Must a Coup-de-Grace deal damage?

[Markn]

Hi! I had an ... interesting situation come up in our game session today.

A 2nd level Warforged fighter (with the Adamantine Body feat) fell victim to a Color Spray by a Sorceror. Said Sorceror's Raven familiar proceeded to start, and next round complete, a Coup-de-Grace.

I should point out that a coup de grace does not take a full round to happen. It is a full round action much like a high level fighter uses a full round action to get all his attacks in. It starts and completes during his same initiative. Thus, he has no move action and must therefore be already beside the victim to coup de grace him (barring any feats of course that bring this down to a standard action).

 

[ThirdWizard]

I should point out that a coup de grace does not take a full round to happen. It is a full round action much like a high level fighter uses a full round action to get all his attacks in. It starts and completes during his same initiative. Thus, he has no move action and must therefore be already beside the victim to coup de grace him (barring any feats of course that bring this down to a standard action).

Maybe the familiar was slowed.

Nah, probably not.

 

[Darkness]

how can you kill someone if you don't hurt them??

With horrible puns. At least, that's what I'd do. YMMV.

 

[Jack Simth]

Start/Complete Full-Round Action

The “start full-round action” standard action lets you start undertaking a full-round action, which you can complete in the following round by using another standard action. You can’t use this action to start or complete a full attack, charge, run, or withdraw.

So the crow COULD move in, start CDG, finish the CDG next turn (another standard action), and move away.

 

[Markn]

cdg

So the crow COULD move in, start CDG, finish the CDG next turn (another standard action), and move away.

Hadn't thought of that. I stand corrected.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I'm with Staffan on this one, as well.

 

[Ballard_Alvar]

Dr

The rules on Damage Reduction, in the secton about "Special abilities and conditions".

I do see where you are comming from, however I feel CdG is a Special Case.
Here is why:
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).

see where it says "If the defender survives the damage"? The Action Coup de Grace was performed, the DC is 10 + damage dealt, it can't be interupted by damage from an AoO, and no circumstance listed for failure of the action. There isn't any mroe to say. Now there are DM's that say that it's stupid and chose not to handle it that way. but if that is the case i don't think it will matter too much anyway as it would be difficult for a survivable character to fail such a save. afterall, it is usually only PCs that do it. . . usually.

Unless someone can point out something not previouly brought up, then it is my conception that a literal interpretation of RAW indicate a save is still required. No one ever said D&D made sence.

 

[Camarath]

Unless someone can point out something not previouly brought up, then it is my conception that a literal interpretation of RAW indicate a save is still required. No one ever said D&D made sence.

Actually, I think the absence of damage negate would the second part of the conditional statement. In other word since there is no damage the defender can not be said to survive it because it does not exist. Thus since the defender did not survive the damage he does not have to make the save.

 

[Ballard_Alvar]

Actually, I think the absence of damage negate would the second part of the conditional statement. In other word since there is no damage the defender can not be said to survive it because it does not exist. Thus since the defender did not survive the damage he does not have to make the save.

Ahh, but there was damage delt(not taken), and the glossary does define each term seperately(take damage/deal damage). That is the point that I am arguing. because there of that differntation is why a save would still be required. like i said its kind of dumb when you think about it, but this isn't GURPs, Guy.

Edit:
Addendum: Same thing goes for massive damage.

 

[Camarath]

Ahh, but there was damage delt(not taken), and the glossary does define each term seperately(take damage/deal damage).

Page 307 PHB
"Damage: A decrease in hit points, an ability score, or other aspects of a character caused by injury, illness, or magical effect."

The statement uses the term "damage" and not "damage delt". There is no "damage" as defined in the glossary.