Easy question, Coup de Grace & PA ??

[Grayhawk]

Some time ago I put in my house rules that you can't use Power Attack on a CdG.

Obviously, I thought that it was allowed by the rules, but it just doesn't match my view of a Power Attack as being a wild swing for more damage, compared with my view of CdG as a precise strike.

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

Tatsukun, I'm not really sure I believe that you have the Power Attack feat

 

[AGGEMAM]

Tatsukun, I'm not really sure I believe that you have the Power Attack feat

Wow, a personal insult. Interesting.

Well, I for don't even play the game at the moment and anyway I'm always the DM so I don't have an alterior motive as you imply Tatsukun has. And I wholeheartedly think that PA works with CdG.

 

[DiFier]

can you use combat expertise with a CDG? It is a similar rule. you subtract up to 5 from your attack roll except you add it to your AC.

If you are garenteed to hit why not use both, you can use power attack and combat expertise at the same time to your CDG sure it's a -10 to hit but you are guanteed to hit. And the benifits you will do at least 10 extra points of damage (or more likely 20 with your sythe) and your will have 5 extra HP. It's a win win situation. Now is there anything else that you can do to help buff yourself while you are guanteed to hit? hmmm well no. not in the PHB anyway.

 

[AGGEMAM]

can you use combat expertise with a CDG? It is a similar rule. you subtract up to 5 from your attack roll except you add it to your AC.

Won't work since that requires you to take the attack action or the full attck action.

COMBAT EXPERTISE [GENERAL]

Benefit: When you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee, you can take a penalty of as much as –5 on your attack roll and add the same number (+5 or less) as a dodge bonus to your Armor Class.

 

[Dimwhit]

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.

Yeah, that's basically it.

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).

Now you do have an interesting point here, I admit. And I'm not saying I think you're wrong. But not only is the CDG an automatic hit, it's an automatic crit. So you really couldn't still make the roll for a CDG without likely forfeiture of the crit, which fundamentally changes a CDG.

I think that to allow PA for a CDG, you would have to forfeit your automatic crit and actually roll to hit, with all appropriate modifiers. Then you could add the PA damage. If you happen to roll a crit, great. But, of course, that would be a house rule.

I think at this point we're all talking in circles. If Wizards didn't have such a significant track record of botching descriptions for rules, I might concede that PA could be used with a CDG. Maybe. I just think the intended logic behind the CDG would forbid it. But that's just me. Maybe I'll ask my DM tonight and see what he (well, they) thinks.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'm surprised Hyp or Hong didn't show their faces yet. This is a hot topic of theirs.[/i]

I haven't seen a need - Saeviomagy's basically saying everything I'd be saying if I were posting.

When you use Power Attack, you choose a number. This number is applied in two different ways.

1. It is subtracted from all melee attack rolls you make in a round.
2. It is applied to all melee damage rolls you make in a round.

When you make a CDG in a round in which you are using Power Attack, you subtract your PA number from all melee attack rolls (none, save AoOs), and add it to all melee damage rolls (the CDG damage, multiplied for the automatic crit).

In replying to the "You only get to add to damage rolls for which you subtracted from a related attack roll", I've even made the same point he did - this would, surely, mean that you only subtract from attack rolls for which you add to a related damage roll, and thus in the event of an attack roll that misses solely due to the PA subtraction (resulting in no related damage roll), Power Attack cannot apply.

Which strikes me as nonsensical, and since the theory of related rolls is not supported by the text of the feat anyway, I'm happy to ignore that particular interpretation.

-Hyp.

 

[Eye Tyrant]

I'm of the mind that the CdG cant be used, but that's just me. I feel that if a PA requires an attack roll (which it does) to incur the damage bonus, and a CdG (being a full round action) does not require an attack roll, then you can't use both in conjunction... Seems pretty clear to me....

However, and not to hijack the thread, but I have a situation in an upcoming game where the following is going to take place:

PCs enter an area where BBEG and cohorts are prepared for a confrontation. There are 2 innocent NPC prisoners that are bound with hands behind their backs and being held by 2 badguys with weapons at their throats (when the PCs enter)...

Now I know that CdG is a full round action and that you can't ready a FRA... so these baddies are basically less then a short and curly away from slicing the farmers daughters throat... why do the baddies still have to wait for init? I mean other then because that's what the rules say?

Doesn't it seem logical (in this particular situation, where the baddies know the PCs are coming) that they could effect the CdG anyway?

 

[Korak]

...but it just doesn't match my view of a Power Attack as being a wild swing for more damage

People keep saying this, but it doesn't make it part of the rules...

