Can you coup de grace with an Inflict Wounds spell?

[Infiniti2000]

I'd have to ask why? Using a weapon is usually a standard action, yet it still requires a full round action to kill a helpless target...

The CDG full-round action specifically includes an attack. It does not include casting a spell, whether it's a standard action or full-round action. CDG does not allow for any standard action to be used as the attack, it only allows for a single attack.

Consider this difference between ride-by attack and fly-by attack. RBA only allows an attack (specifically a charge), while FBA allows any standard action -- cast a spell, attack, activate an item, use a skill, etc. If CDG said, "Spend a full-round action to line up a standard action that deals damage . . ." then you could cast a spell as part of the CDG.

 

[Storyteller01]

The CDG full-round action specifically includes an attack. It does not include casting a spell, whether it's a standard action or full-round action. CDG does not allow for any standard action to be used as the attack, it only allows for a single attack.

Consider this difference between ride-by attack and fly-by attack. RBA only allows an attack (specifically a charge), while FBA allows any standard action -- cast a spell, attack, activate an item, use a skill, etc. If CDG said, "Spend a full-round action to line up a standard action that deals damage . . ." then you could cast a spell as part of the CDG.

But what about those spells that are cast by using an attack roll (those that end with touch attack rolls or ranged touch attack rolls) or those that replicate weapons, such as the Flame Blade spell mentioned earlier?

 

[Valgard]

Here's how I see it;
From the SRD

Coup de Grace: 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.
You automatically hit and score a critical hit. If the defender survives the damage, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die. A rogue also gets her extra sneak attack damage against a helpless opponent when delivering a coup de grace.
Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents.
You can’t deliver a coup de grace against a creature that is immune to critical hits. You can deliver a coup de grace against a creature with total concealment, but doing this requires two consecutive full-round actions (one to “find” the creature once you’ve determined what square it’s in, and one to deliver the coup de grace).

Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack. Your opponent’s AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.
Holding the Charge: If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the discharge of the spell (hold the charge) indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. (If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack.) If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.

In the first round the character casts the Inlict X Wounds spell and holds the charge. On their next round of action they take a Full Attack to administer a Coup de Grace using their hand as the melee weapon. As such they inflict a critical hit with their hand ( usually 2D3+Str bonus) and the spell discharges doing normal damage i.e, not doubled. the saving throw, if the defender survives the damage, is 10 plus the damage from both the melee attack and the spell.

At least that's how I would rule it.

 

[anon]

So which is the melee weapon: the hand or the spell?

 

[Valgard]

The hand.

 

[Infiniti2000]

But what about those spells that are cast by using an attack roll (those that end with touch attack rolls or ranged touch attack rolls) or those that replicate weapons, such as the Flame Blade spell mentioned earlier?

What about them? Isn't that what we're talking about here?

 

[Gidien]

To chime in on the "designed for combat" issue, not that I know a whole lot about these things, unarmed strikes by a martial artist (read monk) are indeed "designed" for combat use. The body weapons used by martial artists are indeed carefully crafted, often requiring a fair amount of skill, into efficeint means of doing harm to another person. Consider the hand. Evolved to help use tools, not as a weapon. But now consider the fist, a very different thing. Correctly formed, the fist is a very specific invention of human beings, is designed speficially for use in combat, and is almost always modified by hard bodily training... I mean, a serious martial artist doing a lot of striking training will actually have larger, denser bones where he or she is striking things. The fist is in fact a more sophisticated invented weapon than a simple stick used as a club.

Not that any of that can be drawn from the RAW, but I am sure a careful reading of what a monk is in the PHB will reveal that the bodily weapons used are indeed designed as weapons. If you need this designed weapon to be held in the hand, try a hammerfist. Then use it in melee. Now you have a hand held weapon designed for use in close combat.

 

[Egres]

Not that any of that can be drawn from the RAW, but I am sure a careful reading of what a monk is in the PHB will reveal that the bodily weapons used are indeed designed as weapons. If you need this designed weapon to be held in the hand, try a hammerfist. Then use it in melee. Now you have a hand held weapon designed for use in close combat.

Unfortunately unarmed strikes aren't limited to fists.

What about your head?

 

[Storyteller01]

Unfortunately unarmed strikes aren't limited to fists.

What about your head?

The forehead is the thickest part of the skull, and it gets thicker for those who strike with it (check reports on martial artists who repeatedly put their haed though concrete). It is designed to absorb and redirect impact, with the face and forehead being the areas in most danger of attack (you wouldn't show the back of your head to an enemy if you could avoid it, would you?). The thickness may increase by minute increments, but there's enough to improve stress tolerances (ie: you can use it to hit harder). And lets not forget the eye socket, brow design, and thickness of bone between the face and the brain/brain stem (upper dental area not withstanding).

Joints such as knees and elbows are a different story. Due to the increased mass already in place they break less often (dislocation is another matter). Sockets tend to be thicker than the bone they are a part of, as well as denser [less marrow in the socket ball to reduce integrity]. Notice that clubs made from animal femurs use the ball joint as the striking surface.

Then there's the matter of ligament reinforcement.

AND... (almost done everyone) their shorter distance from the strikes point of rotation means that elbow and knee strikes can generate enough power with less effort than that used to punch or kick (less distance to cover).

 

[Storyteller01]

What about them? Isn't that what we're talking about here?

I think so.

My concern is that, in order to use touch attack spells you have to make an attack roll. You don't have to hold a charge. Why have a character hold the charge, then CdG if they don't have to in any other circumstance? Guess I'm not a big fan of inconsistency (not being snarky folks...).

My thinking (let me know if I'm wrong) is that spellcasters, like fighters, will also lose the advantage of multiple attacks for the round. That may be important when looking at casters that have multi-classed fighter, rogue (especialy those with the TWF build), or specialized PrC levels like the Spellsword or Bladesinger. Even without the held charge, they accept a similar disadvantage.

I'll stop on this arguement and agree to disagree. Everyone has their interpretation. SInce we can't prove/disprove either one, we might as well assume we're both right.