Can you coup de grace with an Inflict Wounds spell?

[Infiniti2000]

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...).

...

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.

A similar thing occurs when a spellcaster wants to make an unarmed strike with the touch spell. Do you also allow that? Say, a monk/sorcerer. Can the monk/sorcerer cast ghoul touch and as part of the spell make an unarmed strike instead of just touching? If you don't allow this as a houserule, why would you allow CDG as part of the spell? That makes even less sense since CDG is specifically a full-round action, not even an attack. It is a full-round action to make a single attack roll.

Not trying to be snarky either, but allowing a CDG with the touch spell is a big violation of consistency. Forcing the caster to make the CDG next round, just as with making an unarmed strike, is actually totally consistent.

 

[Gidien]

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.

Of course not. Anatomy books don't go into detail about why the body is the way it is, or even necessarily what the functions of various appendages is. They just describe anatomy. I wouldn't be surprised if there were few anatomy books that pointed out that the brain is evolved to remember things, but that doesn't mean that this is not true.

You'd need a very specific piece of published research, which may not even exist (not a lot of doctors spend time researching the destructive powers of the elbow), to prove or disprove this point.

Oh and you still have not commented about whether or not the fist fits the technical definition of a melee weapon.

 

[Egres]

Oh and you still have not commented about whether or not the fist fits the technical definition of a melee weapon.

It doesn't fit the definition.

It's not "designed for close combat".

Come on.

Not to mention, once again, its place in the Weapon's table.

 

[FireLance]

It doesn't fit the definition.

It's not "designed for close combat".

Come on.

Not to mention, once again, its place in the Weapon's table.

You might disagree with Egres's definition of a melee weapon, or with his reasoning, or the way he ignores the other definitions of "melee weapon" in the chapter on Equipment that specifically discusses weapons, but you have to credit his consistency.

I believe he has previously mentioned that he does not consider natural weapons or improvised weapons to be melee weapons, either, so you cannot CDG with a claw, a bite, a sting, a torch, a broken bottle, or a bench.

 

[irdeggman]

It doesn't fit the definition.

It's not "designed for close combat".

What is "Close Combat"?

Additionally,

What is "designed for" in D&D terms?

Please supply quotes from the rules that fill in these terms that are necessary to properly define "melee weapons". Otherwise it, like the others, are opened to subjective opinion and intepretation based on other factors/text in the rules.

And before you start to go off on me being dismissive and "picky" I am very serious on this. These are two things that are extremely important to the definition of melee weapons and IMO they are not properly (or clearly) defined in the rules. That, IMO, is what makes an absolute statement about this very hard to handle.

 

[provik]

Coup De Grace Will Work with Inflict Spells

The arguments that you cannot Coup De Grace with an Inflict spell do not make sense.

Although you cannot arguably behead someone with an inflict spell, the thing to keep in mind is that you don't have to cast the spell and Coup De Grace in the same action.

A spellcaster can keep an inflict spell 'charged' on their hand (which does make them then considered armed for purposes of threatened range, attacks of opportunities and for purposes of attacks).

A spellcaster can sneak attack with a touch or ranged touch spell.

Coup De Grace does not mean you are necessarily cutting off a head, stabbing a heart, etc. In fact, nothing is implied to this end in the rules declaration (because again, we have no rules component for hit location).

So, the question is, does an inflict wounds spell count as a weapon for purposes of making a melee attack? Yes, when you keep a damaging touch spell held on your hand, you are considered armed pg. 140, PHB). According to the rules, you must make a melee attack (which always includes improved unarmed attacks and natural weapon attacks). The charged spell does fall within that category.

The helpless character still gives the helpless character a save vs. the damage on the spell, and they still get their Fortitude save against instant death.

So, for purposes of wands, it will work just like the spell. However, unlike most wand uses, this one should provoke an attack of opportunity for Coup De Grace (whereas wands don't normally provoke attacks of opportunity).

Important little tip to keep in mind, since AoO go off before the intended action that provoked them. So one of those days, when those trolls start getting a little bit smart and playing dead, they're going to rip some poor sod a new one when they go to Coup De Grace.

 

[Egres]

And before you start to go off on me being dismissive and "picky" I am very serious on this. These are two things that are extremely important to the definition of melee weapons and IMO they are not properly (or clearly) defined in the rules. That, IMO, is what makes an absolute statement about this very hard to handle.

I'm going to be honest: stating that our head is "designed for close combat", in every meaning you could give to this statement, is one of the stupidest thing I have ever red.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Once again, note their place in the weapon's table, and the fact that unarmed strikes work "like melee weapons".

Tell us: do you post on the Enworld boards or on boards that work like the Enworld boards?

 

[Storm Raven]

I'm going to be honest: stating that our head is "designed for close combat", in every meaning you could give to this statement, is one of the stupidest thing I have ever red.

You red things?

In any event, I'm going to say that your assertion that the head isn't designed for close combat is unprovable, since you have not defined the terms "designed for" and "close combat" in the 3.5e rule set. Until you do, you can't say one way or the other.

In another vein, I'm going to go on record as saying I don't believe you are actually a person, but are instead a netbot.

 

[Egres]

You red things?

There's an "a" missing.

In any event, I'm going to say that your assertion that the head isn't designed for close combat is unprovable, since you have not defined the terms "designed for" and "close combat" in the 3.5e rule set. Until you do, you can't say one way or the other.

Perhaps you didn't notice that little bit:

in every meaning you could give to this statement

In another vein, I'm going to go on record as saying I don't believe you are actually a person, but are instead a netbot.

? ? ?

 

[Storyteller01]

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.

Where do you want us to start? Books on anatomy for artists (emphasis on energy flow as muscles interact with one another)?

Anatomy for martial technique (China has several that double as doctoral anatomy texts. only $500 to $700 )?

Books that display proper punch technique for the boxer (how the bones align and distribution of muscular energy)?

Military handbooks for their hand to hand and CQC combat systems (where to strike, with what, and why)?

(An open question to all) Wasn't there a cable television show that broke down martial arts techniques, including animated CGI anatomy examples?



Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe is a good read in this regard. It gives examples of body alignment, foot position, placement of foot pressure, the fencers 'Masters Circle' in relation to the human body, etc. And those particular studies are over four centuries old.

A Bouncer's Guide to Barroom Brawling is also good for this. The author breaks down numerous punches, locks, blocks, etc and gives brief descriptions as to how they work.

Several others on this site have similar texts. Combined, there's more than enough published material to support this staement. There's been more than 2,000 years worth of study on body mechanics in combat!!