POWER ATTACK [GENERAL]
Prerequisite: Str 13.
Benefit: On your action, 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. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The penalty on attacks and bonus on damage apply until your next turn.
Special: If you attack with a two-handed weapon, or with a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands, instead add twice the number subtracted from your attack rolls. You can’t add the bonus from Power Attack to the damage dealt with a light weapon (except with unarmed strikes or natural weapon attacks), even though the penalty on attack rolls still applies. (Normally, you treat a double weapon as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. If you choose to use a double weapon like a two-handed weapon, attacking with only one end of it in a round, you treat it as a two-handed weapon.)
A fighter may select Power Attack as one of his fighter bonus feats.

There is nothing in there about wildness, inaccuracy, or similar concepts. The bonus damage could be equally well be rationalized as aiming a heavier weapon for a crease in the armor (natural or manufactured) or other weak spot, which is naturally a smaller subset of your target and harder to hit (represented by a penalty to the attack roll) to increase your damage on a successful hit (represented by the bonus to damage). The explanation, or rationalization you use is immaterial because the rule text doesn't specify it, or care.

Power attack involves a declaration at the beginning of a creatures initiative count. That declaration has two effects: 1. all melee attack rolls made from then until the beginning of the creatures next round will be made with a penalty equal to the number declared. 2. until the creatures next initiative count, all melee damage rolls made by the creature with one handed weapons (or natural weapons or unarmed strikes) will have the number declared added as bonus damage and all melee damage rolls with two handed weapons will have twice the number declared added as bonus damage.

Nothing in the text requires that any particular attack must have both an attack and a damage roll. For instance, if the character had a charged touch spell (that doesn't cause damage) and wished to make a touch attack deliver the spell during a round that he declared a power attack number (to deal extra damage on potential AoOs with his longsword perhaps), he must take a penalty in the amount declared for power attack on his touch attack to deliver the spell.... even though he will get no additional damage, no damage roll at all, in fact.

If a creatures declares the use of the power attack feat and then makes melee attack(s) in the ensuing round, then the creature adds the bonus to melee damage roll(s) for that round. Whether the attack requires an attack roll or not is immaterial by the RAW.

Getting CDG'd is bad. Getting CDG'd by someone with sneak attack or the power attack feat is worse. Is there really something wrong with that?

 

[Kahuna Burger]

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.

you are talking in circles. if it hits automaticly, there is no roll. To say that I am forgoing a roll for convience is just, well, silly. Theres no "forgoing" to be gone, a roll is not required therefore one isn't made. You can argue (as others have) that the bonus to damage can apply even if there are no rolls to hit made, and I'd still disagree, but at least the argument would make sense.

the last part is a proposed houserule. A cgd hits automaticly, not "on anything but a natural one". There is not even that chance of failure. rolls are made to adjucate random chance. If thereis no random chance involved (such as a cdg) there is no need to roll. Your argument about the skill checks doesn't apply since optional rules on rolling a one make them inaplicable. On the other hand, when I am doing something that the rules say does not require a check or automaticly succeeds (such as staying on a sedate horse or resisting a spell which requires a willing target) there is no roll to make, just as in a cdg.

This is a sureal little tangent,so I'll just comment that unconditionally dismissing this subargument (as I do) should not be seen as a claim of absolute fact on the larger question - I'd acceed to another dm in her game on the PA+cdg question, and already stated my interpretation for the record.

Kahuna Burger

 

[Terath Ninir]

Okay, this is one of the major failings of 3e, which has only been made worse by the self-contradictory rulings of the so-called "Sage". The writers of this edition tried to clarify and codify things, and to make things balanced. Unfortunately, this has led to a dysfunctional culture where people believe that the rules are sacred. Worse, they start believing that the writers thought of everything, somehow, and that there must *be* a right answer in cases like this.

The writers are human. They clearly didn't think of this specific situation. THERE IS NO RIGHT ANSWER. THERE IS NO WRONG ANSWER.

I believe you can sneak attack with a coup de grace. If so, it would seem reasonable that you can power attack, too.

Power attack makes a coup de grace un-survivable, which could reduce the fun of the game. That alone is reason enough to veto it.

Or you might think it is more fun to allow it. Then allow it!

If the Sage ever rules on this, he will make a judgement -- his best guess -- based on the rules. Given his overall track record, his judgement will be no better than anyone else who is very familiar with the rules, and perhaps not as good.

Have some faith in yourselves, people! Go with whatever seems most logical and/or most fun to you. It's just a game. There is no absolute right or wrong. Just f'in' get on with it, 'cause the boss (and the cool treasure) is just on the next level and you could already *be* there if you weren't trying to decide how many angels can dance on the head of a pin!