Post/Author/DateTime	Post
shannonKnight 09-02-05, 05:27 PM	I am currently not at home and can't access my books to read it up. So could you use spells like scorching rays or anything similar use to do a Coup de Grace? (Maybe with increased casting time or such for extra aiming?)
Radijs 09-02-05, 05:31 PM	I suppose it is technically possible. I can't really see a reason why its not possible.
Ithamar 09-02-05, 05:45 PM	By the RAW, I beleive the answer would be "No" From the SRD: 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. But depending on the spell I might allow it in my game. Magic Missile? No way. Inflict Serious Wounds? Probably.
Tedly224 09-02-05, 05:49 PM	Hm. A coup de grace is normally a full round action that also provokes an attack of opporotunity when you do it. In addition to this, the person performing the maneuver must be right next to the victim physically, implying that it's delivered through a melee attack. In theory, a spell that's touch based (either ranged or normal) that delivers raw damage in some form should qualify for this. In practice though, the rules would imply that an attack made at a range of any sort is normally not possible. You'd still have to be right next to your target, and taking the action whether it's a spell or not would still provoke attacks of opporotunity. Unless, of course, you have a feat or the like that specifically bypasses the normal coup de grace restrictions.
Coffee 09-02-05, 05:55 PM	Any spell you can normally make a critical hit with counts as a spell usable in a coup de grace.
Seeker95 09-02-05, 06:59 PM	I disagree with all of the above that indicate you can use a spell. The description is pretty explicit with what can be used. The coup de grace must be delivered with a melee weapon, or a bow or crossbow.
yonman 09-02-05, 07:01 PM	I agree with Seeker, the text is explicit in that it has to be a melee weapon, crossbow, or bow.
shannonKnight 09-03-05, 04:42 AM	Hmm since I am a DM now and then too I'd think I'd allow spells which you could deliver per touch or you have to aim. BUT you have to stand right next to the target, you can't cast defensifly AND the casting time would be doubled. (You are taking careful aim of course) Does that sound viable? (Of course that would be a houserule but a fair one I'd think)
smrtgmp 09-03-05, 04:51 AM	The coup de grace must be delivered with a melee weapon, or a bow or crossbow.Yes, but any spell which requires an attack roll and deals damage of any sort is concidered to be a weapon. I think it would work.
ticattack 09-03-05, 05:16 AM	Well, as has been said before, by the rules, no you couldn't. However, if I was DMing, I'd say that it would depend on the nature of the spell. A magic missile is made of energy. The energy hits, it deals damage. Something like a fireball hits an entire area, so aside from the fact that you'd have to be dense to stand next to the guy you're fireballing, you can't aim it. A lightening bolt, I would allow. If it deals 1d6/level from 100 feet away, imagine what it would do if you put your fingertips on someone's forehead. Basically, it's a question of whether you're playing strictly by the rules, or being a bit flexible. Really, if you have a dagger, you're not going to waste a lightening bolt on a coup de grace, and even if you don't, I'd probably rule you could snap an unconscious persons neck with a strength check, or something. It's not a situation that's going to come up often, but I'd say that, while by the rules it can't happen, common sense dictates that being struck by lightening from an inch and a half away is gonna kill you. I'd think there's a few general rules that might help. * If it is capable of being aimed accurately (for example, not a fireball, but something that is aimed by pointing) it'd probably work. * The spell itself must deal damage. For example, a gust of wind may cause damage from being battered against walls, or falling, but the spell itself doens't deal damage. That said, if you fling someone onto a spear wall formation, I'd probably let that do the trick. * I don't know how to word this, but the spell must do... for lack of a better word 'sharp' damage. Slashing, Piercing, Bludgeoning, and Electricity I would count as 'sharp' damage, and probably fire, depending on it's shape. 'Soft' damage would be positive/negative energy, something like a magic missile, and acid. A dagger will cut your throat. Acid might get down enough to cut off your air/damage your jugular, but it might not, depending on how potent it is. Again, as a different way, casting Acid into someone's mouth would probably hurt quite a bit. Perhaps it kills them unless they suceed a fort save? Now, these are pretty vague, and I can think of a couple of problems with them, excluding any that may be due to my poor knowledge of science and/or the human body. I guess, if you're playing, the DM has the final say. If you're DMing, should'nt you reward your players for creativity? Pooring acid down someone's mouth is creative, and I'd say it would definitely do more damage, if not actually a coup de grace. Basically, it all comes down to how the DM personally imagines it. They might say that you can't aim a lightening bolt from two inches away, or you'll be hit with recoil. Just me, but I'd say a scorching ray would work. Blasting someone in the face with one of them, from an inch away, while they're not moving, would almost certainly kill them. Otherwise, do it on their clothing. Set their hair on fire. The spell description doesn't say you can't aim at a specific part of the body, so I'm assuming you could, with -4 to hit. You could do it from a bit of a range, it's not a full-round action, and I'd think it'd be disconcerting/distracting for their allies as well.
