Coup de Gras question.

[3d6]

I don't think that question can be answered. It is not a good idea to use the word "normal" in rules text. What does "normal" mean in that context? The damage your unarmed strike deals most of the time? The damage your unarmed strike would deal if you hit them with it right now? The damage your unarmed strike deals without magical effects? 1d3 points of non-lethal damage? Who knows?

It would be better to phrase it like this--You can make a ranged attack against a single opponent within 30 feet as a standard action. If you hit, you deal damage as though you had hit your opponent with an unarmed strike.

In that case, yes, you would add Power Attack bonus damage.

Going back to the grappling Power Attack issue, I think an argument could be made that the Power Attack penalty applies to grapple checks.

We know from the grapple rules that "a grapple check is like a melee attack roll" and you have an "attack bonus" on your grapple check. Also, we're supposed to use the special size modifier "in place of the normal size modifier you use when making an attack roll".

We also know that Power Attack applies a penalty to "melee attack rolls" and we know from the PH glossary that a melee attack roll is "an attack roll during melee combat". Finally, we know from the attacking in to melee rules that "two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other".

So, you make an "attack roll" in a grapple, and you are "engaged in melee" and are thus making a "melee attack roll" when you make a grapple check. Power Attack applies its penalty to "melee attack rolls", and therefore applies its penalty to grapple checks.

Not exactly the most solid rules argument around, but hardly as flimsy as some that are bandied about on these boards.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It would be better to phrase it like this--You can make a ranged attack against a single opponent within 30 feet as a standard action. If you hit, you deal damage as though you had hit your opponent with an unarmed strike.

How about if we have some parenthetic clarification of what normal means?

Say: You can make a ranged attack against a single opponent within 30 feet as a standard action. If you hit, you deal nonlethal damage as normal for your unarmed strike (1d3 points for Medium attackers or 1d2 points for Small attackers, plus Strength modifiers).

Is this damage considered a 'melee damage roll'?

Given that the question is an analogy for another rule in the core books that uses the phrasing "you deal nonlethal damage as normal for your unarmed strike (1d3 points for Medium attackers or 1d2 points for Small attackers, plus Strength modifiers)", changing the phrasing to remove 'normal' is counterproductive.

-Hyp.

 

[3d6]

Well, a search of the SRD reveals that the phrase "melee damage roll" occurs in 3 places: bull's strength, solid fog, and the Power Attack feat itself.

Bull's strength says that modifying melee damage rolls is a "usual benefit" of a bonus to a creature's Strength score. The actual entry for Strength says that you add your Strength modifier to "damage rolls when using a melee weapon or a thrown weapon (including a sling)". From that text, I would conclude that a melee damage roll is a damage roll made when using a melee weapon.

An unarmed strike is not a melee weapon. It is listed as an “unarmed attack” on the weapons table in the equipment section, while everything else is listed as a light melee weapon, a one-handed melee weapon, etc. Further more, the “unarmed attack” section states that “Striking for damage with [an unarmed strike] is much like attacking with a melee weapon”, implying that an unarmed strike is not a melee weapon. Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization also imply this. However, the entry for the unarmed strike in the equipment section states that "the damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls". I would conclude from this that although an unarmed strike deals “weapon damage”, it does not deal “melee weapon damage”, as it is not a melee weapon.

Now, from this text alone, I would conclude that Power Attack never grants bonus damage to unarmed strikes, as an unarmed strike deals “weapon damage” not “melee weapon damage”. Power Attack grants a bonus on melee damage rolls, but unarmed strikes do not make melee damage rolls. However, Power Attack explicitly works with unarmed strikes. From this, I conclude that Power Attack grants a bonus to two things—melee damage rolls and weapon damage rolls in the specific case of an unarmed strike. Therefore, it doesn’t matter if it is a “melee damage roll” when dealing with unarmed strikes, an unarmed strike never makes a melee damage roll.

Regarding the "normal" question, if normal for a Medium creature is defined as 1d3 + Strength modifier damage, then normal is 1d3 + Strength modifier damage and if you deal normal damage you deal 1d3 + Strength modifier damage, regardless of any other circumstances (like being a high-level monk). That's taking the text much too literally, but that is what it says. If I had my way, we'd just throughly thrash any game designer who used "normal" in rules text.

 

[HeinorNY]

Power Attack isn't an action of any kind. Read the feat again.

