Can you coup de grace with an Inflict Wounds spell?

[irdeggman]

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.


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.

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

What lucky of you.


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?


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

An improvised weapon.

Dude you are being extremely rude in general.

One of your base arguements has consistently been the phrase "usually considered" under the description of unarmed attack Well the rest of the sentence also states "except for the following". Which in US English means that theexceptions are being spelled out (which they are) hence in all other cases it is a melee weapon.

Also (as Hyp has pointed out)

From the SRD:

Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons: 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.

Light: A light weapon is easier to use in one’s off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and it can be used while grappling. A light weapon is used in one hand. Add the wielder’s Strength bonus (if any) to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it’s used in the primary hand, or one-half the wielder’s Strength bonus if it’s used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder’s primary hand only.
An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.

One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder’s Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it’s used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his or her Strength bonus if it’s used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character’s Strength bonus to damage rolls.

Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character’s Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.

The text is talking about melee weapons and clearly states that an unarmed strike is a light weapon -- under the heading of "Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons:"


Also per the primary source rule text trumps tables.

While the definition of melee weapons in the glossary would appear to be totally inclusive if one looks to the other text descriptions it can be seen how that definition is "modified" or more accurately "clarified" as is the case throughout most of the rules they are not all in one convnient place but most be looked at intotal via reading other sources and locations to see how the actually fit together.

And my example of a hand holding a hand despite your apparent snippy attempt to dismiss it and send the argument/discussion into another direction was an attempt (and a proper one using specific example and rules that you have also been quoteing and referring too). So a snide comment about a head butt doesn'treally make any sense does it? Since it cleary is possible to make such an attack under the specific conditions I gave example to.

 

[Egres]

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.

Right.

You use other laws to rule the "new" cases.

95.000 laws aren't many?

Even if each one is about 40-50 pages long?

Ask to french people, then: they have only about 5.000 laws.

So, your legislaters can predict in advance everything that might possibly need to be ruled on in court?

They are considered quite maniacal, indeed.

Huh?

I meant, the 99% of trials don't have anything to do with law interpretation, but with one part (or both) that doesn't say the truth.

If you can't prove what you are declaring to be the truth, rules interpretation can't help.

One of your base arguements has consistently been the phrase "usually considered" under the description of unarmed attack Well the rest of the sentence also states "except for the following". Which in US English means that theexceptions are being spelled out (which they are) hence in all other cases it is a melee weapon.

For the last time: are you considered a human, or are you a human?

The text is talking about melee weapons and clearly states that an unarmed strike is a light weapon -- under the heading of "Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons:

Unfortunately it's only a weapon, not a melee one.

Not to mention that that kind word, "considered", is always there.

Ask yourself: why did they specify that an unarmed strike is "considered" something?

Why didn't they write that an unarmed strike "is" a melee weapon, or a light weapon?

Why did then they list it separately from melee weapons?

Come on.

The other guys on this topic are building up an useful debate; you are simply reiterating the same wrong statements.

And my example of a hand holding a hand despite your apparent snippy attempt to dismiss it and send the argument/discussion into another direction was an attempt (and a proper one using specific example and rules that you have also been quoteing and referring too). So a snide comment about a head butt doesn'treally make any sense does it? Since it cleary is possible to make such an attack under the specific conditions I gave example to.

So, your hands are "designed for close combat", as well as your knees, feet and your head too?

Impressive.

 

[FireLance]

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

An improvised weapon.

Perhaps I am not asking my question clearly enough.

According to the rules, in particular, the PHB glossary definition that a melee weapon is "a handheld weapon designed for close combat", is an improvised weapon a melee weapon?

If an improvised weapon is not a melee weapon, does it mean that you cannot CDG with an improvised weapon?

 

[Valgard]

I notice that everyone seems to think that Inflict Wound spells can cause critical hits. Are they rolling double damage when this occurs? If this is so, does this mean that the same is true for Cure Wound spells? If characters are allowing my clerics to automatically touch them isn't he getting an automatic critical? Should I infact be rolling 2D8+2 when my first level cleric casts CLW?

 

[Egres]

Perhaps I am not asking my question clearly enough.

Or perhaps my English isn't good enough to understand it.

If an improvised weapon is not a melee weapon, does it mean that you cannot CDG with an improvised weapon?

Right.

Should I infact be rolling 2D8+2 when my first level cleric casts CLW?

No, unless your have an undead party.

If you don't deal any damage you can't crit anything.

 

[glass]

95.000 laws aren't many? Even if each one is about 40-50 pages long?