Jaaz 09-03-05, 03:08 PM	Read the weapon-like spells entry in Complete Arcane (pg 72). I'd say anything eligible for the improved critical feat as a weapon-like spell can be a coup-de-grace weapon as well. Magic missle, since it lacks an attack roll of any kind, is not eligible. Those denying this extension of coup-de-grace aren't factoring all the possibilities of ray spells in. As with a normal coup-de-grace, they'd have to be right next to them, which when facing a helpless defender, can be pointing their beam hand at some obviously vital area of the body, such as the head. While I wouldn't run it that it automatically kills the victim, this is what a spell coup-de-grace would be, just like a weapon coup-de-grace.
Faragon 09-03-05, 03:19 PM	I'd allow it for spells like Spiritual Weapon. Otherwise, no.
Fayle 09-03-05, 04:13 PM	It makes no sense to me why someone would. It has been stated that you'd have to be right next to the victim to perform it anyways. If you're right next to a prone victim, why would you waste a spell to perfrom a coup de grace when you could just smack him with whatever weapon you're wielding? I suppose you could be weaponless, but in D&D, this is rare. I'd say "no" as far as the ability to do it anyways since the description does not say a "weapon", it says a "melee weapon or the following range weapons" (which still have to be used at short range). So I'd say "no", but what's the big deal? Just bonk it with your weapon. No spell wasted. ;)
shannonKnight 09-03-05, 04:24 PM	Well let's just say I'd be hard pressed to actually hit him even if he can't move (Some psionic and magically buffed armor) but I'd have a higher chance with a ranged touch eg. a spell than with my meager dagger. (And it#s way more stylish you have to admit)
Odin_666 09-03-05, 04:47 PM	Well let's just say I'd be hard pressed to actually hit him even if he can't move (Some psionic and magically buffed armor) but I'd have a higher chance with a ranged touch eg. a spell than with my meager dagger. (And it#s way more stylish you have to admit) If you do a Coup-de-grace you automatically score a critical hit! You don't even have to roll! And as the rules say you could only use melee weapons and the 2 bows. And personally I think it just doesn't make sense from a RP-point to allow a coup-de-grace with a spell. I can imagine stabbing a longsword into the victims brain and therefore killing him or use an axe to cut off his head if he is helpless. But with a spell? A normal lightning bolt burns completly over the target so what would be the different to a Cdg-one?
Seeker95 09-03-05, 06:27 PM	Yes, but any spell which requires an attack roll and deals damage of any sort is concidered to be a weapon.Not true. It is considered an attack. And the entry for coup de grace explicitly says [u]melee weapon[/i] (or bow or crossbow). So even if you consider an attack-roll-allowing spell to be a weapon, it is NOT a melee weapon.Melee weapons are used for making melee attacks, though some of them can be thrown as well.And from the glossary on page 310 of the PHB:Melee Weapon A handheld weapon designed for close combat.
Mysticaloctopus 09-03-05, 06:46 PM	just feed them a delayed blast fireball and run. muahahahahaha! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! *ahem* sorry. anyway, i'd say no, unless the spell goes like this: spell ----> :embarrass into them and them goes boom. then maybe. maybe with meteor storm.
