Easy question, Coup de Grace & PA ??

[Camarath]

you are talking in circles. if it hits automaticly, there is no roll.

I disagree with that assertion and would ask you to prove it before you claim I am talking in circles.

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.

I believe you are claiming that no roll is required because making the roll has no in game effect. I am claim it is required even thought it has no in game effect. I have tried to substantiate my claim (Coup de Grace is an attack, attack includes an attack roll, and the definition of Automatic Hit does not remove the roll). I would appreciate it if you tried to dismiss my argument by supporting own argument rather than calling mine "silly".

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.

What optional rule are you talkig about and why should it be considered a general principle? I am saying as I believe that the book says that not requiring a check and automatically succeeding are not the same thing. Is there any rules that states that they are?

Also one does not resist or save against spells that require a willing target since such a spell can not target you if you are unwilling.

As for you other example the rules state "Typical riding actions don’t require checks. You can saddle, mount, ride, and dismount from a mount without a problem.". Note that you do not automatically succeed at such actions but rather no checks is required. Thus it is not a good example of automatically success meaning that no roll needs to be made.

 

[axehand]

An elf mage with a 1 str. could pick up a dwarven Urgrosh that he doesn’t know how to use and automatically score a critical hit with a cdg if I’m not mistaken. He may not be able to lift the urgrosh because of str but that is irrelevant. If that’s the case I don’t see why you couldn’t use power attack with a cdg. Theoretically the mage should be subtracting a number from his attack roll for not being proficient and because of his str but he doesn’t have to because it is an automatic hit and crit. I am a relative nubee so I guess I could be mistaken

 

[axehand]

sorry double posted

 

[AGGEMAM]

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.

No, it won't. Argueing a popular point does not make it right in any way, it actually just makes it even more wrong.


The fact still remains that you can use PA with CdG because it either feels right or the rules don't disallow it. Whatever is your fancy really.

In 3.5 anything that isn't disallowed by the rules is allowed, so

 

[Scion]

I dont understand, why is there even a debate?

The cdg is an attack that automatically hits and does a crit.

power attack says whenever you roll damage from a melee attack you add onto it.

It doesnt require an attack roll to work, it doesnt require doing damage to work either.

This is turning as silly as the travel domain thread

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I dont understand, why is there even a debate?

The cdg is an attack that automatically hits and does a crit.

power attack says whenever you roll damage from a melee attack you add onto it.

It doesnt require an attack roll to work, it doesnt require doing damage to work either.

This is turning as silly as the travel domain thread

*shrug* obviously you have one very clear opinion. Doesn't make it the truth.

consider the following description : "Coup de Grace: As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless opponent. You can also use a bow or crossbow, provided you are adjacent to the target.
You automatically hit and score a critical hit. If the defender survives the damage, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die. A rogue also gets her extra sneak attack damage against a helpless opponent when delivering a coup de grace.
Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents.
You can’t deliver a coup de grace against a creature that is immune to critical hits. You can deliver a coup de grace against a creature with total concealment, but doing this requires two consecutive full-round actions (one to “find” the creature once you’ve determined what square it’s in, and one to deliver the coup de grace)."

cgd does not require an attack action, or even a full attack action it requires a full round action. It requires no attack roll (I've said everything I can on that point and won't be repeating myself). It is never even officially refered to as an attack in the SRD, much less a melee attack, since you can use a crossbow. It is listed as a special action against helpless defenders and is not on the speical attack action chart. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to say that it does not qualify as a melee attack, and thus power attack does not apply. Since they explicitly add that rogue sneak attack damage can be added (which it automaticly would if it was a melee attack againt a helpless opponent) this is an additional indicator to me that other special attack actions would not apply.

Now disagree if you like, argue, use it different, whatever, but please not the lame "my rightness is so obvious why are you even having the conversation" bit...

kahuna burger

 

[Scion]

...You automatically hit and score a critical hit.

POWER ATTACK [GENERAL]
.. add the same number to all melee damage rolls.

Did you hit with a melee weapon? yes. Does that allow a melee damage roll? yes.

Now disagree if you like, argue, use it different, whatever, but please not the lame "my rightness is so obvious why are you even having the conversation" bit...

My comment before said that I dont understand why there is a debate, I still dont. Nothing said in this thread casts any doubts on the two questions and answers above.

 

[BSF]

Personally, I see no reason why PA shouldn't apply to a CDG. A Sneak Attack is allowed isn't it? Would you allow a Blackguard to Smite Good on a CDG? If you have an opponent helpless at your feet, why not have the Barbarian go executioner style with his great axe? Is it too much that the barbarian also gets PA damage?

Bob the Barbarian: "Me gonna take his head off with big axe!"
Randy the Rogue: "I'm not so sure about that Bob. You might not be able to do it and kill him right away. Here, let me use my dagger and my +5d6 sneak attack..."

So, if PA can't be used without a to-hit roll, do you allow your PC's to use PA against a wooden door in the BBEG's lair? The door isn't fighting back and you don't need a to-hit roll on it, so it is impossible to make a PA?

