Coup de Grace with a Touch Spell?

[Hypersmurf]

No, I'm not. You can deliver a touch spell, normally, requiring a touch attack, or you can do so with an unarmed strike. If you want to deal lethal damage with that unarmed strike, you usually take the -4 nonproficiency penalty (barring a spellcaster with Improved Unarmed Strike).

Yes, but you can deliver a touch spell with an unarmed strike at no penalty, if the unarmed strike is dealing non-lethal damage.

Which is why I said the -4 is not because you're delivering a touch spell, but rather if you want to deal lethal damage.

"Deal lethal damage" did not appear anywhere in the post that I originally objected to.

-Hyp.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

It was in respect to needing to do lethal damage in order to do a CdG, and therefore most touch spell casters will suffer that penalty.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It was in respect to needing to do lethal damage in order to do a CdG, and therefore most touch spell casters will suffer that penalty.

... on the attack roll they aren't making?

You can see why I didn't immediately assume you were referring to a CdG

-Hyp.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Sorry - I assumed that that part was understood, in that you couldn't rule out a CdG with a touch spell, because it could always be delivered as an unarmed strike at a penalty (which, because it's a CdG, wouldn't apply).

 

[Hypersmurf]

Sorry - I assumed that that part was understood, in that you couldn't rule out a CdG with a touch spell, because it could always be delivered as an unarmed strike at a penalty (which, because it's a CdG, wouldn't apply).

However, there's a big difference between a critical with a Shocking Grasp (10d6 Electricity), and a critical with an unarmed strike delivering a Shocking Grasp (2d3 + 2 x Str + 5d6 Electricity).

-Hyp.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Are you certain that's how it would work?

Because it seems odd that, if I touch you in the right place, you take 10d6 points of damage, but if I punch you there, you take less.

I'd imagine that both the punch and the spell would be critical hits in such a case.

The nearest parallels I can find would be: 1) elemental damage from a flaming sword, which does not multiply on a critical hit; and 2) the negative levels inflicted *in addition* to a vampire's or lich's slam attack, which *are* multiplied on a critical hit.

I'd rule that the spell as unarmed strike are more like the negative levels than the flaming sword, but there doesn't appear to be any specific ruling to support either side.

Edit: Thoughts?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Are you certain that's how it would work?

It's described in detail in Tome and Blood.

Touch? Spell crits.
Punch? Punch crits, spell does normal damage.

-Hyp.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

*quickly rifles through his book*

What page?

 

[Hypersmurf]

p38.

If the attack hits, the unarmed strike deals its normal damage and the spell is discharged against the defender. Only the unarmed strike can inflict a critical hit.

-Hyp.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Yep, there it is. I was looking in the back, under "weaponlike spells."

Drat.