Can you coup de grace with an Inflict Wounds spell?

[irdeggman]

You couldn't be more wrong.

An unarmed strike isn't a melee weapon, because:

1) It's listed in the weapon table before the melee weapons, and it's not classified as one of them.

Take another look at it.

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

If it's "much like", it can't be it.

3) Doesn't match the glossary definition.

4) melee weapons are made for making melee attacks.

Apples can be eaten.

Can you eat oranges?

Dude how about if you read the section under equipment in the SRD:

Let me quote it for you, again (I apologize up front for being snippy but. . .)

Strike, Unarmed: A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike. A Small character deals 1d2 points of nonlethal damage. A monk or any character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat can deal lethal or nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes, at her option. The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.
An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike.

That is about as clear as you can get in that an unarmed strike is always a light weapon.

And again, the definition of melee weapons are weapons used in melee. If there is another definition - please show it to me.

 

[the Jester]

I allow coup de grace with weapon-like spells. In fact, I allow them with ranged weapon-like spells. And I allow you to do it in a single round, i.e. you don’t have to cast the spell the round before. Why? Because you make a coup de grace with a crossbow or a bow using only one arrow/bolt. Firing one arrow/bolt is a standard action, so is casting a (ranged or melee) touch spell and attacking with it in the same round.

But performing a coup de grace is a full-round action. The fact that you can make a single attack as a standard action is irrelevent.

For another example of something similar, look at Manyshot, Spring Attack or charging- all are their own specific actions. Both Spring Attack and a charge are full round actions. Just because a certain type of full-round action includes an attack doesn't make it a standard action. Heck, there are prolly spells with attack rolls that take a full round to cast, too (not sure off hand of an example, though).

 

[Egres]

And, as the Jester pointed out, the lists don't say anything about CDG and don't cover everything. Taking the position that the list of things you can do is exhaustive is no different from taking the position that the list of things you cannot do is exhaustive.

Didn't you notice that that list covers everything you need to know about weapon-like spells?

By your reasoning that rule would be quite meaningless, allowing you to rule on the fly.

As mentioned, the definition of melee weapons also doesn't cover improvised weapons. If you make an exception for improvised weapons, why not for natural weapons and weaponlike spells?

Maybe becasue they are not melee weapons?

Egres, do you really disallow a natural weapon as part of a CDG, or are you just trying to yank some chains around here?

I'm arguing about RAW here, not about my HR.

That is about as clear as you can get in that an unarmed strike is always a light weapon.

Heck, and I thought I had problem with the English language.

1) It's treated as. it's not.

2) Being a weapon doesn't make something a melee one.

A bow is a weapon too.

Read the PHB once again.

And again, the definition of melee weapons are weapons used in melee. If there is another definition - please show it to me.

From the PHB Glossary:

melee weapon

A handheld weapon designed for close combat.

 

[FireLance]

But performing a coup de grace is a full-round action. The fact that you can make a single attack as a standard action is irrelevent.

By that same argument, the fact that you can make a single attack cast a spell as a standard action is irrelevent, as long as you take a full-round action to CDG with it.

 

[Sejs]

It deals lethal damage and you can crit with it because it requires an attack roll.

So yes, I'd say you can CdG with an inflict wounds spell.

 

[the Jester]

Didn't you notice that that list covers everything you need to know about weapon-like spells?

Not quite- neither list specifies whether or not you can coup de grace with them.

 

[FireLance]

Didn't you notice that that list covers everything you need to know about weapon-like spells?

No, I didn't notice that. The lists don't say anything about whether I can CDG with one, for example. If the lists are meant to be exhaustive, then they should, one way or the other. Attempting a CDG with a weaponlike spell may not arise as often as criticals or sneak attacks, but it is still something that a player may reasonably attempt to do. Even if they are meant to be exhaustive, but it turns out that they are not because a situation arises in game that they do not cover, then the DM running the game has to treat them as indicative in order to resolve the situation.

By your reasoning that rule would be quite meaningless, allowing you to rule on the fly.

Meaningless, no - it gives guidance on the ways in which a weaponlike spell is like a weapon, and ways in which it is not. Rule on the fly, yes - that is the whole point of having a DM, after all, but you use the existing rules as a guide. It's like being a judge in a court of law. Sometimes, the law of the land will give explicit instructions. Sometimes, neither written law nor case law applies exactly to the situation at hand, in which case the judge has to make his own decision. However, his judgement should be based on and guided by written law and case law.

Maybe becasue they are not melee weapons?

Based on the PHB glossary definition of melee weapon. However, you seem to be taking the position that improvised weapons are melee weapons even though, like natural weapons and weaponlike spells, they do not qualify as melee weapons based on the PHB glossary definition. This apparent inconsistency confuses me, and I would like to request an explanation.

 

[Egres]

Not quite- neither list specifies whether or not you can coup de grace with them.

Because it lists what you can do.

It doesn't list it cause you can't CdG with touch spells.

Easy.

 

[Egres]

No, I didn't notice that. The lists don't say anything about whether I can CDG with one, for example. If the lists are meant to be exhaustive, then they should, one way or the other.

Nope, because it lists what you can do, and all the rest is prohibited.

Sometimes, neither written law nor case law applies exactly to the situation at hand, in which case the judge has to make his own decision. However, his judgement should be based on and guided by written law and case law.

Maybe this is the reason why you are reasoning in this way.

In my country judges can't make their own decisions.

Everything is law based.(obviously I don't live in a common law country).

Based on the PHB glossary definition of melee weapon. However, you seem to be taking the position that improvised weapons are melee weapons even though, like natural weapons and weaponlike spells, they do not qualify as melee weapons based on the PHB glossary definition. This apparent inconsistency confuses me, and I would like to request an explanation.

They aren't melee weapons.

Nothing more to say.

 

[Teemu]

For another example of something similar, look at Manyshot ...

I'd allow you to use Manyshot with coup de grace.