Can you coup de grace with an Inflict Wounds spell?

[Egres]

There wasn't any point since page one when Egres was just itchin' for a flamewar.

?

Are you kidding, right?

I'll take this as calling me "Troll".

Well, first you have to define "designed for" and "close combat". Then we can get started. Until you do, there isn't any point.

I don't have to define what your dictionary can do.

Take it, and you'll be fine with it for me.

Once again: if you think that those statements can be seen or interpreted in a way that could allow an unarmed strike to be defined as a melee weapon, show me how, and I'll be glad to let my monks CdG with their unarmed strikes.

You are an attorney, like me: it shouldn't be difficult for you.

Unless you are debating like you would do on a trial: you don't want to have a maieuthic debate, but you are simply trying to "win".

 

[Storm Raven]

I don't have to define what your dictionary can do.

Actually, you do, since it would set the ground work for your position. Until then, it's like shooting at a moving target.

Once again: if you think that those statements can be seen or interpreted in a way that could allow an unarmed strike to be defined as a melee weapon, show me how, and I'll be glad to let my monks CdG with their unarmed strikes.

Sure, that's easy.

Close combat is melee combat. Let's start there. You can use your head in melee combat, quite effectively, the strike used would be with your forehead. Your forehead has evolved in a manner that gives it significant bone thickness, to, among other things, allow you to head butt enemies with it. That is a beginning of a "designed for" weapon. The second issue is that those who make a business out of fighting train their bodies in such a way as to enhance and improve upon these natural attributes: increasing the thickness of the skull via training and so on. That's intentional human action aimed at producing a given concrete result, if that's not "designing" something for a purpose, then the phrase has no meaning (as in the dicitionary definition of "to have a goal or purpose; intend").

In point of fact, given that a touch spell is intended to be used in melee, and using the dictionary definition of "design", it also meets the criteria of something "designed for close combat".

Given all this though, you seem to spend an inrodinate amount of time on the "designed for" langauge, an amount of time that is probably unwarranted by the text. For example, suppose you picked up a shard of broken glass in a fight. That's not "designed for" close combat, but any logical reading of what a coup de grace is would lead one to conclude that you could use it for that. Of a demon's claws, are they "designed for close combat"? If not, can a vrock coup de grace with his natural attacks?

 

[Egres]

Close combat is melee combat. Let's start there. You can use your head in melee combat, quite effectively, the strike used would be with your forehead. Your forehead has evolved in a manner that gives it significant bone thickness, to, among other things, allow you to head butt enemies with it. That is a beginning of a "designed for" weapon.

you can use your head quite effectively, but it doesn't mean that is "designed ofr".

Just like you have said, even a broken glass would work effectively.

This doesn't make it "designed for close combat".

Works fine =/ designed for.

Come on: you know that our head is not "designed" at all, and even if it was so, it doesn't have anything in common with the head of animals like, for example, a ram, that we can safely state has a head "designed for close combat".

The second issue is that those who make a business out of fighting train their bodies in such a way as to enhance and improve upon these natural attributes: increasing the thickness of the skull via training and so on. That's intentional human action aimed at producing a given concrete result, if that's not "designing" something for a purpose, then the phrase has no meaning (as in the dicitionary definition of "to have a goal or purpose; intend").

By your reasoning a commoner's unarmed strike isn't a melee weapon.

In point of fact, given that a touch spell is intended to be used in melee, and using the dictionary definition of "design", it also meets the criteria of something "designed for close combat"

Unfortunaletly it's not a weapon, and I don't think you can have a "handheld" touch weapon.

Can you disarm a touch weapon?

That's not "designed for" close combat, but any logical reading of what a coup de grace is would lead one to conclude that you could use it for that. Of a demon's claws, are they "designed for close combat"? If not, can a vrock coup de grace with his natural attacks?

Perhpas you forget that I'm arguing from the point of view of the RAW.

 

[Storm Raven]

Come on: you know that our head is not "designed" at all, and even if it was so, it doesn't have anything in common with the head of animals like, for example, a ram, that we can safely state has a head "designed for close combat".

No, I don't know that. Is evolution a design or a series of coincidences? Does this even matter in a fantasy environment where the creatures may have been created fully formed by a benevolent (or malign) deity?

If, say, Belin, God of Creation, did indeed create the world, and made humans with hands, heads, and feet, and intended for them to use them as melee weapons if need be, does that meet the criteria of "designed for" close combat? Is divine design valid?

By your reasoning a commoner's unarmed strike isn't a melee weapon.

Perhaps not. But the unarmed strike of someone who has trained for fighting (who, for example, has the Improved Unarmed Strike feat), would be.

Unfortunaletly it's not a weapon, and I don't think you can have a "handheld" touch weapon.

Why not? I am holding it right in my hand until it discharges. And not a weapon? Your logic is getting circular.

Perhpas you forget that I'm arguing from the point of view of the RAW.

Then you need to define, by the RAW, what "designed for" means. If you are confining yourself to the RAW, then you can't go arguing that unarmed strikes don't meet the definition by referring to extraneous sources like the dictionary. This is why I asked you to define "close combat" and "designed to", and until you do, your arguments can't be evaluated properly.

