or not. I'd tend to read the SRD to mean you add both together, but I also think using one or the other makes more sense. So I'd follow the FAQ here, even if it does disagree with how I'd interpret the rule. Well, the SRD says what the SRD says, and the FAQ is just guidance, so if the SRD says add them I'd be inclined to follow that, but to each his own.