Death Blow questions

[IceBear]

Ice Bear, COup de Grace is not classed as an attack action, it is a miscellaneous action.

There's a difference between an attack and an attack action. An attack is anything ruins an invisibility spell. There are lots of examples.

Thanks. That's what I thought, I just needed someone to confirm it.

So getting back to Caliban's and Magus' disagreement, since a CdG isn't an attack action, then Death Blow can't be used in conjuction with Expert Tactician (which I believe is what Caliban and Artoomis were saying).

IceBear

 

[IceBear]

Duplicate post

 

[AGGEMAM]

LOL I don't think you meant that to be a joke, but it sure was damn funny!

I'm glad you're amused. Care to explain why?

 

[Magus_Jerel]

PHB Glossary
Attack: ... "The result of an attack is determined by an attack roll".

and you have stated:

Since there is no attack roll involved with a CDG, it's not an "attack action."

looking under "action"

... actions are subdivided into categories based upon the time required to perform them (from the most time required to the least): full-round actions, standard actions,, partial actions, move-equivalent actions, and free actions.**

... in the PHB is the term "attack action" is defined as any action in one of five other categories. It does not exist as a game term independent of these five categories. (unless you have something in the extended glossary that I am missing here - it doesn't exist independently in D&D either)

the term "attack" is defined - and does exist as a game term.

thus - the phrasing you are looking for is "an action of the category attack" - not "attack action".

- This is an example of the typical Accident Dicto Simpler; or accident of simpler words.

now

- you can try CDG is "not an action of the category attack" because while it fits the first part of the definition, but fails the second part - namely that it does NOT require an attack roll, however, you are caught in a paradox trying to describe how "fireball et al" ARE attacks, whereas CDG's aren`t attacks.

- If you try to explain CDG and "fireballs et al" as "attacks which automatically hit" (ie an attack without a roll) then they DO fall into this category. The CDG happens to be an automatic critical hit as well. This interpretation explodes the paradox presented by attempting to take the first.

I think the PHB has a chart with a listing of attack actions. Is CdG listed as one? (I don't have my PHB handy so I can't check).

Table 8-1 fundamental actions in combat, yields five "categories" - attack(melee), attack(ranged), attack (unarmed), charge, and full attack.

Using our glossary we find that

melee attack: A physical attack suitable for close combat.

CDG is definitely a "physical attack" - and it would seem suitable for close combat under the right condition (namely that your opponent is helpless). Therefore it would be logical to place this as an attack action, and therefore executable with the feat as errated.


It is also (by default) defined as a "full round" action - but the death blow feat changes this definition*** for the character.

** I have gone after this definition as inconsistent with itself with respect to the "time required to perform them" portion; but in order to "debate" a point about initiative with Caliban et al, you must assume this inconsistency to be gospel truth. It is the fact that this categorization IS inconsistent that generates the problem I am presenting here.

***This feat was explicitly errataed from awarding a "partial action" to "attack action" as well, leaving exactly what "category" of action you have even more ambiguous than the origonal wording. Your "best" phrasing would be that this feat awards a "partial action of the category (melee) attack" as a true rules lawyering SOB could try to get this now erattaed feat to award an extra "full attack action" or a CDG outright; as the "full attack action" is an "attack action" - just a full round one instead of a partial one.

Post Script -
My two bones to pick with the PHB are the combat action system and that a few of the spell descriptions need some tweaking to truly balance them. While it can be argued that the latter is a matter of taste; that argument is not so with the former. On these two points - I "deviate" from the "norm".

The bulk of the errata focus on "typographical" errors - which happen when working on a book such as this right up until publication.

 

[IceBear]

I would agree with you that CdG is an "attack action" except for the fact that the PHB lists it as a Miscellaneous action. Yes, it's an attack, but it's not an attack action.

Also, don't feel that you are "deviating" from the "norm". Everyone has read the rules and found pieces they don't like and then house rule them, so don't pretend that we're all attacking you because we don't think you MUST like the rules.

The main thing with the rules is not so much to decide if your interpretation is feasible by the rules as written, but feasible by the rules as intended. To allow someone to CHOOSE to take two partial actions in a round (when it is clearly spelled out that you can't choose to take a partial action (other than with a readied action I suppose) which would allow someone to attack twice (without a high BAB) or cast two spells in one round is clearly against the intent of the rules.

