Can you Cleave after a Cup De' Grassey?

[MerakSpielman]

Frankly, a certain level of DM "cheating" might be the only way for him to accurately role-play a creature a greater intelligence than any real-life human who has ever lived... I mean, honestly, no matter what the PCs think of, can you ever believably think that a creature with a 26 intelligence and a few centuries to plot and ponder wouldn't have thought of it already?

 

[KarinsDad]

Frankly, a certain level of DM "cheating" might be the only way for him to accurately role-play a creature a greater intelligence than any real-life human who has ever lived... I mean, honestly, no matter what the PCs think of, can you ever believably think that a creature with a 26 intelligence and a few centuries to plot and ponder wouldn't have thought of it already?

But remember, the party 20th level Wizard has a 26 (or even higher) Intelligence as well.

And, no amount of planning and intelligence can necessarily overcome lack of knowledge.

For example in Superman III, Superman defeated the supercomputer which could out-think and out-anticipate him by introducing a chemical which the knowledge of the computer indicated was harmless. Only someone who had actually experimented with the chemical would know that it became very unstable at high temperatures.

If as DM you state "This dragon is super intelligent and knows every single spell and every single feat and every single magic item", then yes I guess your assumption might be correct.

However, if as DM you give your players a fair chance of being successful while still maintaining a solid defense for the dragon (even if the PCs bypass that defense), which is more enjoyable for the players? Remember that the only real people involved are the players and the DM, the dragon does not really exist. Play him smart, but do not play him omnipotent. You have to give the party Wizard who also has a 26 Intelligence a fair chance of being successful.


I recently threw a juvenile black dragon against my group of 6 4th level PCs and they kicked its butt in about 3 or 4 rounds. It made the "mistake" of fighting in melee since it was too young to realize that there were actually creatures its size or smaller which could seriously harm it (it had never encountered this concept before).

The next time they meet (probably in a few more sessions), I will play the dragon much more intelligently now that it not only has had time to plan (after its close brush with death), but also has knowledge that it did not have before (namely that humanoids can seriously hurt it, especially at close range).

I see this as no different than the ancient dragon. Granted, an ancient dragon has experienced that humanoids can hurt it, but it would be the rare human who could come close to penetrating his defenses. Hence, if nobody has ever tried to coup de grace him while he is asleep, it is likely that he has not considered every possible way to do that. Sure, he might have guards and spells to protect him while asleep, but that does not mean that he would have considered every possibility to the point that the DM has to change the scenario to ensure his survival. At least, IMO. Most DMs do not let the 26 intelligence PC Wizard change which spells he brought for the day based on the scenario, why should the dragon be any different?

 

[Camarath]

In fact I have wonderer before if there isn't an english expression for the same thing... in italian it's "Colpo di Grazia" which exactly means blow of mercy. Is the french word used in common english?

Euthanasia is an english word (from greek) that means roughly the same thing (but has a non-combat connotation); the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy. In my experience coup de grâce has rather common usage in english as do other french words relating to combat and warfare (such as élan). In english I have only seen coup de grâce used to mean the killing of a downed combatant. I do not know if it is used to mean other forms of mercy killing in french but in english it's use is limited to combat.


On the issue of allowing power attack on a Coup de grâce, I think that the rules as they are written allow it, and that allowing it would not present any more imbalance then allowing sneak attack damage on a Coup de grâce. More over it would not seem equitable to me to allow the use of sneak attack damage on a Coup de grâce and then to disallow power attack damage.

 

[MerakSpielman]

I have seen "coupe de grace" used in English as a synonym for "killing blow" - with no connotation of the opponent being helpless at the time.

 

[KarinsDad]

More over it would not seem equitable to me to allow the use of sneak attack damage on a Coup de grâce and then to disallow power attack damage.

With regard to why sneak attack is allowed, it seems that the designers were considering more the intent of sneak attack and coup de grace. Both have the intent of doing a precise blow that does serious damage.

Power Attack, on the other hand, has the intent of doing an imprecise blow that may do serious damage, but at the risk of not hitting at all.

So, sneak attack and coup de grace are compatible from a logistics point of view whereas power attack has the opposing logistics point of view.

But to say that it is inequitable for sneak attack damage to add in and power attack damage to not add in assumes that those damages are comparable in usage and in the ability to acquire them.

Any character with a STR of 13 can acquire Power Attack, but you have to be a dedicated Rogue to acquire any serious levels of Sneak Attack. Plus, Power Attack can be used nearly every single round in combat whereas Sneak Attack is extremely limited in it's combat use. If you think about it, if there is an inequity here, it is that Sneak Attack cannot be used as often as Power Attack and giving Sneak Attack a combat usage that Power Attack does not have is totally equitable.