What if the feat had been named "Weapon Expertise" and the text explicitly stated that you could make up your own justification on why your PC can strike for more damage. Such as being more precise about where you are hitting (Crease in the full plate with your maul, or under the arm with your rapier, or between the iron bands reinforcing the wooden door), or that you are just throwing all your strength into it and maybe you are a little less accurate with the strike, or because your lining up the attack is telegraphing to your opponent who is able to defend against it better. Would you be OK with allowing PA to work in more situations if that were the case?

CDG is brutal. CDG with a Sneak Attack is really brutal. CDG with PA is really brutal. The high level blackguard/ftr/rogue doing a CDG with PA, Sneak Attack and Smite Good for overkill is ludicrous. But, why not allow it? The attack is meant to kill the opponent. Why not let the character use all the tools they can to reach that goal?

 

[Terath Ninir]

Y'all seem remarkably impervious to the voice of reason.

Let me repeat: y'all are all under the mistaken impression that the designers thought about the interaction of Power Attack and coup de grace. I'd be a hamburger and one of my PHB's that they did *not* put one second of thought into it. It is physically impossible for the writers of the game to have thought about the interaction of every element with every other element. They are human beings.

As for all the logical arguments: it does not matter how rock-solid your arguments are. When you opperate from a faulty premise, your chain of logic is irrelevent. In this case, your faulty premise is that there is a right answer here. You are assuming that there is a correct answer on how PA and CdG should interact and I am seeing no evidence that that is the case. The arguments are equal on each side. No one is convincing anyone else of their position because the evidence isn't there to support either side.

Use what works for you. You're not going to convince anyone else that you're right, because you aren't right. But you aren't wrong, either. There may be absolutes in D&D, but there sure aren't any here.

 

[Camarath]

cgd does not require an attack action, or even a full attack action it requires a full round action. It requires no attack roll (I've said everything I can on that point and won't be repeating myself). It is never even officially refered to as an attack in the SRD, much less a melee attack, since you can use a crossbow. It is listed as a special action against helpless defenders and is not on the speical attack action chart.

The SRD may not use the word "attack" (though in a Coup de Grace action you "hit" which means as per the Glossery "Make a successful attack roll") but the FAQ does.

I understand that if an opponent is grappled and pinned
that opponent is not helpless and therefore not subject to a
coup de grace. But if that same opponent was rendered
unconscious, could you perform a coup de grace as an
unarmed attack? If so, what would the damage be?
You are correct, pinned characters are not helpless and are
not subject to coup de grace. You can use an unarmed attack
for a coup de grace. The target has to save as noted on page 133
of the Player’s Handbook. Note that you can deal normal
damage with an unarmed attack by taking a –4 penalty on the
attack. (You automatically hit when you deal the coup de grace,
so the penalty isn’t relevant.) If you choose to deal real
damage, you’ll eventually kill a helpless foe even if the foe
keeps making successful saving throws.

Is a natural “20” always a hit and natural “1” always a
miss when using weapons? Is a natural “20” always a
success and natural “1” always a failure when rolling a
saving throw? Is a natural “20” always a success and
natural “1” always a failure when rolling an ability check
or a skill check?
On an attack roll or a saving throw, a roll of “20” on the die
is always a success and a roll of “1” is always a failure. This
represents the inherently chancy nature of combat; it has
innumerable variables that are completely beyond the acting
character’s control. In the case of attack rolls, common sense
must prevail. A roll of “20” cannot produce a hit when a hit is
not possible. (For example: It won’t hit when a target is beyond
the attacker’s melee reach or beyond a ranged attack’s
maximum range.) Some circumstances always produce a hit or
a miss no matter what the attack roll is. For example, an attack
against a concealed target has a flat chance to produce an
automatic miss (see Table 8–10 in the Player’s Handbook), no
matter what the attack roll is. Likewise if you’re using the coup
de grace rule or take a full round to line up a melee attack on an
unattended object, you always hit.
Saving throws are similar to attack rolls in that there’s
always a little something beyond the character’s control. Like
combat, there are cases where the roll is irrelevant, even if it’s a
“1” or “20.” Creatures that are immune to an attack never have
to roll saving throws against that attack. Likewise, if a spell or
attack form doesn’t allow a saving throw in the first place, you
can’t roll a saving throw and hope to get a “20.”
Skill checks are not subject to automatic success or failure.
Some tasks are just too easy for failure or too hard for success.
(Most people don’t fail once on every 20 attempts to tie their
shoes.) Ability checks are likewise not subject to automatic
failure or success. (No matter how lucky you are, you’re just
not going to kick down a castle wall.) If the DM feels that
chance might affect the outcome, a saving throw or attack roll
is probably more appropriate."

Now disagree if you like, argue, use it different, whatever, but please not the lame "my rightness is so obvious why are you even having the conversation" bit...

IMO you are the only one using that tactic here.