Shatteredtower 09-03-05, 06:52 PM	One needs to be careful about interpreting the coup de grace rules too literally. An interpretation that would prohibit use of chill touch for performing a coup de grace would prevent a creature with no hands from being able to perform a coup de grace. I refer you to the glossary definition of a melee weapon (PHB, pg 310): "A handheld weapon designed for close combat." One actually has a stronger case for arguing that a touch spell (or the burning touch of a magmin, or the lich's negative energy touch) is effectively hand-held, and thus eligible for performing a coup de grace, than for allowing an aboleth, blink dog, or coatl, which all lack hands, to perform a coup de grace. Likewise, if you've ever allowed a dragon to perform a coup de grace with its bite, rather than with claws, I can't see reason to disallow spells. Note that I'm not saying a dragon should be prohibited to make a coup de grace with a bite attack, even though the RAW effectively do say this. I'm just saying that there's a stronger case for allowing touch spells to perform the action than for natural weaponry other than claws. I won't disagree with the idea that using a spell for such a purpose might seem extravagant to some, but that's a matter of style anyway. If you've got chill touch active, why not use it for a coup de grace? Likewise, if you're a 3rd level wizard with no 2nd level spells and you've managed to put an ogre to sleep after it took your last ally down, which would you use to perform a coup de grace: your quarterstaff (assuming average Str, the ogre has between a 25% and 75% chance of survival, with 50% the average) or shocking grasp (with at best a 50% chance of survival, while average damage would be lethal 95% of the time), remembering that if you fail to make the kill, you are almost assuredly dead. If your allies already injured the ogre a little bit before you were left to sort this out on your own, I'd go with the shocking grasp. If not, then I'd go with leaving the ogre resting and trying to haul at least one ally out of there, if possible. (If they're all too heavy or the ogre has allies, I will remember to say a short prayer for them when I get back to town, because there's no point in all of us dying. :P) I'm not saying that one should keep shocking grasp available for coup de grace purposes, though I won't object if a wizard does prepare it with such a contingency in mind. I'm just providing an example of when you might want to go for a spell-based coup de grace, provided you allow such things. Then again, I've no qualms with seeing a spell used at such a time just to be flashy either.
Branto 09-03-05, 07:46 PM	Aaah.. I've always thought it would be hilarious (if a bit crude) To shove a rod of fireballs up someone's [censored :P ] as a coup de grace ;) Or for lightning.. Jam a sharp, metal weapon or object into their chest for the actual Coup De Grace, and then if they survive? (or even if they don't if you just like adding insult to the injury) Shocking Grasp the object ;)
Super_Demolition_Christ 09-03-05, 07:53 PM	any spell you have to make an attack roll for is a weapon. As in you can take weapon focus, specialization, for it and even sneak attack with it. As such you can coup de grace with it. The fact that you can use a crossbow or bow to coup de grace makes it painfully obvious that you can. The idea is that instead of focusing and striking them for a lethal blow with a melee weapon you are doing like in the movies. Like when they put a gun to their head and pull the trigger, its the same thing as with a bow coup de grace. Thus you can do the same thing with a spell. You could coup de grace with fireball or magic missle, but you could with a ray of frost.
CryoSilver 09-03-05, 08:27 PM	Now, the rules also say you can deliver a touch spell with an unarmed strike. Therefore, assuming one can CDG with an unarmed strike (which one can: unarmed strike is listed as a simple weapon) one can CDG with a touch spell delivered in such a fashion (which is irrelevant as far as connecting, since it is an auto-hit).
Faragon 09-03-05, 10:25 PM	Aaah.. I've always thought it would be hilarious (if a bit crude) To shove a rod of fireballs up someone's [censored :P ] as a coup de grace ;)Nothing graceful about that :D
Rakasha#5 09-03-05, 10:45 PM	By the RAW, I beleive the answer would be "No" From the SRD: But depending on the spell I might allow it in my game. Magic Missile? No way. Inflict Serious Wounds? Probably.] In fact I would say the opposite, because magic missle fires missles at them to particular areas, where as isw just causes damage to their overall being, and the point of a cdg is to stab a particular place like say their eye, throat or heart.
mvincent 09-04-05, 01:31 AM	any spell you have to make an attack roll for is a weapon. .It doesn't matter if they are weapons or not. By the rules, they need to be melee weapons (or bow/x-bow) to be eligible for CdG. You could not for instance CdG with a thrown dart, sling, shuriken, etc. you can do the same thing with a spell. You could coup de grace with fireball or magic missle, but you could with a ray of frost.Rays are not melee weapons, nor are they one of the allowed ranged weapons.
