Easy question, Coup de Grace & PA ??

[AGGEMAM]

IMO a CdG can be whatever you want it to be.

Either a powerful blow with a great axe to the BBGs head off using Power Attack etc. Or a precise strike with a rapier to thrust it through the BBGs heart using Sneak Attack etc.

 

[Eye Tyrant]

Not sure if this clarifies anything, but...

"Delivering a CdG provokes an AoO from threatening opponents because it involves focused concentration and methodical action on the part of the attacker."

Makes it sound fairly precise to me...

 

[AGGEMAM]

Makes it sound fairly precise to me...

Not to me. Could just mean lining up to make a harder swing. Like when you cleave wood, with big chunks you take a little time to make your aim true and then take a huge swing.

 

[Dimwhit]

...you take a little time to make your aim true...

Isn't that a precise shot...?

I'm actually not sold on it being a precise shot. I just think that wording of Power Attack requires a roll to hit in order to add to damage. Others think to the contrary. Other than an official clarification (anyone bother to check the FAQ?), sounds like the perfect time for a DM judgement call to me.

Originally Posted by Saeviomagy
If you wish to use your variety of implication, then using exactly the same logic, I could say that because it says you have to add a number to all damage rolls, it cannot be used if you do not make a damage roll.

Umm, yeah, I'd agree with that, too. You certainly can't add a Power Attack bonus without rolling damage. You could still take your swings at a minus to hit, though. But if that swing doesn't require a roll to hit, then you can't.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Umm, yeah, I'd agree with that, too. You certainly can't add a Power Attack bonus without rolling damage. You could still take your swings at a minus to hit, though. But if that swing doesn't require a roll to hit, then you can't.

No - the logic says you cannot use power attack if you don't make a damage roll, just as your side of the argument is you cannot use power attack if you don't make an attack roll. ie - if you miss, you weren't power attacking, because you couldn't be, so you didn't miss, so you were power attacking...

Your logic in THIS post supports MY argument that you can CDG with power attack. ie

Umm, yeah, I'd agree with that, too. You certainly can't add a Power Attack penalty without rolling to hit. You could still take your swings at a bonus to damage, though.

The last sentence, flipped around, is perhaps the most telling:

But if that swing doesn't require a roll to damage, then you can't.

If that doesn't convince you, then it's clear you cannot be argued with in a logical fashion.

 

[Dimwhit]

If that doesn't convince you, then it's clear you cannot be argued with in a logical fashion.

When I come across one, I guess we'll see. (Man, I wish this were NKL...)

Look, maybe I wasn't clear. My basic position is that you cannot gain the benefit of the PA bonus on an attack for which there is no roll to hit. Simple as that. And I think the rationale behind the CDG and the intention of that rule logically backs that up. A Power Attack is a melee attack that sacrifices precision for damage. A CDG isn't even a melee attack, but a full-round action made with a melee weapon (a fine line, but people tend to take the wording very specifically). The two are opposite in intention and application. And I haven't seen a logical argument to counter that. And the idea that you can take a -10 (as an example) on all attacks for a round and add it to damage, knowing that your attack is a CDG and requires no role but the damage bonus can still apply, defies all intention of balance in 3ed. CGD is an automatic crit, so it already accounts for a player making his/her best possible attack.

 

[DiFier]

boy this is an interisting question.

I can see the validity of the arguments on both sides. but I have to say that I'm leaning toward power attack and CDG don't work together.

I see a big difference between a CDG and powerattack. Reguardless of weather it is slitting an oponents neck with a dagger, or bashing them at base of the skull with a mace or pushing their nose bone into their brain by punching them in the nose (in an upward mothion). the CDG seems to rely on accuracy of the attack.

on the other hand powerattack is a wild swing, scarificing accuracy for damage. it isn't important where you hit but that you hit with force.

while the feat is slightly oddly worded why should you get the bonus with out taking the penalty?

