Can you coup de grace with an Inflict Wounds spell?

[Storyteller01]

For the last time: are you considered a human, or are you a human?

It's the same thing. If I am considered human then I am treated as one by those with that perception. The same can be said for weapons. If I see something as a melee weapon (and it CAN be used as one) it will be treated as such, with all the necessary applications.

Look towards Okinawan (an annexed island of Japan) weaponry for examples. They were primarily tools and farming impliments. Recognized weapons of the time were banned by the ruling government. They may not have been perceived as weapons previously, but they were treated as weapons after. Interesingly enough, they were still considered weapons even though other people did not see them as such.

As a side bar, Okinawan weapons consisted of sai, nunchaku, tonfa, and many others. These same weapons are listed as simple, martial, or exotic weapons, although some are not listed explicitly in the PHB or the RAW (they are listed in other WotC source books).

Not to mention that that kind word, "considered", is always there.

This word can be interpretted as 'treated in the same manner or identical to...'. It works for either arguement.

Ask yourself: why did they specify that an unarmed strike is "considered" something?

Why didn't they write that an unarmed strike "is" a melee weapon, or a light weapon?

A hand can be considered many things (weapon, manipulator, pry bar, head rest, etc). Defining it with exclusive wording could be read as they are only what they were described as being. This gives a ground for some very strange rulings (Example: The mage's hands are weapons. Since he is wielding two weapons, he cannot cast spells without the Still Spell feat, period). Cheesy as it sounds, it has happened.

Why did then they list it separately from melee weapons?

Negating the penalties for fighting unarmed requires a different feat than those needed for other weapons. It's why simple, martial, and exotic melee weapons are all listed separately from each other. However, unarmed combat IS listed under the weapons chart, leading me to believe that an unarmed attack is a weapon by D&D standards.

So, your hands are "designed for close combat", as well as your knees, feet and your head too?

If you have spent time learning unarmed combat techniques, then yes, you have designed you body parts for combat. The human body (and any living body in general) is a dynamic system that changes to meet the stresses involved. In essence, training in unarmed combat changes the body subtly to meet demands (calluses, bone growth, lengthened or compressed musculature, etc). This implies that the body parts used in this manner are designed for close combat. They have changed to meet those design specs.

 

[irdeggman]

Just to play devil's advocate for a second, even with ranged weapons in order to CdG you must be adjacent to your target, so how unbalancing would it be to use a ranged touch attack in order to CdG from an adjacent square?

I didn't say it was unbalancing. I said (or meant to say) that the rules specifically list bows and crossbows not "ranged weapons" which is waay different than stating melee weapons (which is broader). That is why I wouldn't let CdG be done with rays.

 

[irdeggman]

I'd have to ask why? Using a weapon is usually a standard action, yet it still requires a full round action to kill a helpless target...

Because this requires a character to give up any other attacks he may have due to feats or high BAB and make a single attack for a CdG.

If one can cast a spell and discharge the spell as a full round action then this is equivalent to allowing a high level fighter to make multiple attacks and perform a CdG in the same round.

 

[Storyteller01]

I didn't say it was unbalancing. I said (or meant to say) that the rules specifically list bows and crossbows not "ranged weapons" which is waay different than stating melee weapons (which is broader). That is why I wouldn't let CdG be done with rays.

It can be inferred (IMHO) that crossbows and bows are listed because of their function. All other ranged weapons are thrown or work on a priciple that isn't all that powerful at close range. You have to admit, ray spells are much closer to bows/crossbows then other ranged weapons (like slings and spears, for example).

 

[irdeggman]

Add to that the "definition of close combat". By this I mean that the core basis for the arguement is incomplete.

Melee weapon: A handheld weapon designed for close combat.

Now what is close combat?

Per the SRD:

WEAPON CATEGORIES
Weapons are grouped into several interlocking sets of categories.
These categories pertain to what training is needed to become proficient in a weapon’s use (simple, martial, or exotic), the weapon’s usefulness either in close combat (melee) or at a distance (ranged, which includes both thrown and projectile weapons), its relative encumbrance (light, one-handed, or two-handed), and its size (Small, Medium, or Large).

Hmm there is a circular arguement in the rules as written the definition of melee depends on the definition of close combat that in turn depends on the definition of melee. Maybe this is another example of the point I made earlier about poor writing techniques and them being a common occurrence in rule books.

 

[Storyteller01]

Because this requires a character to give up any other attacks he may have due to feats or high BAB and make a single attack for a CdG.

If one can cast a spell and discharge the spell as a full round action then this is equivalent to allowing a high level fighter to make multiple attacks and perform a CdG in the same round.

Can't say much about that, but I'd have to go against this. Both the fighter and the caster lose their movement for that round, leaving themselves exposed later. That's a nasty penalty for either class.

 

[irdeggman]

It can be inferred (IMHO) that crossbows and bows are listed because of their function. All other ranged weapons are thrown or work on a priciple that isn't all that powerful at close range. You have to admit, ray spells are much closer to bows/crossbows then other ranged weapons (like slings and spears, for example).

A point could be made for this, but it is not as strong as the one for touch spells though. Like I said if they had used "ranged weapons" vice bows and crossbows the justification would be real easy IMO.

 

[Storyteller01]

Hmm there is a circular arguement in the rules as written the definition of melee depends on the definition of close combat that in turn depends on the definition of melee. Maybe this is another example of the point I made earlier about poor writing techniques and them being a common occurrence in rule books.

Looks that way, but in the writers defense attempting to cover all aspects or using higher writing techniques would make a product that is expensive, excessivly complicated, and may tend to segregate those who aren't up to speed on the english language.

YMMV though. Jusy my opinion.

 

[irdeggman]

Can't say much about that, but I'd have to go against this. Both the fighter and the caster lose their movement for that round, leaving themselves exposed later. That's a nasty penalty for either class.

But while the fighter is using his attack ( normal standard action) to make the CdG the wizard gets an extra standard action since he had to use a standard action to cast the spell.

It is not a matter of substituting actions but in giving the spellcaster an bonus to actions. So the two situations are not the same - even though in the overall scheme of things it really doesn't make that much of a difference. That is unless you are playing the fighter and I as the DM allowed another player to get in more actions than you can with your PC.

 

[irdeggman]

Looks that way, but in the writers defense attempting to cover all aspects or using higher writing techniques would make a product that is expensive, excessivly complicated, and may tend to segregate those who aren't up to speed on the english language.

YMMV though. Jusy my opinion.

True enough, but it was part of my justification as to why they used the word "usually considered" in the same sentence as "except". That is except is used to list the things that are "exceptions" to the rule. That is not everything is exactly they way it is written, other sources must be checked for consistency and support.

I do think the writers have done a great job, especially as they have improved the quality of writing since 2nd ed.