Shatteredtower 09-04-05, 03:00 AM	You could not for instance CdG with a thrown dart, sling, shuriken, etc.But you could use all of these to perform a coup de grace as improvised melee weapons, with no meaningful penalty for using them thus. (If you can't miss, what's -4 on the attack roll?) Ultimately, I look at this issue this way. The BBEG is momentarily helpless. My 11th level rogue with 14 Str tries to use his +1 short sword for a coup de grace. Normally, he'd do 1d6+3 hp of damage on a normal attack (DC 14-19 Fort save to survive), but here he does 2d6 + 6 + 5d6 (DC 23-58 to survive). Now if the weapon was a +1 flaming short sword, that would increase to 2d6 + 6 + 5d6 + 1d6 (fire), with the Fort save DC increasing to 24-64. Likewise, if it was also a spell-storing weapon and he decided to unleash vampiric touch from it, the damage climbs to 2d6 + 6 + 5d6 + 1d6 (fire) +2d6 (negative energy), and the DC for the Fort save increases to 26-76. In each and every one of these cases, I am adding more and more dice to the damage, dice that do not get multiplied along with the base critical, but that do contribute to the save DC for the Fort save to survive the coup de grace. Since all of this bonus damage, even the damage from the stored spell, does contribute to the DC of the Fort save, it follows that you can use a touch spell as part of a coup de grace. How? Use it in combination with an unarmed strike. It doesn't matter that you won't be able to deliver the spell as a melee touch attack because you won't miss, just as it doesn't matter that you need to take a -4 penalty on the attack roll to do lethal damage with your unarmed strike. The results are a bit different than they would be if you'd been allowed to use the spell to deliver the critical hit directly, however, as a medium sized character would be doing 2d3 hp of damage plus twice the Str modifier plus spell damage, rather than twice the spell's damage. Nevertheless, the spell damage increases the DC on the Fort save, even if not by as large a margin as it might if you'd been allowed to deliver the coup de grace directly with the spell. But why can't you? Well, we go back to the definition of a melee weapon from the PHB glossary: "a handheld weapon designed for close combat." Oh, but wait. How can an unarmed strike be considered a melee weapon in this context. When you strike with your fist, do you have to hold it in your other hand? If you deliver it with a kick, do you need to grab your leg first to do it? Where are your hands during a headbutt? Is anyone going to make the case that an unarmed strike (and thus a claw) is not a melee weapon, thus leaving monks a bit more frustrated? I mean, they don't get to CdG if so, and they especially don't get to perform the well-known necksnap with a twist of the foot stunt. Or are the CdG rules being read too literally, thereby preventing any creature without hands from using a natural weapon to perform a CdG? If a lion has you helpless, is it going to try to snap your neck or will it simply content itself with killing you as quickly as your hit point total allows? To allow an unarmed strike to work for purposes of a CdG, you have to interpret a hand-held weapon as one that could be delivered by hand. If you agree to that, you have to agree allowing claw attacks to gain the CdG opportunity, even though claws are natural weapons. And once you allow claws, what reason do you have for not allowing jaws? What, they're not hand-held? All right, sure, RAW supports this, though it's silly to nerf crocodiles in this fashion. However, back to the reasoning behind allowing an unarmed strike to perform a CdG. If you accept the idea that the idea of a hand-held weapon is one that either is made by or with the hand, it seems to me that you've provided reason why touch spells should be read as acceptable options for performing a CdG. Likewise, you can make a case for allowing a ray effect to be used for the task, since it typically springs from your hand and it's not a ranged weapon if you can cast it with your hand on your enemy's chest, is it? The only thing you can't do is run around with it. I suppose the matter of ray spells is entirely up to interpretation, but when it comes to unarmed strikes, you have to ask either why they're not allowed to perform a coup de grace or what it is about what is obviously not a hand-held weapon that gives them special treatment not permitted to touch spells.
Seeker95 09-04-05, 09:48 AM	But you could use all of these to perform a coup de grace as improvised melee weapons, with no meaningful penalty for using them thus. (If you can't miss, what's -4 on the attack roll?)True. But then you're explicitly using an object as a melee weapon. With the "touch spells" you could hit them really hard with your fist, doing the coup with the fist, and adding the spell damage *after the fact*. The spell damage would not impact the coup mechanics, but might cause just enough damage to turn an unsuccessful coup into a successful kill.
Count Arioch the 28th 09-04-05, 10:05 AM	Personally, I would allow a spell with a range of touch and that deals HP damage to perform a CdG. Simply because I think it would look cool.
Mirtek 09-04-05, 10:31 AM	It doesn't matter if they are weapons or not. By the rules, they need to be melee weapons (or bow/x-bow) to be eligible for CdG. You could not for instance CdG with a thrown dart, sling, shuriken, etc. Rays are not melee weapons, nor are they one of the allowed ranged weapons. Rays not, but touch spells are.
