Easy question, Coup de Grace & PA ??

[DiFier]

Ah then we'll agree to disagree. While your logic make sence and I totally see where your argument is coming from in the wording of the power attack feat I'm not shure that that is what WOTC meant. But I have to defer to my DM's ruling, which I'll find out tommorow.

If you say that the feat works regardless of the number of attacks made in the round, then it also works regardless of the number of damage rolls made in a round, a situation which makes sense.

Well if you insert the words mele in front of the words attack and damage. then I agree that you could come up with this argument from a strict reading of the feat. The thing is that mele damage rolls follow sussecful mele attack rolls except in the case of a CDG which is a special case. and I'd like to hear how that special case is applied to powerattack from the sage. even so what ever my dm says is right.

 

[Camarath]

If you say that the feat works regardless of the number of attacks made in the round, then it also works regardless of the number of damage rolls made in a round, a situation which makes sense.

I agree, as written use of the feat does not require one to actually make an attack or a damage roll, of course if neither is made use of the feat provides no actual in game effect but it does provide the potential for an effect if either of the events it affects occurs.

I believe that Dimwhit is suggesting that the attack and damage modifers are linked on a per occurrence basis (but set before any attack occurs), rather than on a per round basis, such that if no number is subtracted from a melee attack roll due to there being no melee attack roll for a specific melee damage roll then "the same number" which is added to that melee damage roll equals 0 since nothing was subtracted from the melee attack roll assocated with that melee damage roll because there was no melee attack roll and one can not apply a penalty or a bonus to a non-occurrence. I do not believe that this assertion can be substantiated by the text because the text does not provide a per case connection between the application of a penalty to a specific attack roll and a bouns to a resulting damage roll. There is the general connection of the bonus to all melee damage rolls being equal to the penalty to all melee attack rolls but that connection is per use of the Power Attack feat (which remains in effect until its user's next turn) not per attack roll/damage roll coupling. Since I do not believe that a specific application of the bouns is dependant upon a specific application of the penalty it seems logical that the bonus should apply to all melee damage rolls even if there is no accompanying melee attack roll to apply the penalty to.

Also I would like to assert that a Coup de Grace does not necessarily eliminate the attack roll even thought it may eliminate the need for the attack roll. IMO since you "hit" with a Coup de Grace action you are making an attack. Nothing in the Coup de Grace entry say that there is no attack roll associated with your attack only that you automatically hit. The Glossary defines an Automatic Hit as "An attack that hits regardless of target AC.". Thus it would seem to me that when preforming a Coup de Grace action one would (or could) still roll an attack that would hit on anything (except perhaps a natural one in which case I am not sure what the correct outcome should be since that would be both an Automatic Miss and an Automatic Hit).

 

[Li Shenron]

I would be interested to know how many of the enworlders who have been woodchopping all their life with power attack have ALWAYS hit the wood chunk automatically.

But, as I was a young teen boy, I liked the idea of splitting with one hit. So, I would take a bit of time, set the log just right, spend some time lining up, and take one really hard swing and try to split it with one hit. Sometimes it worked.

Aha!!!

 

[Li Shenron]

The idea to disallow the benefit of Power Attack when you are not taking the penalties is not to be scorned at. It may not be fully realistic, but gamewise it makes perfect sense.

Would you allow a feat to let you increase your spells DC (or anything else) in exhange for a penalty in Concentration to work even when you don't need to roll a concentration check at all?

 

[Camarath]

Would you allow a feat to let you increase your spells DC (or anything else) in exhange for a penalty in Concentration to work even when you don't need to roll a concentration check at all?

If it was worded in such way that that was an option and it was a part of the core rule then yes I would more than likely allow such a feat.

The idea to disallow the benefit of Power Attack when you are not taking the penalties is not to be scorned at. It may not be fully realistic, but gamewise it makes perfect sense.

