Can you coup de grace with an Inflict Wounds spell?

[Egres]

Because this is a common writing mistake or flaw where people tend to add descriptive words that are unnecesary. It is very common, especially in rule books.

Funny.

You can't state anything to disprove my point, and then talk about "descriptive " text.

Come on.

Good question - perhaps because of all the special rules that apply to unarmed attacks - like you draw an AoO (unless the Improved Unarmed Strike feat has been taken), you can't amke an AoO (again unless the feat is taken), etc. Really there is no good reason for them to have written it that way - the same that there is no real good reason for WotC to not issue specific errata governing the fact that prestige classes do not count towards a multi-class penalty when it is in the SRD (but not in the DMG) {3.5 that is}.

Good question.

Bad answer.

Also you have not placed together the string of evidence that has been laid out before you and are seemingly relying on a single quote (first from the glossary and now this has stretched to the equip table). Again note that text trumps tables. And insisting that I am using wrong statements is likewise unproven.

Hmm?

so,

1) The Glossary isn't enough

2) The Weapon chart isn't enough

3) The combat section about unarmed attacks isn't enough

What would be enough for you?

Yes they are,

They are?

Charles Darwin would disagree, I think.

Unarmed strikes are "treated as" a melee weapon because they aren't crafted. You can't use Craft (weaponsmithing) to make an unarmed strike. You can't buy an unarmed strike at market. And so forth.

Right.

Another proof that they aren't melee weapon.

Several hundred a year? So they spend a day at most on each one?

We have several parliamentary committes specialized in different fields: they work independently, and the parliament just need to approve their work.

In this way they can issue so many laws.

In realistic cases, there are likely to be a lot more grey areas IMO.

Believe me: you'll rarely see a trial won thank to a law interpretaion.

It's my work: I can tell it for sure.

 

[Storm Raven]

I notice that everyone seems to think that Inflict Wound spells can cause critical hits. Are they rolling double damage when this occurs? If this is so, does this mean that the same is true for Cure Wound spells? If characters are allowing my clerics to automatically touch them isn't he getting an automatic critical? Should I infact be rolling 2D8+2 when my first level cleric casts CLW?

Is he making an attack roll? If not, then there is no chance for a critical in the normal course of business using cure spells. If he is using it to attack undead, and hence making an attack roll, then he could have a chance to inflict a critical hit.

 

[Hypersmurf]

We have several hunderd new laws every year.

So your laws aren't comprehensive, otherwise new laws would be unnecessary.

If there's a case where none of the existing laws apply (one of the several hundred new laws that will be written this year will apply, but it doesn't exist yet), how does the judge make a ruling?

-Hyp.

 

[Egres]

So your laws aren't comprehensive, otherwise new laws would be unnecessary.

Have you ever heard of politics, Hyp?

New law doesn't mean "rule new cases".

Very, very often it simply rules old cases in a different way, due to the different point of view of new politicians.

 

[Bad Paper]

I notice that everyone seems to think that Inflict Wound spells can cause critical hits. Are they rolling double damage when this occurs? If this is so, does this mean that the same is true for Cure Wound spells? If characters are allowing my clerics to automatically touch them isn't he getting an automatic critical? Should I infact be rolling 2D8+2 when my first level cleric casts CLW?

This is a decent point to consider. Maybe there should be a full-round heal for bonus healing. How about making a Heal check during the round that you cast the spell, and...I dunno. Roll an extra die and toss out the lowest. Sorry, but that becomes a house rule, and this is the wrong forum...

Also, I notice that a lot of the threads I start turn into flamewars. Do I get some kind of award? Is there an Ennie for that?

 

[Egres]

Also, I notice that a lot of the threads I start turn into flamewars.

I don't think this thread is a flamewar.

I apologize if this is the impression it gives you.

 

[dcollins]

First, the SRD has no concept of a "weapon-like spell". The concept was first introduced in Tome and Blood to allow the use of certain feats normally applied to weapons to certain types of spells...

Actually, this is from the 3.0 SRD:

Weapon Focus [General]
Prerequisites: Proficient with weapon, base attack bonus +1 or higher.
The character can choose “unarmed strike” or “grapple” for the character's weapon for purposes of this feat. The character can choose “ray,” in which case the character is especially good with rays.
Benefit: The character adds +1 to all attack rolls the character makes using the selected weapon.

For what it's worth, this thread has convinced me to allow coup de graces with inflict wounds spells (which is not what I thought when the thread started).

 

[werk]

For what it's worth, this thread has convinced me to allow coup de graces with inflict wounds spells (which is not what I thought when the thread started).

Heh, me too. Go ENWorld! Never know what you're gonna get.

 

[Shariell]

I'm another

 

[JamesDJarvis]

I'd say no ILW/CLW cannot be used to CDG.
I'd say that because Mass Inflict/cure Light Wounds a more powerful version of ILW/CLW could not be used to CDG. Both do the same thing, draw energy to cause harm/wellness. I don't view lower level spells as being more capable then a high level spell.