why not getting rid of coup de grace?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You know, pointing to your own situation repeatedly and arguing that because you feel screwed over the rules must be faulty for a greater range of situations is not extremely convincing . From where I stand, you are arguing backwards...actually the rules work pretty nicely for the majority of coup de grace situations, and only produce a few oddball situations now and then, like in your case. And even then, you had a cleric who had prepared for greater resistance on his spellcasting followed by a typical cutthroat who has "massive opportunistic damage" written into his class abilities, which is a pretty specific combination of powers. If that hadn't been a rogue but another cleric, your warblade might have survived the coup de grace a lot easier.

I think the problem is coup-de-grace is a mechanic that is only important for verisimilitude in very rare situations. It's the "a dagger through your eye is a dagger through your eye is a dagger through your eye"-situation.
Maybe the error is to make the coup-de-grace mechanic be applicable in situations in where they are not so great for their entertainment value and can easily become annoying. Maybe the "helpless" condition should just be removed from mid-combat situations ...

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Without intending to be snarky or sarcastic, you're hoping for an ideal situation here. No rule works for every imaginable situation it can be used in for everybody and under every circumstance. There will always be exceptions where you get oddball results. There's a whole player tradition of "game breaking" that is based on that one simple fact. I mean, even in your situation, place one of your allies 5' closer to you, and he could have tried to prevent the coup de grace with an attack of opportunity in the form of a grapple or a trip attack or something similar. That's also why you won't see coups de grace in melee that often. It leaves the couping character wide open for any kind of preventive AoO from allies of the victim-to-be.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I think the problem is coup-de-grace is a mechanic that is only important for verisimilitude in very rare situations. It's the "a dagger through your eye is a dagger through your eye is a dagger through your eye"-situation.
Maybe the error is to make the coup-de-grace mechanic be applicable in situations in where they are not so great for their entertainment value and can easily become annoying. Maybe the "helpless" condition should just be removed from mid-combat situations ...

May I be bluntly honest? I think that would make people frown even more. "So I'm helpless when held out of combat, but not when in the middle of melee?" Replace Hold Person with extremely tightly bound, sleeping, paralyzed by poison, etc. Defining conditions in the context of in-combat and out-of-combat would just lead to a lot of different wonky situations. I honestly doubt that there are that many successful coups de grace that happen in melee...I would bet good money that they are outnumbered by successful save or die effects in any case.

 

[MithrasRahl]

Explain to me then why the current rule is better than any of the following:

1) CdG is made, DC 10 + dmg dealt. Failed save moves the character to -1 HP

2) CdG is made, DC 10 + dmg dealt. Failed save moves the character to -9 HP

3) CdG is made, DC 10 + dmg dealt. Character moves to -10 HP, but can be revived if brought above 0 HP in rounds equal to the character's Con modifier

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Maybe the "helpless" condition should just be removed from mid-combat situations ...

This would be my pick. Dramaticly and mechanically speaking, I find it hard to define someone with allies within 30 feet of them as "helpless" in a D&D combat. I recall a thread where someone actually stood over an unconsious ally and readied an attack to prevent him from being CdGed. The NPC (who was really suicidally interested in killing this one guy apparently) took the readied attack and the AoO and then since he was still alive, went through on the CdG on the "helpless" target.

I liked the earlier suggestion that it be an action taking one round, completing at the start of the attacker's next turn if he isn't stopped. (I would add concentration checks as normal for taking damage during an extended skill check or spell casting.) No difference in the time it takes in a situation of true helplessness, but no longer possible to do effectively instantaneously (claims of taking 6 seconds aside, it all happens on one initiative "tick" and only differs from a swift action in how much more or less the attacker can do that round.)

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Once again I'll refer you to the situation that just happened.

Warblade character in Full Plate Mail gets a Hold Person cast on him. The other party tank is 10 feet from him, the rogue is 15 feet away, and the party healer is also 15 feet away.

This is not a situation where "it's not like he'd survive that long anyways with enemies power attacking him and sneak attacking him", because the party was an initiative move away from coming to his defence/the party ended up killing the remaining baddies on their next turn.

I am slightly confused... CdG is a full round action. Why didn't the other Tank bullrush the enemy Rogue away from you? {or the many other options for interupting a full round action..given that they were able to wipe up the bad guys in the next turn?}

I wasn't there, but based on your posts it looks like the CdG action was improperly played at the table. {as well as the Hold Person DC, but thats another story...} and/or really bad timing on your characters part

If I am right, your main issue with the action is not the RAW, but the implementation at your table.

As to your options below, the only change those would do is change CdG into a 2 round action... {and option #3 makes a 'special' rule instead of applying the current rules.}

I have seen NPC CdG attempts become the focal point of drama as the rest of the party rushes to save thier freind... and the only successfull CdG's have been done by the party. So I am not sure where the problem is....

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I am slightly confused... CdG is a full round action. Why didn't the other Tank bullrush the enemy Rogue away from you? {or the many other options for interupting a full round action..given that they were able to wipe up the bad guys in the next turn?}

I think the rules confusion is actually on your end.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#fullRoundActions

A full round action can't be interupted any more than a move and a standard action. It's just like charging or full attacking.

It is only in spells with full round casting times that interuption comes into play.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#castingTime

 

[Celebrim]

It is only in spells with full round casting times that interuption comes into play.

You are correct. But it occurs to me that making Coup De Grace interruptable would be an interesting variant rule to resolve some people's issues with it.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Personally, I'd prefer some change to initiative that would create an initiative order depending on what the characters DO, while the initiative roll determines when the character can announce what he intends to do. Full-round actions should finish last in any given round.

And about that guy who readied an action against a coup de grace, and didn't manage to beat off the attacker with that AND the attack of opportunity...I'm sorry, but if you KNOW your best bet is either to kill the guy in two strikes, OR keep him away from his target, I'd always go for the latter, except if I was sure I could split the guy in two. And a readied action to jump/trip/bullrush the guy when he attempts a coup de grace should be not that hard.

 

[Celebrim]

Personally, I'd prefer some change to initiative that would create an initiative order depending on what the characters DO, while the initiative roll determines when the character can announce what he intends to do. Full-round actions should finish last in any given round.

I've been thinking about things like that as a way to get around the need for readied actions, but the problem with systems like that is that they are so complex (either in book keeping or just simply in polling the participants) that they would be really tedious to play out.

Really, there is just no easy way to make a pen and paper game play out in a way that the abstraction of turns of play doesn't make for the occasional oddity. No matter what you do, the fact that time is frozen for every participant but one at various points in the resolution causes problems.