Can you coup de grace with an Inflict Wounds spell?

[irdeggman]

From the PHB (3.5) pg 121 “An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.”

I don’t see what part of “always” is unclear though so it is always considered a light weapon.

PHB pg 139 “Striking for damage with punches, kicks and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:”

On the surface it looks like a contradiction, but when one reads the excepts spelled out on page 139 it is clear they are referring to being considered “armed”. Which is why they go into detail about “armed” unarmed attacks.

Coup de Grace (PHB pg 153) “As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless opponent.”

Melee Weapon (PHB pg 310) “A handheld weapon designed for close combat.”

Well since an unarmed strike is light weapon (see PHB pg 121) and if a character is holding one hand inside the other and then making a strike he meets the requirements since he is using a “melee weapon”.

The unarmed strike is a weapon designed for close combat (i.e., it can only be done with the creature’s natural reach), it is a light melee weapon and if a hand is within a hand it is by definition handheld.

Here are some side questions.

Is the soulknife's mind blade a melee weapon?

What happens when the graft weapons psionic ability is use?

What about the Whirling Blade spell? The weapon deals damage and is treated just as if you swung it in melee.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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).

But the laws must be exhaustive, and non-contradictory in every situation!

... right?

-Hyp.

 

[FireLance]

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

There's an old joke about my country: In Hong Kong, everything that is not explicitly prohibited is allowed. In Singapore, everything that is not explicitly allowed is prohibited. Of course there is a third approach which I prefer: to look at what is explicitly allowed and what is explicitly prohibited, and make a considered decision whether an item that is not specifically mentioned should be allowed or not. I find it to be a good philosophy for life as well as for games.

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

Partly, perhaps. And partly because, from experience, the rules don't cover everything.

They aren't melee weapons.

And an improvised weapon is?

 

[Egres]

I don’t see what part of “always” is unclear though so it is always considered a light weapon.

I don’t see what part of “considered” is unclear, and I also don’t see what part of "weapon" is unclear, since I don't see the word "melee" anywhere in that quote.

On the surface it looks like a contradiction, but when one reads the excepts spelled out on page 139 it is clear they are referring to being considered “armed”. Which is why they go into detail about “armed” unarmed attacks.

How does the following part make it not contradictory?

They aren't melee weapons.

Didn't you notice the weapon table?

Ask yourself:why did they list them before the melee weapons, and they aren't classified as melee weapons?

Come on.

Well since an unarmed strike is light weapon (see PHB pg 121) and if a character is holding one hand inside the other and then making a strike he meets the requirements since he is using a “melee weapon”.

So, you've got a head designed for close combat, eh?

What lucky of you.

But the laws must be exhaustive, and non-contradictory in every situation!

... right?

Nope.

We simply follow rules that solve this kind of problems.

Just like the Errata primary source rule, if you like.

In this way, there are not "surprises" on trials.

And, Hyp, why don't you share your point of view on this issue with us?

And an improvised weapon is?

It walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it looks like a duck, and is...a duck.

An improvised weapon.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I don’t see what part of “considered” is unclear, and I also don’t see what part of "weapon" is unclear, since I don't see the word "melee" anywhere in that quote.

The 'light weapon' designation applies to melee weapons, per the Equipment chapter: "This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon’s size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon."

We simply follow rules that solve this kind of problems.

Just like the Errata primary source rule, if you like.

In this way, there are not "surprises" on trials.

The primary source rule works when two contradictory rules address a situation. They're of no help when no rules address a situation.

What do your judges do if a situation is not addressed by an existing law?

-Hyp.

 

[Egres]

The 'light weapon' designation applies to melee weapons, per the Equipment chapter: "This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon’s size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon.".

But if you look at the weapon table you'll see that there are light weapons that aren't melee ones: the unarmed attacks.

And the PHB Glossary confirms this point.

The primary source rule works when two contradictory rules address a situation. They're of no help when no rules address a situation.

What do your judges do if a situation is not addressed by an existing law?

They simply use other laws that refer to similar cases.

I should give you more details, since it works in a different way if we we talk about civil or criminal trials, and there are many things I don't think I could translate in a proper way.

However, to sum it up, it can't happen.

But I don't think we should talk about it here, should we?

 

[glass]

They simply use other laws that refer to similar cases.

But if there is no common law, how are there any other cases to refer to?

I should give you more details, since it works in a different way if we we talk about civil or criminal trials, and there are many things I don't think I could translate in a proper way. However, to sum it up, it can't happen.

What can't happen?

But I don't think we should talk about it here, should we?

IANAM, but I don't see why not. It's not political, and it seems to be informing your argument so it is at least tangentially relevant to the discussion in the thread.

In any case, it seems worth pointing out that most (or all) of the designers of D&D are American, and the USA is a common law country. So if we are considering the judge analogy, we should be considering the common law system also.


glass.

 

[glass]

In this way, there are not "surprises" on trials.

So people go to court knowing they are going to lose? Seems unlikely!


glass.

 

[Egres]

But if there is no common law, how are there any other cases to refer to?

You don't need cases when your country has 95.000 laws, like mine.

What can't happen?

There cannot be cases where you don't have a law reference.

In any case, it seems worth pointing out that most (or all) of the designers of D&D are American, and the USA is a common law country. So if we are considering the judge analogy, we should be considering the common law system also.

In this case, I must give up.

My law degree is useless in your country.

So people go to court knowing they are going to lose? Seems unlikely!

Exactly from when people tell the truth during a trial?

On the Enworld boards people don't (at least, I hope so) lie in order to achieve a goal, or to obtain a right they don't deserve.

We are debating in a maieutic way, in order to obtain a definitive answer that should represent the "truth" on this issue.


Trials work in a very different way.

 

[glass]

missed a bit

They simply use other laws that refer to similar cases.

You don't need cases when your country has 95.000 laws, like mine.

You mentioned cases in your previous posts, which was why I queried it. And IANAL, but 95000 laws doesn't really sound like that many.

There cannot be cases where you don't have a law reference.

So, your legislaters can predict in advance everything that might possibly need to be ruled on in court? Maybe if they have time we should get them to write for D&D?

In this case, I must give up. My law degree is useless in your country.

True. Not that the USA is my country, but the UK has common law too. In fact, I think we invented it.

OTOH, you hopefully don't need a law degree to interpret the rules of D&D!

Exactly from when people tell the truth during a trial?

Huh?


glass.