Shatteredtower 09-04-05, 11:25 AM	True. But then you're explicitly using an object as a melee weapon.Just as you are using a spell as a weapon. With the "touch spells" you could hit them really hard with your fist, doing the coup with the fist, and adding the spell damage *after the fact*. The spell damage would not impact the coup mechanics, but might cause just enough damage to turn an unsuccessful coup into a successful kill.But the spell does impact the coup de grace mechanics. As with a sneak attack, it modifies the resulting save DC. And you still have to address the fact that a literal reading of the coup de grace rules indicates that an intelligent creature with no hands cannot perform this action, regardless of the natural weapons available to them. Are the jaws of a crocodile really less effective for this purpose than the fist of a halfling, rogue or not, with 6 Strength? Where do you hold the charge of a touch spell but in your hand (unless you don't have hands, of course)? If you are holding it in your hand and using it to cause damage with a successful attack roll, does it not stand to reason that it is a melee weapon? Maybe you say it's not, that it's a spell. All right, but you've allowed an unarmed strike to be used to perform a coup de grace in the example above, and that's not a melee weapon either by the strictest definition. It's listed separately in the entries for grappling, Weapon Focus (and the rest of that chain of feats), and even attacks on pg 139 of the PHB. You can't hold an unarmed strike in your hand any more than a container can contain itself.
Seeker95 09-04-05, 02:03 PM	Just as you are using a spell as a weapon.By this point it appears that some folks are being intentionally obtuse. :P There is a difference between "using something as a weapon" and "a melee weapon". A spell is used as a weapon if it is used offensively. But it falls into that same category of "weapon" as words, sex, and politics. Sure, these can be used as a weapon. But a melee weapon has a specific game-mechanics definition. And a spell, even a damage-causing spell, does not fall within that definition.
Egres 09-04-05, 02:23 PM	Shatteredtower, would you allow a Spirited Charge with an Inflict Wound spell?
The Abominable Darkling 09-04-05, 04:45 PM	It's an interesting topic. It seems to me that the list of ways to perform a coup-de-grace is far too narrow. Going by some of the quotes in this thread, it would seem impossible for a creature to coup-de-grace with its bite. It is not a "handheld weapon" and therefore not a melee weapon. Also, if I decide to include firearms in my game, it would be impossible to coupe-de-grace with a musket or flintlock. I think it's perfectly reasonable to extend the definition somewhat to cover these sorts of cases. So which spells (if any) should be allowed? Well, for certain the spell would have to allow an attack roll. Orb of electricity would be fine so long as you're adjacent to the target and spend a full round performing the coup-de-grace. However, making an attack roll is not a sufficient condition. Spiritual weapon would not work since the caster doesn't actively use the weapon (he simply points it in the right direction and it attacks on its own). Certain other spells would be a little sticky as well. Scorching ray for example fires multiple rays. Against an 11th-level scorching ray, would a victim make one save against the total damage of all three? One save against each ray individually? A save a against the first and then just normal damage from the other two? Anyway, it would certainly take the DM some time to sort through the issues. It does seem like a reasonable thing to do, however, if the DM is so inclined.
Seeker95 09-04-05, 05:08 PM	Going by some of the quotes in this thread, it would seem impossible for a creature to coup-de-grace with its bite. It is not a "handheld weapon" and therefore not a melee weapon.According to the Monster Manual Glossary Definition of "natural weapon": Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature. A creature making a melee attack with a natural weapon is considered armed, and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Natural weapons are weapons. They are considered a "melee attack" The creature is considered armed. Combined, these are definitionally equivalent to that of a "melee weapon" A bite attack would count as a melee weapon and can be used in a coup de grace.
bolgar 09-04-05, 06:55 PM	I think that the rules of a CdG are not very well worded. As I see it, in RAW, neither a spell nor natural attacks constitute a melee weapon as required in the description. I think that this was the result of a sloppy wording and not the intent of the designers. I think anything that a) can be "lined up" and targeted carefully against an especially vulnerable body part (thus the restriction that the character can only use bows when adjacent to his foe) b) can score a critical hit should be able to score a CdG. So i'd change the wording as follows: Coup de Grace As a full-round action, you can use [a melee weapon] any melee attack that can score a critical hit and can kill a character to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless opponent. You can also use [a bow or crossbow] any ranged attack that satisfies the conditions above, provided you are adjacent to the target. That would allow natural attacks as well as touch spells.