 

[Storyteller01]

Wrong.

Unarmed strikes are simple weapons, listed under simple weapons, but not under melee weapons.

Per the SRD:

Unarmed Attacks
Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

Attacks of Opportunity
Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.

An unarmed character can’t take attacks of opportunity (but see "Armed" Unarmed Attacks, below).


So my original statements stands. They are separated on the table because they operate with an extended set of nonproficiency penalties. A commoner with a dagger doesn't suffer the same penalties as fighting unarmed. He is still in melee combat with either weapon.

Not to mention that the Improved Unarmed Strike feat doesn't avoid any penalty if you aren't proficient with simple weapons.

Read the rules.

I have.

Nor does being proficient with simple weapons negate the penalties for using unarmed attacks. Given the literal interpretation in some environs (no insult intended), the writers felt is necessary to separate the two, both via description and the table listings.

Nope.

Something can be a thing and be, at the same time, be considered something else, without being something else.

Unarmed strikes are a simple weapon that isn't a melee one.

Agreed with the first statement, but the writers have to consider all perspectives. Literal minded players/DMs may rule that hands being defines as weapons disallows others actions, regardless of the obvious (deja vu: I remember a thread about enchanted whips not to long ago...). A hand can be used as a weapon, but it isn't just a weapon. This needs to be established. Hence the clause that unarmed attacks are considered melee weapon, rather than being strictly defined as one.


Look at this thread. Because unarmed attacks are not listed as melee attacks on a table, you feel that they are not melee weapons despite the fact they they do damage in close quarters. Because it is listed as only a simple weapon, it cannot be used in situations where other melee weapons can.


For the record:
Melee Attack: A physical attack suitable for close quarters (3.0 PHB, pg 279)

I doubt 3.5 changed it much.

 

[Egres]

No, I don't know that. Is evolution a design or a series of coincidences?

The latter.

Even for non-atheists.

And I would be really surprised to see a Christian stating that our body is "designed for close comabt".

Perhaps not. But the unarmed strike of someone who has trained for fighting (who, for example, has the Improved Unarmed Strike feat), would be.

Funny.

So, some people could have unarmed strikes that are melee weapons, some others could have some part of their body that are melee weapons, while others coudn't have melee weapons at all while naked.

Nor does being proficient with simple weapons negate the penalties for using unarmed attacks

.

Very common law style, indeed.

Why not? I am holding it right in my hand until it discharges. And not a weapon? Your logic is getting circular.

You can hold it with your hands wide open.

Then you need to define, by the RAW, what "designed for" means. If you are confining yourself to the RAW, then you can't go arguing that unarmed strikes don't meet the definition by referring to extraneous sources like the dictionary. This is why I asked you to define "close combat" and "designed to", and until you do, your arguments can't be evaluated properly.

By your reasoning the core books would need a D&D dictionary.

I'm arguing by the RAW, reading what they state, and interpretating them with the dictionary, like every attorney does.

If something isn't differently defined in the books, we can safely assume that their definition is the common definition found in the dictionary.

Your definition is fine: go with it.

Note: even the dictionary is RAW, for me.

Rules As Written.

Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

Uhm?

Are you blind?

Tell me: attacking with a melee weapon = attacking with something that is like a melee weapon?

Nor does being proficient with simple weapons negate the penalties for using unarmed attacks.

Uhm?

What penalties are you talking about?

Look at this thread. Because unarmed attacks are not listed as melee attacks on a table, you feel that they are not melee weapons despite the fact they they do damage in close quarters. Because it is listed as only a simple weapon, it cannot be used in situations where other melee weapons can..

Because they aren't melee weapons, as listed.

Not to mention that you have shown that I'm right with your following quote:

Melee Attack: A physical attack suitable for close quarters (3.0 PHB, pg 279)

This definitely proves that you can make a melee attack without using a melee weapon.

If it wasn't so, a melee attack would had been defined "an attack made with a melee weapon".

 

[Storyteller01]

you can use your head quite effectively, but it doesn't mean that is "designed ofr".

Just like you have said, even a broken glass would work effectively.

This doesn't make it "designed for close combat".

Works fine =/ designed for.

Come on: you know that our head is not "designed" at all, and even if it was so, it doesn't have anything in common with the head of animals like, for example, a ram, that we can safely state has a head "designed for close combat".

By that note, you could just as easily say that the ram has a better design. It's similar to comparing weapons design (dagger vs short sword vs longsword).

By your reasoning a commoner's unarmed strike isn't a melee weapon.

No, just that the commoners unarmed strike is a poorer quality of melee attack (a normal weapon vs a weapon that has been enhanced [masterwork, dire, serrated, magic, etc)

 

[Pielorinho]

Uhm?

Are you blind?

TWEET!

Okay. I don't know whether your heads are designed for close-combat fighting, but banging my own head against a wall isn't likely to get me any closer to finding that out. You ignored my last warning; thread closed.

Daniel

[edit: post changed to reflect what the final straw was.]