Can you coup de grace with an Inflict Wounds spell?

[Storyteller01]

kinda of wasting an opportunity CDGing with a inflict spell, when you could death knell instead.

But you have to admit, it gets points for style.

 

[Egres]

The forehead is the thickest part of the skull, and it gets thicker for those who strike with it (check reports on martial artists who repeatedly put their haed though concrete). It is designed to absorb and redirect impact, with the face and forehead being the areas in most danger of attack (you wouldn't show the back of your head to an enemy if you could avoid it, would you?). The thickness may increase by minute increments, but there's enough to improve stress tolerances (ie: you can use it to hit harder). And lets not forget the eye socket, brow design, and thickness of bone between the face and the brain/brain stem (upper dental area not withstanding).

Joints such as knees and elbows are a different story. Due to the increased mass already in place they break less often (dislocation is another matter). Sockets tend to be thicker than the bone they are a part of, as well as denser [less marrow in the socket ball to reduce integrity]. Notice that clubs made from animal femurs use the ball joint as the striking surface.

Then there's the matter of ligament reinforcement.

AND... (almost done everyone) their shorter distance from the strikes point of rotation means that elbow and knee strikes can generate enough power with less effort than that used to punch or kick (less distance to cover).

bla blah...

Yes or No?

Is your head "designed for close combat"?

 

[Storyteller01]

bla blah...

Yes or No?

Is your head "designed for close combat"?

Yep . All parts of the bod are designed to increase your odds of survival. That means getting into and surviving close combat.

For a good example of head butting for a CdG (pinned target), watch the final battle in Ninja Scrolls. The BBEG had regeneration, but the idea is the same.



...And I agree, the technical details can be longwinded, even redundant. However, you asked for more evidence when making a claim. I provided what I had available at the time. It should prove to be more than sufficient.

 

[Gidien]

Actually, I might disagree that the head is designed for close combat... thick and strong to protect against blows, but not evolved for head butting with. But, it could easily be argued that a martial artist's skull could be so designed, by thickening the bone. In any case, I don't care whether or not the skull is "designed for close combat" or elbows, knees, etc. The point is there is at least one weapon in the monk's unarmed arsenal, the fist (along with knife hand, spear hand, claw-like hands, kicks, etc) which by your definition can be considered a melee weapon. Which means the monk can CdG with it. Doesn't matter if he has to do it with a punch (or hammerfist if it need be a hand held fist) every time, so long as he can do it.

 

[Egres]

Yep . All parts of the bod are designed to increase your odds of survival. That means getting into and surviving close combat.

Get an anathomy book, and try again.

 

[Storyteller01]

I figure one's head is as well designed for combat as the rest of the body. Wrists and ankles are notorious for breaking if an attack lands wrong. Then again, so do a majority of weapons.


My input the original question:

I can see it happening with spells like Flame Blade, Burning Hands, Scorching Ray, Melf's Acid Arrow, etc. Having a flamethrower go off in your face ranks pretty high on the list of ways to die instantly.

As for inflict spells, I'd have to say no. You infuse to target with Neg. energy and let it do the rest. There's no real chance of hitting a vital system unless they're already near death.

Adding another example to the mix (but I'd love input); Magic missle is iffy IMO. You can't target the spell, but placing your hand or wand on the victims head before casting doesn't give the spell a chance to target anything else.

 

[Storyteller01]

Get an anathomy book, and try again.

Could you give a specific example?

 

[irdeggman]

I think so.

My concern is that, in order to use touch attack spells you have to make an attack roll. You don't have to hold a charge. Why have a character hold the charge, then CdG if they don't have to in any other circumstance? Guess I'm not a big fan of inconsistency (not being snarky folks...).

My thinking (let me know if I'm wrong) is that spellcasters, like fighters, will also lose the advantage of multiple attacks for the round. That may be important when looking at casters that have multi-classed fighter, rogue (especialy those with the TWF build), or specialized PrC levels like the Spellsword or Bladesinger. Even without the held charge, they accept a similar disadvantage.

I'll stop on this arguement and agree to disagree. Everyone has their interpretation. SInce we can't prove/disprove either one, we might as well assume we're both right.

The difference is that a wizard can't make multiple attacks in the same round that he has cast a spell. So allowing him to cast a spell and make what is the equivalent of multiple attacks (by this I mean a full round action (full attack is a full round action)) is unfair and technically against the rules.

By the same token a fighter shouldn't be allowed to draw his weapon and make a CdG in the same round.

 

[Storyteller01]

The difference is that a wizard can't make multiple attacks in the same round that he has cast a spell. So allowing him to cast a spell and make what is the equivalent of multiple attacks (by this I mean a full round action (full attack is a full round action)) is unfair and technically against the rules.

By the same token a fighter shouldn't be allowed to draw his weapon and make a CdG in the same round.

Goes back to our intrepretations. I don't see the act of touching as being a separate action from the casting of the spell. It's a single action, but you can stall as needed. It would be similar to the executioner lifting the blade overhead before making the cut. Both actions only require one standard action, even if we use the Ready options (I raise my sword and prepare to swing at the next guy who walks through that door).

Looks like our differences may be in the perception of the timing of actions.

 

[Egres]

Could you give a specific example?

Take a look at an anathomy book, and try to find a reference for what you are claiming: I don't think you'll find anything that could support your position.