Mind Rogue 09-04-05, 07:13 PM	Well, Shocking Graspm, Inflict Light Wounds, Chill Touch, and the like all say that they are melee touch attacks, which would imply that they are melee weapons, and any melee weapon could feasibly be used for a CdG. Likewise, almost every single natural weapon in the MM is also a melee attack, which implies the same thing. Thus the problem here is actually the wording of the definition of melee weapon. Thus, we should probably use a very loose definition of the word "hand-held". After all, unarmed strikes, armor spikes, and bite attacks should all be melee weapons even though you can't hold them in one's hands. So, once we get that all cleared up, could you CdG an ally with Cure Light Wounds to get double the healing?
bolgar 09-04-05, 08:54 PM	So, once we get that all cleared up, could you CdG an ally with Cure Light Wounds to get double the healing? :D
Seeker95 09-04-05, 09:08 PM	Well, Shocking Graspm, Inflict Light Wounds, Chill Touch, and the like all say that they are melee touch attacks, which would imply that they are melee weapons,This does not imply it in the least. A touch attack is a melee attack as opposed to a ranged attack. It is still not a weapon, and certainly not a melee weapon.
CryoSilver 09-04-05, 09:16 PM	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. Touch: You must touch a creature or object to affect it. A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can. A touch spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit. Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch as many willing targets as you can reach as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell. “Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed. Table: Weapons Simple Weapons Cost Dmg (S) Dmg (M) Critical Range Increment Weight Type Unarmed Attacks Gauntlet 2 gp 1d2 1d3 x2 — 1 lb. Bludgeoning Unarmed strike — 1d2 1d3 x2 — — Bludgeoning Based on these various snippets from our good friend the SRD, I propose the following: You may CDG with a melee weapon. An unarmed strike is a melee weapon. You may deliver a touch spell as an unarmed strike, and what's more, count as armed. Therefore, you may CDG with a touch spell. (Sorry, don't know how to do code for the table) So, once we get that all cleared up, could you CdG an ally with Cure Light Wounds to get double the healing? Oh, and I did a thread on sneak attacking your allies with cure spells to heal them more, and got a resounding no, so I don't think you could crit or CDG your heal spells. Of course, maybe your DM would let you, but then you have the chance to miss and waste the spell (if making the roll).
Shatteredtower 09-04-05, 11:47 PM	By this point it appears that some folks are being intentionally obtuse. :PNo, intentionally reasonable. :P There is a difference between "using something as a weapon" and "a melee weapon".Not when I'm using a weapon-like spell, one that benefits from critical hits and Weapon Focus. Sure, these can be used as a weapon. But a melee weapon has a specific game-mechanics definition. And a spell, even a damage-causing spell, does not fall within that definition.Show me where a spell that requires a touch attack does not fall within that definition. The spell is your weapon and the default for a touch attack would make it a hand-held weapon. Sounds like a melee weapon to me. Shatteredtower, would you allow a Spirited Charge with an Inflict Wound spell?Interesting question, one that I hadn't considered. I admit that I could not see the Spirited Charge in the same light, but that requires a look at intent, rather than just RAW. Spirited Charge involves hitting a target harder, which has no bearing on spell damage. Regrettably, the RAW do not take this into account, which means I have to consider how it would operate. Coup de grace, on the other hand, has everything to do with how you line up the shot, more to do with critical hit mechanics (which are relevant to weapon-like spells) than how hard you hit. If it did, you would not be able to use a crossbow at all to perform critical hits. According to the Monster Manual Glossary Definition of "natural weapon":Oh, sure; ignore the point when I bring it up. :P Natural weapons are weapons.Not good enough. Coup de grace requires a melee weapon, which the glossary defines as hand-held. Combined, these are definitionally equivalent to that of a "melee weapon".No, they don't, because you have failed to address the fact that a melee weapon is defined as hand-held. Like a touch spell, a natural weapon is defined as an armed, unarmed defense (PHB, pg 139). Now I've got no problem with the notion of using a natural weapon for a coup de grace, but it goes against the same strict reading of the RAW that a prohibition on spells that require a touch attack does. So if we're going to allow one but not the other, I would like to see a reasonable cause given for the exclusion. It's not like shocking grasp exceeds a good shot from a barbarian with a greataxe or a rogue with just about anything.