So "before making attack rolls for a round, you may choose to subtract a number from all melee attack rolls and add the same number to all melee damage rolls." and "When you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee," are totally different things? To get the benefit from PA don't you need to make an attack roll, and thus take an attack action?
Ok, I understand your point, but IMO the rules are the same. The statement in CE is juts more strict and clear so bad players won't try to cheat, by using that idea of "I say i'm going to use CE, get the bonus on CA and then i just don't attack."
It happens because mechanically, you have to make an attack to get the benefit from PA, so it would be redundant to say you have to take the attack action. The feat "resolves" when you attack.
But you only get the benefit from CE if someone attacks you, you don't get it by making attacks, your attack doesn't "resolve" the feat benefits. So if it stated "before making an melee attack roll, you subtract a number from all melee attack rolls and add the same number to you AC, the feat could be "resolved" before you make any attack, if you provoke somehow an AoO before attacking. Or you could provoke this situation in order to cheat.
Both feats work the same way, you attack with a penalty and you get a bonus to damage or AC, simple. And you need to attack in order to be eligible to get both feat benefits, it's obvious in PA because it can't work in any other way, but it can in CE.
The description of CE isn't there to make it different from PA, it is there to make it identical to PA.

 

[hong]

So "before making attack rolls for a round, you may choose to subtract a number from all melee attack rolls and add the same number to all melee damage rolls." and "When you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee," are totally different things?

Correct.

To get the benefit from PA don't you need to make an attack roll, and thus take an attack action?

Correct.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So "before making attack rolls for a round, you may choose to subtract a number from all melee attack rolls and add the same number to all melee damage rolls." and "When you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee," are totally different things? To get the benefit from PA don't you need to make an attack roll, and thus take an attack action?

Right.

For example, you can use Power Attack in a round where you Charge (full round action), and apply the penalty and bonus to your attack and damage rolls; you cannot use Combat Expertise in a round where you Charge, because the Charge action is neither the attack action nor the full attack action.

You can even use Power Attack in a round where you take, say, the Withdraw action (full round action), or the Stand From Prone and Draw a Weapon actions (two move actions). If any AoO is provoked before your next turn, you will apply the penalty and bonus to your attack and damage rolls when you make your AoO. You could not use Combat Expertise in these situations, because Withdraw, Stand From Prone, and Draw a Weapon are neither the attack action nor the full attack action.

In fact, you could use Power Attack in a round where you take the Total Defense action. This would be foolish, because about the only attack rolls you might make would be opposed attack rolls versus Disarm or Sunder attempts (on which you'd take a penalty), and there likely wouldn't be any damage rolls at all. But you could do it. You couldn't, however, use Combat Expertise, because Total Defense is neither the attack action nor the full attack action.

-Hyp.

 

[HeinorNY]

And what if I'm unarmed and I don't have the Improved unarmed attack. I attack someone using CE, do i get the CE benefit in hi AoO against me?

If an enemy readies an attack against me and the trigger is my attack. Then I'm going to attack using CE, it triggers his ready action, he attacks me, do I get de CE benefit in this attack?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

And what if I'm unarmed and I don't have the Improved unarmed attack. I attack someone using CE, do i get the CE benefit in hi AoO against me?

Does your opponent threaten you?

If yes, then yes, you do benefit from the CE effect on his AoO (which, I suppose, he couldn't take if he didn't threaten you!).

If an enemy readies an attack against me and the trigger is my attack. Then I'm going to attack using CE, it triggers his ready action, he attacks me, do I get de CE benefit in this attack?

Yep.

 

[HeinorNY]

Does your opponent threaten you?

If yes, then yes, you do benefit from the CE effect on his AoO (which, I suppose, he couldn't take if he didn't threaten you!).



Yep.

Regarding my second example, what if:
- after his attack, I just give up attacking and do something else?
- his weapon is poisoned and he paralyzes me?
- what if he disarms me, I just can't attack him anymore (I get the penalty in the opposed disarm roll, but it isn't an attack action)
- what if two opponents ready an action against my attack, the first makes a melee attack against me, I get the CE benefit, then the other desintegrates my weapon, and I can't attack anymore?

My point is: what happens if I choose to make an attack action with CE, get te benefit before making the attack itself, and then somehow I can't really make the attack action I announced, what happens?

 

[Abraxas]

Regarding my second example, what if:
- after his attack, I just give up attacking and do something else?
- his weapon is poisoned and he paralyzes me?
- what if he disarms me, I just can't attack him anymore (I get the penalty in the opposed disarm roll, but it isn't an attack action)
- what if two opponents ready an action against my attack, the first makes a melee attack against me, I get the CE benefit, then the other desintegrates my weapon, and I can't attack anymore?

In all these cases, you've started your readied action to attack which triggers your opponents readied action - otherwise his readied action wouldn't occurr. IDHMBIFOM but I don't think you can change your action because of your opponents readied action - I think you just lose it if you can't complete it.