Is a coup de grace a full round action....

tennyson · Apr 23, 2003

....or is it only a standard?

prodawg · Apr 23, 2003

It takes a full round to get off a CDG. Not just one action.

hammymchamham · Apr 23, 2003

full round

tennyson · Apr 23, 2003

Thanks for the quick replies!

hammymchamham · Apr 23, 2003

there is a feat from Sord and Fist that lets you do it as a Standard action. The name escapes me.

Plane Sailing · Apr 23, 2003

tennyson said:
....or is it only a standard?

I'm not sure why you are asking this question... looking up Coup de grace in the PHB index gives you p133, which answers your question precisely. Surely that is easier than posting a question on the messageboard?

hammymchamham · Apr 23, 2003

Re: Re: Is a coup de grace a full round action....

Plane Sailing said:
I'm not sure why you are asking this question... looking up Coup de grace in the PHB index gives you p133, which answers your question precisely. Surely that is easier than posting a question on the messageboard?

No need to be a jerk about this.

Plane Sailing · Apr 23, 2003

Sorry, not intending to be a jerk (but genuinely curious all the same)

Hypersmurf · Apr 23, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Is a coup de grace a full round action....

No need to be a jerk about this.

I must admit, I agree with him to an extent.

There are rules that are ambiguous.

There are rules that require a thorough understanding of the system to wrap one's head around.

There are rules that have been errata'd, clarified, Saged, or FAQ'd... or all of the above.

There are rules that are in obscure and unexpected places.

And then there are rules that are defined in crystal-clear fashion, and exactly where you'd expect them, as shown in the index under the most obvious heading.

"What's the threat range of a longsword?" is a question for which a link to the SRD is, in the long term, a more valuable response than "19-20". Give a man a fish and all that.

-Hyp.

hammymchamham · Apr 24, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Is a coup de grace a full round action....

Hypersmurf said:
I must admit, I agree with him to an extent.

There are rules that are ambiguous.

There are rules that require a thorough understanding of the system to wrap one's head around.

There are rules that have been errata'd, clarified, Saged, or FAQ'd... or all of the above.

There are rules that are in obscure and unexpected places.

And then there are rules that are defined in crystal-clear fashion, and exactly where you'd expect them, as shown in the index under the most obvious heading.

"What's the threat range of a longsword?" is a question for which a link to the SRD is, in the long term, a more valuable response than "19-20". Give a man a fish and all that.

-Hyp.

:shrug: maybe he was having a discusion with his DM (or a player) and their was a confusion, and wanted a 2nd opinion. blah blah blah. what ever. This is the rules forum. And its about rules right? Instead maybe we should ignore these simple questions and let our fellow players wonder around confused. I like that better

Does it really matter WHY tennyson wanted to know? No. He asked a question, and the answer was given. Why he wanted the answer doesn't change the answer nor the purpose of this forum, which is to ask questions on rules and get answers. If that is not the purpose of the rules forum, I'm in the wrong place.