Odin_666 09-05-05, 02:45 AM	Some of you guys argue that monsters who can only use natural weapons could not CdG by the wording in the players handbook (which is mainly worded for players that play normal characters). But if you allow those creatures to CdG with their natural weapons, what has this to do with the discussion if you can CdG with spells? Nothing! These are two completly different Questions... So why don't you simple discuss (even if I think there is not much to discuss) if you can CdG with spells. For the thing with the touch spells: There is nothing that prevents you from making a CdG unarmed (if you consider this as a melee weapon) and deliver a touch spell the same time. But only because these thinks happen simultaneously does not mean, that they influence each other. So check the CdG from your unarmed strike and afterwards apply the spell.
Mirtek 09-05-05, 05:38 AM	Natural weapons are weapons. They are considered a "melee attack" The creature is considered armed. Combined, these are definitionally equivalent to that of a "melee weapon" The caster delivering a touch spell makes a melee attack and he is considered armed
Egres 09-05-05, 07:38 AM	Interesting question, one that I hadn't considered. I admit that I could not see the Spirited Charge in the same light, but that requires a look at intent, rather than just RAW. We are debating about RAW here. If you don't allow Spirited Charge+Inflict Critical Wounds, you can't allow a CdG with that spell. Tertium non datur.
CryoSilver 09-05-05, 08:11 AM	Well then let the cleric Spirited Charge with an ICW; he spent three feats and a fourth level spell to that, didn't he?
Callista 09-05-05, 08:26 AM	Any spell you can normally make a critical hit with counts as a spell usable in a coup de grace.That seems like a valid house-rule. It's not like your basic wizard with no weapons can't just use an unarmed attack made for lethal damage, though--even that small amount of damage will force a Fort save. If he wants to use a spell slot for that purpose, I don't see that it would be too powerful; a wizard without any weapons doesn't perform coup de graces often enough for it to matter much.
CryoSilver 09-05-05, 08:29 AM	The way I see it, anyone being CDGed is pretty much screwed: if the fighter does it, he'll deal an onscene amount of damage with his uber-sword and feats that boost it's damage. If the rogue does it, he gets sneak attack. Ifthe cleric does it, he's got so many buffs he matches the fighter for power. And if the wizard does it: well, I don't see how his maximized shocking grasp is much worse than the above.
Seeker95 09-05-05, 08:49 AM	The caster delivering a touch spell makes a melee attack and he is considered armedI am reversing my position on this issue. Touch spells are treated as touch attacks. Touch attacks can be made either melee or ranged. Touch attacks with a spell do not draw an AoO. So, spells that cause damage and can crit can be used for coup de grace if the caster is adjacent to the foe, assuming the foe is considered subject to a coup in the first place. Thanks for the moment of clarity, Mirtek.
Egres 09-05-05, 08:53 AM	Well then let the cleric Spirited Charge with an ICW; he spent three feats and a fourth level spell to that, didn't he? Good. An automatic crit with a touch spell. Come on.... You can't make CdG with touch spells. Heck, by the RAW you can't make CdG with unarmed strikes too.
Shatteredtower 09-05-05, 09:25 AM	We are debating about RAW here.Yeah, no foolin'. I addressed that several times already. If you don't allow Spirited Charge+Inflict Critical Wounds, you can't allow a CdG with that spell.You have it backward. If I recognize a CdG with a spell, it would be consistent ot allow Spirited Charge + Inflict Critical Wounds. I've already stated that I'm personally ruling against the latter, which renders your point moot. Now address my points or concede.
Seeker95 09-05-05, 11:23 AM	Now address my points or concede.That approach is likely to get you nowhere fast, leaving you unjustifiably boasting that he conceded if he chooses to ignore you for attitude. Presenting your points is the best you can do in any discussion online. Demanding that someone else acknowledge your points is going over the line. About the only demand you can make of someone else is that they represent your point accurately if they choose to quote or paraphrase your words.
Phrennzy 09-05-05, 12:32 PM	I am reversing my position on this issue. Touch spells are treated as touch attacks. Touch attacks can be made either melee or ranged. Touch attacks with a spell do not draw an AoO. So, spells that cause damage and can crit can be used for coup de grace if the caster is adjacent to the foe, assuming the foe is considered subject to a coup in the first place. Thanks for the moment of clarity, Mirtek. Don't you love when one little sentence pulls everything else together? I agree with Seeker here. Damaging spells that can crit, and caster must be adjacent.