IceBear

 

[Artoomis]

Magus:

AGGEMAM is correct: "Futhermore there is a difference between an attack, an attack action, and the attack action."

While it IS funny that this statement can be true, it IS true because of the poor use of terminology in the PHB.

There can be little doubt that a CdG is NOT a melee attack - it is a misc. action.

However, it is still true that a CdG is an attack in the sense of losing invisibility or the Sanctuary spell.

You have to take a step away from the actual strict language in the PHB if you REALLY want to understand this and not just argue about it.

Which is it for you, Magus? Do you REALLY want to know how this works in the D&D rules or do you just want to argue with Caliban?

That's a serious question.

 

[Caliban]

*bunch of nonsense snipped*

You really don't understand what we are talking about, do you?

You are the one trying to reduce everything down to "Attack or not attack", when the rules are not that simple. You are the one who is falling prey to "Accident Dicto Simpler" (which seems to be a common failing of yours).

By the rules, a CDG is not a melee attack. It is a hostile act, but it is not a melee attack as defined by the rules, it is a Miscallaneous Action. Period.

Therefore it cannot be substituted for the extra melee attack you gain from Expert Tactician.

A fireball is an attack spell, but it is not a melee or ranged attack as defined by the rules. It's not an attack action, it's a magic action.

Some spells use a different definition of attack (primarily invisibility and sanctuary), but those spells have their definition of "attack" listed in the spell description (and fireball would be an attack as far as invisibility is concerned, but not as far as sanctuary is concerned). What constitutes an attack for those spells is irrelevant for anything other than those spells, and thus is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[Magus_Jerel]

Futhermore there is a difference between an attack, an attack action, and the attack action.

While it IS funny that this statement can be true, it IS true because of the poor use of terminology in the PHB.

Do you realize just HOW ludicrous this sounds? You start having serious issues.

Some spells use a different definition of attack

What winds up happening is not a cohesive combat system at ALL.

You have to take a step away from the actual strict language in the PHB if you REALLY want to understand this and not just argue about it.

Which is it for you, Magus? Do you REALLY want to know how this works in the D&D rules or do you just want to argue with Caliban?

Artoomis - you are QUITE correct - and that is because the strict language of the PHB when it comes to the combat system is about as inconsistent as it gets. I know what you are saying about how it is SUPPOSED to work - but I can't "force" that into the text. If I try - something - somewhere - breaks down; without fail. I want one precice set of definitions. None of this "some spells use this definition" while "the combat system uses this one".

I have enough trouble when it comes to spells based solely on "precedent" - and keeping the lawyering tendencies out of the game. A couple of My players are a wee bit better than I am about words and their meaning - they are lawyers who write contracts for a living. Do you want to see what happens when two lawyers get into "rules-lawyering"? It isn't preety. That is why I get to DM - they find the philosophy student can handle the conflict of debate a whole lot more "impersonally" than a lawyer.

Also, don't feel that you are "deviating" from the "norm". Everyone has read the rules and found pieces they don't like and then house rule them, so don't pretend that we're all attacking you because we don't think you MUST like the rules.

The main thing with the rules is not so much to decide if your interpretation is feasible by the rules as written, but feasible by the rules as intended. To allow someone to CHOOSE to take two partial actions in a round (when it is clearly spelled out that you can't choose to take a partial action (other than with a readied action I suppose) which would allow someone to attack twice (without a high BAB) or cast two spells in one round is clearly against the intent of the rules.

First off, I AM being treated that way when it comes to certain persons who shall go unnamed - THAT has been made manifest. I wish it would stop - but it won't.

My players and I have a MAJOR issue with the bold statement. Characters don't think in terms of "actions" or "rounds" or "hit points" or "saving throws" or for that matter - most game terms. Players think in these terms. Please - PLEASE - tell me where it says that PLAYERS cannot choose to take partial actions; I have been looking for it. I have found text that indicates that CHARACTERS don't - but there is a difference between the two that my players would SHRED me over if I tried to flip those words around. Unless some official errata comes out changing that - I do NOT have a chance in getting them to swallow the bit in the definition of partial action as applying to players - believe me, I tried for two hours straight.

I would agree with you that CdG is an "attack action" except for the fact that the PHB lists it as a Miscellaneous action. Yes, it's an attack, but it's not an attack action.