I see nothing wrong with disallowing Power Attack in any situation the DM feels that that is appropriate. I may argue that is not what the rules call for but I am not scorning the idea by disagreeing with it.

 

[Li Shenron]

If it was worded in such way that that was an option and it was a part of the core rule then yes I would more than likely allow such a feat.

Except one of the points of the discussion is a lack of proper wording.

 

[Tatsukun]

Aha!!!

Got me, let me clarify that I meant; it sometimes split the wood with one hit. But, I did nearly miss (the axe deflected off a weak corner of the log or some such thing) a few times. That, in D20 terms, I would call rolling minimum damage on the crit.

I cannot recall any time I lined up an axe shot that well, set everything up perfectly, and missed the log completely.

On the other hand, I have missed golf balls by what seems like several feet.

Maybe I just have a low Bab, or not enough ranks in the “golf” skill. But it should be noted that my playing golf has improved my “perform (swear like a sailor)” a lot. ;-)

-Tatsu

 

[Kahuna Burger]

But, as I was a young teen boy, I liked the idea of splitting with one hit. So, I would take a bit of time, set the log just right, spend some time lining up, and take one really hard swing and try to split it with one hit. Sometimes it worked.

If we were to port this real life action into D20, it sounds a lot like PA and CdG to me.

but to me it doesn't. See thats the problem, even a real life example isn't so clearcut. Concentration and lining up a shot are, to me, the opposite of power attack, which is all about sacrificing that concentration. I would call what you are decribing a coup de grace, pure and simple. Rather than taking several hits and counting on the cumulative damage to do the job, you are taking a helpless target (poor little wood chunk ) and lining up a single smiting blow. If you wanted to split it in one blow but not bother aiming and just kept taking mighty swings and missing half the time and doing major damage the others, that would be power attack to me...

On a rules basis, I would definitly side against power attack and coup de grace working together. Partly thematic (wild swings vs a single thoughtful action) and partly rules based (no attack roll* = no penalty from attack roll = no bonus to damage roll.) But really, why worry? If you are using a big enough weapon to power attack with and have the strength bonus for power attack, are you really that worried the target will make the fort save? (I've had a failed coup de grace once and that was a low str character using a dagger. The group treated it as a big joke that my weapon had somehow bounced off the guy's jugular...)

*and I take it as a given that there's no attack roll, Camarath... The idea that someone could roll a die with no impact on the outcome and call it an attack roll with a penalty to it would get a good hard roll of the eyes from me as a DM and the same ruling. A roll with no impact on the outcome of an action is a nervous gesture; the action has no associated roll.

kahuna Burger

 

[Particle_Man]

If Power Attack stacks with Sneak Attack damage, then I don't see why it should not stack with CdG.

 

[Camarath]

*and I take it as a given that there's no attack roll, Camarath... The idea that someone could roll a die with no impact on the outcome and call it an attack roll with a penalty to it would get a good hard roll of the eyes from me as a DM and the same ruling. A roll with no impact on the outcome of an action is a nervous gesture; the action has no associated roll.

Well you can take it however you like but I do not believe that rules actually say that there is no attack roll just that it is automatically a hit. If you choose to forgo the attack roll for your own convence that does not mean that there was never an attack roll to begin with. Also if one misses on a natural 1 then the roll would have an in game effect.

Let me try a related example. Do you apply bonuses to skill checks when a character has more ranks than the target skill check DC or is that not possible because the skill check is eliminated due to the lack of posssiblity for failure? How about if the character's bounses to skill checks make the difference between automatic success and the need to make a check? How do you reslove such a situation since with the bonuses the check is a "nervous gesture" but if you assume that there is no skill check when there is no in game effect to actually rolling it then there would be no skill check to apply the bounses to so that "nervous gesture" becomes necessary again due to one's inability to apply bounses to something that does not exist?

IMO in both cases the roll still exists vestigially but can be forgone because the number rolled has no effect on the outcome.