Can you coup de grace with an Inflict Wounds spell?

[FireLance]

Page 85 of Complete Arcane states:

Any spell that requires an attack roll and deals damage functions as a weapon in certain respects, whether the spell deals normal hit point damage, nonlethal damage, ability damage, or energy drain. Such spells can threaten critical hits, can be used in sneak attacks, and can be used with favored enemy damage bonuses. You can even use a number of combat-enhancing feats from the Player's Handbook to improve the effectiveness of weaponlike spells, as noted in Chapter 3 of this book.
All such spells deal damage as spells, not weapons, so Strength modifiers to damage and magical effects that increase weapon damage (such as the bard's inspire courage ability and the prayer spell) don't increase damage from a weapon-like spell.

The text calls out certain specific instances where a weaponlike spell functions like a weapon (critical hits, sneak attacks, favored enemy damage bonuses, some feats) and certain instances where it does not (Strength does not modify damage, magical effects that increase weapon damage). There is thus some basis to make rulings on instances not specifically mentioned in the text.

Can a weaponlike spell be used with Spirited Charge? Chapter 3 of Complete Arcane lists the eligible feats as Improved Critical, Improved Unarmed Strike, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Stunning Fist, Weapon Finesse and Weapon Focus, so the answer is no.

Can a weaponlike spell be used to CDG? Since it can make critical hits and deal sneak attack damage, which work along the same principles as CDG (attacking a particularly vulnerable or vital spot on an opponent), I would rule yes.

 

[Egres]

Can a weaponlike spell be used to CDG? Since it can make critical hits and deal sneak attack damage, which work along the same principles as CDG (attacking a particularly vulnerable or vital spot on an opponent), I would rule yes.

Nope.

You are making stuff up from thin air.

The part you have quoted lists the cases where weapon-like spells are treated as weapons.

There aren't other instances.

Not to mention that a melee weapon is quite different from a simple "weapon".

 

[FireLance]

Nope.

You are making stuff up from thin air.

Them's fighting words! You may disagree with me, present your own arguments why your point of view is correct, and rule differently in your games if you wish, but please don't use insulting phrases like "making stuff up from thin air".

The part you have quoted lists the cases where weapon-like spells are treated as weapons.

There aren't other instances.

Not to go into a long exposition about the rules of interpretation, but it depends on whether you deem the list to be exhaustive or indicative. If the list is exhaustive, then yes, you cannot CDG with a weaponlike spell because it doesn't say that you can CDG with a weaponlike spell. If it is indicative, then it is up to the DM to determine whether CDGing with a weaponlike spell is similar enough to the list of things that you can do with a weaponlike spell to allow it.

Now, generally, when you make an exhaustive list, you only list the items that are on the list because there is no point in listing the items that are not on the list. When you make an indicative list, you list the items that are on the list and the items that are not on the list, so that others can reference your lists to determine where items that are not specifically mentioned on either list belong.

In Complete Arcane, you get a list of ways that a weaponlike spell is treated as a weapon, and another list of ways that it is not. That implies to me that it is an indicative list.

Not to mention that a melee weapon is quite different from a simple "weapon".

No arguments there. In fact, the text lists the instances where it is not.

 

[Egres]

Not to go into a long exposition about the rules of interpretation, but it depends on whether you deem the list to be exhaustive or indicative. [blah blah]

In Complete Arcane, you get a list of ways that a weaponlike spell is treated as a weapon, and another list of ways that it is not. That implies to me that it is an indicative list.

?

Perhaps you didn't notice that those spells can be treated like weapons, not melee weapons.

They are quite different.

Unless you are going to argue that a touch spell is a "handheld weapon designed for close combat"...

Not to mention that your your interpretation of that list as "indicative" is without basis.

No arguments there. In fact, the text lists the instances where it is not.

Maybe because it can't be a melee weapon?

Tell us: are you going to let your players apply the Nonlethal substitution feat without taking it?

Nonlethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Lethal Damage: You can use a melee weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.

 

[Al'Kelhar]

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. The concept was up-dated to the v 3.5 ruleset in Complete Arcane. From the perspective of the SRD, a spell is not a melee weapon, bow or crossbow. Ergo, a spell cannot be used to CdG - nor can a natural weapon or unarmed attack, for that matter. It's that point which has everyone ruffled. That is to say, people are saying in their own minds that it's clearly illogical that you can CdG with a dagger but not with a mouth full of sharp teeth, so obviously the text of CdG in the SRD must be interpreted more broadly than it is written. [People forget that the combat rules in the SRD are essentially taken from the PHB, and because of that are written with a Small and Medium humanoid focus - because that's what the PHB describes]. Which leads me to my next point.

Second, everyone here is interpreting the rules according to their own views or prejudices because the rules (a) do not specifically deal with the subject; (b) are plainly illogical; and (c) do not provide a sufficient basis to extrapolate an answer.