My players are just as quickly going to tell you that the chart in question (8-4 Misc actions) is what is in error - and NOT the definition of "attack". The definition takes precedence over the chart. From their mindset - the definition is absolute - and you can't flip them just because you want to.

For them - "an attack, an attack action, and the attack action" go as follows

an attack = an action of the category attack (uses definition attack)

an attack action = an is used in the singular sense - meaning "partial attack action" as you translate it here.

the attack action = full attack, by elimination

They deal with that "problem" quite nicely when it IS applied.

The biggest thing I wanted to absolutely SHOOT the game designers over was the following statement from pg 121 of the PHB:

Anything a person could reasonably do in six seconds, your character can do in one round.

The undeniable fact that a character can "reasonably" accomplish two partial actions in one round is why I get compelled to rule as I do.

Now - the consequences of all this is nice when it comes to balance.

Free actions can be taken "in conjunction with" other actions - and "not an action" is... in the category of "actions" (yes - they will concede that the PHB does NOT do well when it comes to definitions). As "observing" a spellcaster is "not an action" a quickened spell "a free action" can be taken in conjunction with the observation - meaning we can and do get a WHOLE lot of interrupted castings.

Because of some tricky "enforcing simultanaeity" - you can't "cast a quickened spell to stop a quickened spell" coming at you if you ARE actually casting something. (I got my players to concede that you cannot be casting two spells at the same time to support it)

The "5ft step away and cast" trick doesn't work either - as the figher can take his step just as easily as the spellcaster - making it easier on the fighter vs spellcaster problem.

charges - are just "you run towards your opponent in a straight line - and therefore get a bonus attack action because you are running in this fashion".

It works out - and it is far "cleaner" and "consistent" than the "core" provides. Granted - other people may be able to swallow the inconsistencies and the arguments that come from them. I can't - and I won't.

 

[Caliban]

It works out - and it is far "cleaner" and "consistent" than the "core" provides. Granted - other people may be able to swallow the inconsistencies and the arguments that come from them. I can't - and I won't.

*shrug* Then don't post here.

You admit that you and your players don't follow the core rules. Thank you for finally being honest with us.

However, this Rules forum is dedicated to discussing the actual Core Rules, not whatever homebrew system you think makes more sense. (Your system may or may not be more internally consistent, but that is irrelevent. This forum isn't dedicated to your homebrew system.)

Now go play in the House Rules section and stop trying to convince us that your homebrew system is actually the core rules(because that is exactly what you have been doing).

 

[IceBear]

My God...you and your players are too wrapped up in a literal reading of the rules (Character vs Player) coupled with the fact that you believe that certain charts are wrong (though they weren't errata'ed).

Yes, it is confusing that an attack isn't necessarily an attack action but that's the way it is. One is an English definition while the other is a rule definition.

Also, page 121 of the PHB pretty much says it in black and white:

"Usually, you don't elect to take a partial action; the condition you are in or a decision you have made (usually the ready action)mandates its use"....

No where does it distinguish between the player and character there, and yes, the character is surprised (not the player) but the character is not deciding to take a ready action, the player is. I also notice that they use the pronoun "you" as in "you the reader, who is a player" and not the term "your character" in this passage.

So, I don't understand why you have doubt as to the fact that you can't choose to take a partial action.

If you are happy with the house rules you are using that's fine, but if it were me, I'd get some more reasonable players. It's a freaking set of game rules not a legal contract to wrangle for hours over a word.

Also, as for the definition of attack, according to my glossary, an attack causes harm, but it also requires an attack roll. A CdG does cause harm but it doesn't require an attack roll, thus it's not an attack but something else (another point that agrees with that chart that your players believe is in error).

And, no, a fireball is not an attack action either because it also doesn't require an attack roll. The invisiblity spell goes through the trouble of defining an "attack" in the context of that spell in the spell description, so it's an exception to the general rule of what an attack is. I do agree that the Santurary spell should have defined what an attack spell is, but I've always played it as any spell that caused damage (I'll give you that you could say that it must cause damage and make an attack roll, but that's strictly a ruleslawyer definition that I'd not allow. The intent is a spell that is used in an offensive manner).

Anyway, if you have to go through all these mental hoops just to prove to your players that you're DMing within the rules I'd just remind them that the DM is the judge and as long as you are fair and consistent that's all that matters. If they want to continue arguing with you over the rules I'd get new players.

IceBear