I do not find the concept of allowing one and not the other inequitable at all considering that one is an easy feat to acquire which can be used all of the time in combat and the other is a difficult class skill to acquire which can only be used infrequently in combat (plus the concept that one matches the concept of CDG and the other does not).

 

[Camarath]

I have seen "coupe de grace" used in English as a synonym for "killing blow" - with no connotation of the opponent being helpless at the time.

I think that it usally it has the connotation that the foe was at least weakened or at a disadvantage at the time. But you are right that coup de grâce (as used in english) does not imply that the opponent would have to be helpless at the time. It is I believe used far more often to describe a decisive or finishing blow against a still fighting combatant rather than the finishing off of an already helpless or defeated foe.

 

[Camarath]

So, sneak attack and coup de grace are compatible from a logistics point of view whereas power attack has the opposing logistics point of view.

I do not agree with your concept of a coup de grâce. I think a massive skull or chest crushing blow fits as well as a knife through the eye or aorta. The benefit of a helpless foe in coup de grâce a could be that he can not dodge your spine rending blow as easly as it could be the ability to execute a measured precise attack.

 

[Dreeble]

Heya:

Every single "S" in "coup de grace" is silent.

D'oh. Also, thanks Gez. No wonder my French coworker didn't know what I was talking about. I also say "Croy sants" (rhymes with pants) to annoy him.

Take care,
Dreeble

 

[KarinsDad]

I do not agree with your concept of a coup de grâce. I think a massive skull or chest crushing blow fits as well as a knife through the eye or aorta. The benefit of a helpless foe in coup de grâce a could be that he can not dodge your spine rending blow as easly as it could be the ability to execute a measured precise attack.

It could be except the text of coup de grace contains:

"it involves focused concentration and methodical action"

It is clear that the designers considered a coup to grace to be a "measured precise attack".

I have no problem with a massive skull or chest crushing blow being a coup de grace as long as the shot is lined up carefully (i.e. you concentrate and are methodical).

But, Power Attack is not lining up a careful shot. It is swinging or thrusting wildly, putting everything you have behind the blow. It risks a miss in an attempt to hit with a lot of power. You give up skill by putting everything you can into the shot(s). By lowering to hit, it is the opposite of methodical.

Sneak Attack, on the other hand, is lining up a careful and precise shot. You can only do it when your opponent is having difficulty defending 100%. That is why Sneak Attack is compatible with CDG (in fact, the designers practically apologize about sneak attack with CDG because it is overkill, but it matches the methodical concept completely, hence, they allowed it).

Sorry, but "lowering chance to hit" does not equate to "focused concentration and methodical action". They are two different concepts (regardless of a desire to allow the game mechanics to stack).

 

[Camarath]

It could be except the text of coup de grace contains:

"it involves focused concentration and methodical action"

It is clear that the designers considered a coup to grace to be a "measured precise attack".

I do believe that that quote is in reference to the fact the it porvokes an AoO and that the whole sentence reads thus. "Delivering a cuop de grace provokes attacks of opportunity because it involves focused concentration and methodical action on the part of the the attack.". I see nothing here that prevents the use of Power Attack.

I have no problem with a massive skull or chest crushing blow being a coup de grace as long as the shot is lined up carefully (i.e. you concentrate and are methodical).

But, Power Attack is not lining up a careful shot. It is swinging or thrusting wildly, putting everything you have behind the blow. It risks a miss in an attempt to hit with a lot of power. You give up skill by putting everything you can into the shot(s). By lowering to hit, it is the opposite of methodical.

I see no reason why the need for concetration would prevent the use of Power Attack. Nothing in the Power Attack rules say that you cannot use it in an attack that "involves focused concentration and methodical action".

Sneak Attack, on the other hand, is lining up a careful and precise shot. You can only do it when your opponent is having difficulty defending 100%. That is why Sneak Attack is compatible with CDG (in fact, the designers practically apologize about sneak attack with CDG because it is overkill, but it matches the methodical concept completely, hence, they allowed it).

I believe it was allowed because coup to grace is an attack and your traget is denied its dex bonus to AC. I think that it is stated to work in the rules to make clear that the bonuses that one gains with normal attacks apply to coup to grace.

Sorry, but "lowering chance to hit" does not equate to "focused concentration and methodical action". They are two different concepts (regardless of a desire to allow the game mechanics to stack).

I think you have taken a sentence fragment out of context and joined it to your metagame assumptions to come to this odd conclusion that power attack prevents concentration and thus can not be used with coup to grace. I see no rule that states that a penalty on attacks means that one is in capable of "focused concentration and methodical action".