So, whether inflight light wounds can be used to CdG is up to you. You're the DM - Rule 0 it, and apply that rule consistently throughout the campaign for both PCs and NPCs, and you shouldn't have too many problems.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

 

[FireLance]

Hope you don't mind, I'm going to answer your points out of order.

Tell us: are you going to let your players apply the Nonlethal substitution feat without taking it?

My bad. I left out the following item from the list of things a weaponlike spell can't do. This follows immediately from the sentence that Strength modifiers to damage and magical effects that increase weapon damage don't apply to weapon-like spells:

Likewise, a weaponlike spell that deals normal damage can't be used to deal nonlethal damage or vice versa (except when modified by the Nonlethal Substitution feat or in accordance with the specific regulations of a nonlethal spell duel as desccribed on page 176).

So, by the rules, no.

Perhaps you didn't notice that those spells can be treated like weapons, not melee weapons.

They are quite different.

Unless you are going to argue that a touch spell is a "handheld weapon designed for close combat"...

Since I don't have the book with me now, I assume you are using the definition of a "melee weapon" in the PHB glossary. However, the SRD has this to say about weapons:

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).

By this definition, a melee weapon is simply a weapon that is useful in close combat. If a weaponlike spell is treated like a weapon, and it is useful in close combat, then it is a melee weapon by this definition.

If we use the strict definition above, a touch spell is not a melee weapon, but it does have certain aspects of a melee weapon, e.g. the ability to deliver critical hits and sneak attacks. Similarly, by the strict definition above, a torch is not a "handheld weapon designed for close combat". Yet, when used as an improvised weapon, it also takes on certain characteristics of a melee weapon.

Would you allow a person to CDG a troll with a lit torch? What about with alchemist's fire, which is strictly speaking not a melee weapon also? If so, then the fact that a touch spell is strictly speaking not a melee weapon is not in itself a reason to rule that a person cannot CDG a troll with a touch spell such as flame blade or a fire substituted shocking grasp.

Not to mention that your your interpretation of that list as "indicative" is without basis.

Welll, my basis is that the rules give one list of what you can do and another list of what you cannot do. The implication, to me, at least, is that the DM is supposed to make a judgement call for items that are not explicitly mentioned and decide which list they belong to. CDG is one of them. Sunder is another. By the rules, you can use a slashing or bludgeoning melee weapon to strike your opponent's weapon or shield. The text in Complete Arcane does not explicitly state that a touch spell can be used to sunder an opponent's weapon or shield. However, it seems reasonable to me that a character with a touch spell that deals acid damage could use it in a manner similar to a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to damage his opponent's weapon or shield.

And what about new game elements that might not have been envisaged when the lists were drawn up? The indicative approach also allows me to incorporate them as they are developed into the list of "allowed" items if I feel that they are similar enough to the elements already on the list. For example, I would consider the skirmish ability of the scout class (introduced in Complete Adventurer) to be close enough to sneak attack and critical hits, and allow them to gain skirmish damage with touch spells.

 

[Egres]

My bad. I left out the following item from the list of things a weaponlike spell can't do. This follows immediately from the sentence that Strength modifiers to damage and magical effects that increase weapon damage don't apply to weapon-like spells:

As you can see they covered everything could regard a weapon-like spell in combat.

This means that the list of what they can do is exclusive.

No CdG.

Since I don't have the book with me now, I assume you are using the definition of a "melee weapon" in the PHB glossary.

Yes.

Something your touch spell doesn't match with.

by the strict definition above, a torch is not a "handheld weapon designed for close combat". Yet, when used as an improvised weapon, it also takes on certain characteristics of a melee weapon.

That's the reason why it's defined "improvised".

For example, I would consider the skirmish ability of the scout class (introduced in Complete Adventurer) to be close enough to sneak attack and critical hits, and allow them to gain skirmish damage with touch spells.

Unfortunately the CdG rule was already existant when they printed the CA.

 

[atom crash]

Are you trying to say you can only CDG with a melee weapon?

From the SRD:
As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless opponent. You can also use a bow or crossbow, provided you are adjacent to the target.

 

[Egres]

Are you trying to say you can only CDG with a melee weapon?

Nowhere I did state something like that.

Is your question somewhat useful?

I'm asking cause I can't see how it could be so.

 

[the Jester]

Egres- your reading of the definition of coup de grace seems to imply that you can't cdg with a natural weapon. Is this your position?

Personally, I think the list of what you can do with a weapon-like spell is indicative. The list of what you can't do with one is too. There is no mention of cdg on either list; obviously, then, the lists cannot be exhaustive.

My position is that you can cdg with a weapon-like spell, assuming you have a full round action to do it in. In other words, it must be a weaponlike spell with a duration sufficient to give you a full round after casting to do so.