Easy question, Coup de Grace & PA ??

[Saeviomagy]

Fundamentally this isn't a problem with how the game works - it's a problem with how people want it to work.

As it stands, power attack works in a CdG.

If you reckon this is too deadly, you can disallow it.

Just don't fall into the trap of thinking that the rules as written support you beyond advising that you should change rules you don't like.

 

[Parlan]

Here's how I reconciled the issue in my campaign:

1. Power Attack grants you a bonus (+damage) for in exchange for a commensurate risk (+miss chance).

2. CdG is an automatic hit.

3. If you were to use Power Attack in a CdG, you'd essentially be gaining the feat's benefit (+damage) without incurring any risk (+miss chance).

4. That's cheesy, so you can't do it.

5. Unless you give me a dollar.

Y'all run your game, I'll run mine.

Yup, that s where I stand on the issue. I just don t like the concept of something for nothing.

In addition, it defeats the whole purpose of the saving throw for a CDG. By the time you get to 10 th level, well look at the example:

10 th level fighter

Str 16, which is low, but we ll go with it
+2 Greatsword

The opponent will have to make a DC 36 Fort save to survive the check.

If he can apply PA, that would be a DC 76 Fort save.

It s even worse if he has a great axe:

DC 46.5 or DC 106.5

DC 106? C mon, why even bother rolling?

And it s not like PA is an under utilized feat that needs to be made more attractive.

PS Wormwood, players can influence your rulings for a measly buck? When are you playing next? ;-)

 

[Scion]

Yup, that s where I stand on the issue. I just don t like the concept of something for nothing.

Well they did have to buy the feat, and get into a position to use it, and use a cdg. The first isnt that hard, the other two are incredibly difficult anyway.

In addition, it defeats the whole purpose of the saving throw for a CDG. By the time you get to 10 th level, well look at the example:

10 th level fighter

Str 16, which is low, but we ll go with it
+2 Greatsword

The opponent will have to make a DC 36 Fort save to survive the check.

If he can apply PA, that would be a DC 76 Fort save.

It s even worse if he has a great axe:

DC 46.5 or DC 106.5

DC 106? C mon, why even bother rolling?

I could say the same thing bout dc 46 10th level character, good fort save, +5 cloak of protection, 20 con. +17. 20+17 = 37. So it doesnt really matter either way at that point.

Still, while it may seem like a problem, it does look like it is legal. melee damage roll and all. If you dont like it then change it slightly but dont kill it completely. Just make the power attack not multiply with the crit or something. That way there is some show for what people are getting. Not everyone weilds a two handed weapon and should be punished because they do a lot of damage.

 

[Trainz]

DC 106? C mon, why even bother rolling?

Because a roll of 20 is a success in any case ?

 

[CCamfield]

Something to think about here: I VERY MUCH doubt the designers of 3.5 considered how changing Power Attack for 3.5 would affect this situation. In 3.0, the problem would have been less severe since you couldn't get that doubled bonus.

I think that since Sneak Attack is allowed it's not unreasonable to say Power Attack would apply, and it seems odd to me that because someone is lying on the ground that, conceptually, you couldn't use Power Attack... but that damage bonus is incredibly high - unlike Sneak Attack or the damage from a burst weapon, it gets multiplied.

I think Scion's suggestion to give the bonus from CdG but don't allow it to be multiplied by the weapon crit might be appropriate. If you were trying to smash down a door, I think you could use power attack, but you wouldn't get a critical damage multiplier, would you?

 

[Trainz]

I think Scion's suggestion to give the bonus from CdG but don't allow it to be multiplied by the weapon crit might be appropriate. If you were trying to smash down a door, I think you could use power attack, but you wouldn't get a critical damage multiplier, would you?

In all cases, PA gets multiplied on a crit. In all cases, Sneak Attack damage DOESN'T get multiplied on a crit.

I agree that it makes CdG more in the "reasonable" zone, but making an exception on PA for this one particular situation feels clunky.

IMO, it's better to simply allow, or NOT allow PA on a CdG. Going half-way about it in an outside-the-system way is just awkward.

 

[Scion]

In all cases, PA gets multiplied on a crit. In all cases, Sneak Attack damage DOESN'T get multiplied on a crit.

I agree that it makes CdG more in the "reasonable" zone, but making an exception on PA for this one particular situation feels clunky.

IMO, it's better to simply allow, or NOT allow PA on a CdG. Going half-way about it in an outside-the-system way is just awkward.

Wouldnt that be a 'special exception on pa'? Next str modifier wont apply to cdg, and after that maybe not magical pluses from weapons.. and then no weapon damage, just some set dc. I am just going to silly extremes though, I just thought it was funny to say no special exception and then make a special exception

 

[Hypersmurf]

I think Scion's suggestion to give the bonus from CdG but don't allow it to be multiplied by the weapon crit might be appropriate. If you were trying to smash down a door, I think you could use power attack, but you wouldn't get a critical damage multiplier, would you?

If you somehow manage to achieve a critical hit against an inanimate object, I'd be more than happy to let you multiply your Power Attack damage.

-Hyp.

 

[Saeviomagy]

If you somehow manage to achieve a critical hit against an inanimate object, I'd be more than happy to let you multiply your Power Attack damage.

-Hyp.

Hey - maybe if inanimate objects took crits, a pick would be a better tool for mining than a greatsword!

And an axe would cut down a tree better than a greatsword!

And...

But I think you get the point.

Which is, when all is said and done, a rather irrelevant one for which I apologise profusely.

 

[Trainz]

Wouldnt that be a 'special exception on pa'? Next str modifier wont apply to cdg, and after that maybe not magical pluses from weapons.. and then no weapon damage, just some set dc. I am just going to silly extremes though, I just thought it was funny to say no special exception and then make a special exception

Wrong.

I didn't make a special exception. The rules don't specifically address PA and CdG. They don't forbid you to do it, they don't say you can do it. Wether you allow it or not isn't an exception, it's just an individual DM's interpretation of the rules.

Allowing PA to work with CdG, which is an automatic critical, but NOT multiplying the PA damage, IS an exception, because PA is ALWAYS multiplied on a crit.

But I am glad I could amuse you.