There were 39 new laws put on statute in the UK last year alone, and they have been going doing it for several hundred years. And that is just acts of parliament, it doesn't count statutory instruments enacted under enabling legislation, or EU regulations for that matter. And all that is in the UK, where there is also several hundred years of case law to fall back on.

So no, 95k laws does not seem like very many to handle everything a court could ever possibly need to rule on.

Ask to french people, then: they have only about 5.000 laws.

At first I read that as five laws, but even at five thousand that does not seem like many. OTOH, according to the page I just googled up France does have case law (in Tort at least).

I meant, the 99% of trials don't have anything to do with law interpretation, but with one part (or both) that doesn't say the truth. If you can't prove what you are declaring to be the truth, rules interpretation can't help.

What about civil actions? Or do you just not have any, because the claimant's lawyers always know if he is going to lose?


glass.

 

[Egres]

Well, I can't PM you, so Im going to answer to your questions, but I'm not sure the moderators will appreciate this off-topic.

There were 39 new laws put on statute in the UK last year alone, and they have been going doing it for several hundred years. And that is just acts of parliament, it doesn't count statutory instruments enacted under enabling legislation, or EU regulations for that matter. And all that is in the UK, where there is also several hundred years of case law to fall back on.

39?!?

We have several hunderd new laws every year.

Not to mention thousands of other minor legal acts.

What about civil actions? Or do you just not have any, because the claimants lawyers always know if he is going to lose?

In civil actions the situation is the same.

If you are driving back home, and someone jumps from a blind corner of the street and you collide with him, do you think he wil admit that he voluntarily jumped in order to take the money from your car insurance?

 

[irdeggman]

For the last time: are you considered a human, or are you a human?


Unfortunately it's only a weapon, not a melee one.

Not to mention that that kind word, "considered", is always there.

Ask yourself: why did they specify that an unarmed strike is "considered" something?

Why didn't they write that an unarmed strike "is" a melee weapon, or a light weapon?

Because this is a common writing mistake or flaw where people tend to add descriptive words that are unnecesary. It is very common, especially in rule books.

Why did then they list it separately from melee weapons?

Good question - perhaps because of all the special rules that apply to unarmed attacks - like you draw an AoO (unless the Improved Unarmed Strike feat has been taken), you can't amke an AoO (again unless the feat is taken), etc. Really there is no good reason for them to have written it that way - the same that there is no real good reason for WotC to not issue specific errata governing the fact that prestige classes do not count towards a multi-class penalty when it is in the SRD (but not in the DMG) {3.5 that is}.[/quote]

Come on.

The other guys on this topic are building up an useful debate; you are simply reiterating the same wrong statements.

And you are constantly being rude and often insulting. Also you have not placed together the string of evidence that has been laid out before you and are seemingly relying on a single quote (first from the glossary and now this has stretched to the equip table). Again note that text trumps tables. And insisting that I am using wrong statements is likewise unproven.

So, your hands are "designed for close combat", as well as your knees, feet and your head too?

Impressive.

Yes they are, but they are not necessary very good at it and this also doesn't preclude having a parallel design.

See Jacki Chan, Bruce Lee, Mike Tyson, etc. Yes they are - but they have other purposes and are not of the same effectiveness to everyone.

 

[the Jester]

Unarmed strikes are "treated as" a melee weapon because they aren't crafted. You can't use Craft (weaponsmithing) to make an unarmed strike. You can't buy an unarmed strike at market. And so forth.

 

[glass]

Well, I can't PM you, so Im going to answer to your questions, but I'm not sure the moderators will appreciate this off-topic.

If we're crossing any lines, I'm sure we'll be told in due time. Hyp has participated in this discussion so I'm sure he'll be checking in again before too long, if not someone else.

In away that relates to my point. You're concerned we are breaking the rules, I don't think we are, and yet we can't be sure until a moderator confirms it one way or the other. Kinda like a judge in court!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to tell you your legal system can't work, because it obviously does. I am just genuinely curious about how?

39?!? We have several hunderd new laws every year.

Several hundred a year? So they spend a day at most on each one?

In civil actions the situation is the same. If you are driving back home, and someone jumps from a blind corner of the street and you collide with him, do you think he wil admit that he voluntarily jumped in order to take the money from your car insurance?

I don't think it's very likely to happen (on account of the person throwing themselves in front of the car probably being killed ot badly injured)! In realistic cases, there are likely to be a lot more grey areas IMO.


glass.