No - the logic says you cannot use power attack if you don't make a damage roll, just as your side of the argument is you cannot use power attack if you don't make an attack roll. ie - if you miss, you weren't power attacking, because you couldn't be, so you didn't miss, so you were power attacking...

I'm a little confused by this quote. are you saying that if you miss while applying the -x to your attack that you are not power attacking and therefore didn't take the -x from the attack so then yuo resolve the attack as iff you had not powerattacked. you get to do regualar damage? In a regular mele situation if you were attacking a guy with 15 ac and had +15 to hit. You can use power attack and only give you a +10 to hit but if you hit you do an additional +5 damage. if you only roll a 4 on your attack your total is only 14 lower that AC there for you missed.

I think that the wording is the way it is so that you apply the -x to every roll (if you get 3 attacks then each of them is at -x but does +x to damage, and same with AoO) but CDG don't require attack rolls.

I'm not totally convinced but I have yet to see an argument that make me sure that power attack applies to CDG.

 

[Tatsukun]

Well, I don’t agree with the argument that PA can’t be used with CdG because CdG is a precise strike.

First of all, I don’t think CdG is necessarily an exact strike. I think those six seconds (full round) and all that concentration (draws attacks of opportunity) COULD be used for an exact, precise, strike, but it could also be used to line up one big hit.

I take this from the time I spent as a kid chopping wood. I actually used to do this exact thing. As a kid, it was my job to cut a lot of the firewood (mostly oak) we used in our house. Oak is really hard, and frozen oak is really, really, hard to cut. So, you take a log (maybe a foot long, ten inches wide) and put it on the chopping block. Then, you take a whack at it with the axe. It usually took me about three hits to split a log.

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.

Now, I know that real life and D20 are different things, and what works in one may not work in another. But, since I can’t find any explicit rule that says it can’t, it’s a DM call. I told you this little story as a way to explain why I am ruling that you can PA and CdG.

-Tatsu

 

[Trainz]

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

There are two answers:

IF you value his opinion, ask the Sage or;

Whatever your DM fancies.

This rule question has been kicking back and forth on these boards without a clear answer for ages. Might as well ask that if you trip someone with a reach pole-arm on an attack of opportunity and drop him, can you cleave the guy on the opposite side of you...


Putting more gasoline on the flames...

 

[Saeviomagy]

I'm a little confused by this quote. are you saying that if you miss while applying the -x to your attack that you are not power attacking and therefore didn't take the -x from the attack so then yuo resolve the attack as iff you had not powerattacked. you get to do regualar damage? In a regular mele situation if you were attacking a guy with 15 ac and had +15 to hit. You can use power attack and only give you a +10 to hit but if you hit you do an additional +5 damage. if you only roll a 4 on your attack your total is only 14 lower that AC there for you missed.

No, that's not what I'm saying. The situation I described is patently absurd, and it comes from the EXACT same logical basis that Dimwhit is arguing from.

Follow carefully.

The feat says:

"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."

Or, to break it down
a) "Choose a value of X before you make any attack rolls"

b) "Subtract X from all attack rolls in a round"

c) "Add X to all damage rolls in a round"

Dimwhit is arguing that if you make no attack rolls, then you cannot do b). And if you cannot do b), you're not allowed to do a) nor c).

The exact same logical argument he is using could also be used to state that if you make no DAMAGE rolls, you cannot do c), nor are you allowed to do a) or b). This is possible because the feat uses the same language for modifying attack and damage rolls, and we are arguing the meaning of the phrases in the feat.

If that is the case, then when you miss all your attacks in a round, you make no damage rolls. Hence you should not be able to do b) or c), which is plainly absurd, as you've already done them - we therefore say that this argument is void.

Then, since that argument is void, Dimwhit's argument (which is identical) must also be void. The words plainly cannot mean what he says they mean.

Any argument made which says that the text about attack rolls means something particular can also be made about the text about damage rolls.

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.