coup-de-grace

[pontus]

If you can score a critical with the spell then you can CDG with it. You can't get criticals with inflict spells. Try using shocking grasp instead.

 

[Artoomis]

Problem rules that can be solved?

Well, no. Actually it's intended to be the list of rules that do not have a truly definitive answer. Eventually, I'll publish (in a post) the list of problem rules and considerations for DMs to decide how to proceed with that rule.

This is getting pretty off-topic here - take a look at the Problem Rules thread ans you'll see what I mean.

As far as what it takes to Coup de Grace. Opinions vary.

Several of them are:

1. A weapon (a real weapon, not something that is considered a weapon in some circumstances).

2. Any touch attack spell that does damage.

3. Any touch attack spell that do critical damage.

4. Any touch attack spell - whether it does damage or not.

All these can be argued pretty wel using the rules.

And there may be more.

I vote for #1 since, as I read the rules, it seems to meet the intent of the Coup de Grace rule better. Lord only knows what the designers actually intended.

 

[Mark]

You can't get criticals with inflict spells.

? Reference, please ?

 

[whatisitgoodfor]

? Reference, please ?

Darn, you beat me to it.

Lookin at PHB 123, the only thing required to be able to score a critical hit with a spell is that the spell require an attack roll.

As to the rationale to allow coup de grace with spells like inflict, here's the flavor text we describe it with:

"I walk up to him, jam my thumbs into his eye sockets and release the spell!"

 

[Mark]

Lord only knows what the designers actually intended.

Well... The problem with a number of these is that the designers intentions have been expressed by the designers and some folks simply won't accept the answers.

 

[Mark]

"I walk up to him, jam my thumbs into his eye sockets and release the spell!"

Can't ya just grab him by the yarboes and release the spell like the rest of us?

 

[whatisitgoodfor]

LOL!

I'm going to have to mention that to the cleric tomorrow night.

 

[Caliban]

This is clearly debatable - and I think it's been debated before. I'm adding it to my list of Problem Rules.

Er... what's debatable?

Using a Damaging Touch Attack Spell to Coup De Grace?

OR

Using a Healing Touch Attack Spell to Coup De Grace or Critical?


My opinion: You can Coup De Grace with any weapon that can cause a critical to the target. Touch attack spells are classified as "Weapon-like" spells, and since they can critical, they can obviously target a more vulnerable area, which would qualify them for a Coup De Grace.

Healing spells don't do damage. Thus, they can't critical and can't coup de grace for extra healing.

 

[Sigma]

If you use clw in this manner, then you should also be making attack rolls on your allies every time you use it on them. After all, you might score a critical hit and get double healing. Come to think of it, why stop there. Bull's Strength, Endurance, and the other buff spells are touch as well, and if you wanted to put them on a hostile target, you could make a touch attack. Do you get critical Bull's Strength's as well? Or a coup des Cat's Grace?

'okay guys, here's the plan. Lidda, we're going to tie you up so that you are helpless. Then, Jozan will coup des gras you with a couple cure spells to fully heal you and then a Endurance. We'll untie you, put Mialee in the hot seat, and go at it again.'

In a related note, if you cast a cure light wounds spell on a hostile (non-undead) opponent, would they get an attack of opportunity against you? I'd say yes, since there's no consequence to ignoring the attack (ie, it doesn't hurt you.)

Seems to me to fall in the area of too much extrapolation on the rules.

 

[Artoomis]

Er... what's debatable?

Using a Damaging Touch Attack Spell to Coup De Grace?

OR

Using a Healing Touch Attack Spell to Coup De Grace or Critical?

Mostly the former.

It comes down to when things that are not weapons are considered weapons. Reasonable folks disagree on this, and the rules don't make it clear - you have to read around in several places and even then there is doubt.

Example:

If you have improved unarmed attack, are you attacking with a weapon or not? Well, certainly you are for some purposes - but if you disarm someone you'd get their weapon, wouldn't you? That's because you are attacking unarmed. So apparently you are attacking wihth a weapon for some purposes and not for others. What about a Coup de Grace? Do you have a weapon or not? Well, sort of you do and sort of you don't.

I think I'll add Improved Unarmed Attack to the list, too.

I think you get the idea - it's debatable. I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong, just that there are two sides to the question.