Mind Rogue 09-05-05, 01:24 PM	Or at least spells that you can hold the charge with, since the full-round action to CdG would have to be separate then the casting of the spell, and of course they need to follow all the rules of CdG, although perhaps some of the ranged spells would also be allowed, much like you would allow a CdG with a firearm if they where in your campaign. Thus all area spells are out, but most touch spells are in. Now, if I understand correctly, you can't actually hold the charge on a ray, which would prevent them from being used for a CdG because you couldn't take the full round to attack with it. Even if I am wrong and you can hold the charge on a ray spell, though, you would still have to be adjacent to your victim because of the requirements of a coup de grace.
Branto 09-05-05, 02:14 PM	Now, if I understand correctly, you can't actually hold the charge on a ray, which would prevent them from being used for a CdG because you couldn't take the full round to attack with it. Uhhh.. making a single attack isn't a full round action, either, but a CdG is.. The part you're getting wrong is that you seem to think it has to take them a full round to actually swing the weapon or cast the spell.. On the contrary, the actual attack usually would take very little time.. part of that full-round is studying your opponent and actually finding the vulnerable spot. If you didn't take that time to study and just attacked/cast right away you wouldn't be doing an automatic critical. Thus, for using standard action spells, it is safe to assume that you study them for a few moments, and then start casting the spell after you find the spot. If it is a spell that takes a full round action anyways, I suppose you would have time to pick a spot to aim at while you are casting..
smrtgmp 09-05-05, 04:47 PM	Not true. It is considered an attack.Incorrect. It is concidered a weapon, which is why you can take weapon focus or weapon specialization for ranged touch attacks or touch attacks. From a RAW perspective, you are correct in that neither ranged touch spells or touch spells are listed in the weapons suitable for delivering a CdG. However, this seems like a needlessly harsh enforcement of the rules, IMO. If you can CdG someone from close range with a crossbow by putting it their face and pulling the trigger, I see no reason why you shouldn't allow a PC to do the same with, say, Polar Ray, especially if such spells are capable of the precision necessary to deliver a sneak attack. Note: I would not allow a CdG with a spell that did not require an attack roll.
Mind Rogue 09-05-05, 04:49 PM	Uhhh.. making a single attack isn't a full round action, either, but a CdG is.. The part you're getting wrong is that you seem to think it has to take them a full round to actually swing the weapon or cast the spell.. On the contrary, the actual attack usually would take very little time.. part of that full-round is studying your opponent and actually finding the vulnerable spot. If you didn't take that time to study and just attacked/cast right away you wouldn't be doing an automatic critical. Thus, for using standard action spells, it is safe to assume that you study them for a few moments, and then start casting the spell after you find the spot. If it is a spell that takes a full round action anyways, I suppose you would have time to pick a spot to aim at while you are casting.. Yes, the rest of those six seconds are spent finding the vulnerable point, lining up the shot carefully, and then the little extra fancy flurish so that it goes in and out cleanly... but when you are casting the spell, you have to focus on that and not on lining it up carefully. Thus, you have to first charge your spell, then you can take the full-round to line it up and strike.
Egres 09-05-05, 06:32 PM	You have it backward. If I recognize a CdG with a spell, it would be consistent ot allow Spirited Charge + Inflict Critical Wounds. I've already stated that I'm personally ruling against the latter, which renders your point moot. Now address my points or concede. What should I address? If you don't allow Spirited Charge + ICW the game is over. No CdG with spells. You have no points at all.
CryoSilver 09-05-05, 07:17 PM	I would, on that point, say that you can't use ICW as a touch spell; that you have to try and deliver it as part of an unarmed strike, which is very much a balancing factor there, as your average cleric won't be very effective mounted. Youcan CDG (and consequently, Spirited Charge) with a melee touch spell when it is part of an unarmed strike, as per RAW. What's left argue over that isn't a house rule?
Vallah 09-05-05, 10:19 PM	Personally I'm with seeker on this one, the RAW are pretty clear that you need a meelee weapon (or spell like equivelant). That having been said if I were DM i would allow casters to use spells for a coup -by why on earth would you want to? sounds like the waste of a spell to me.....
smrtgmp 09-06-05, 01:26 AM	The reason is simple. A wizard or sorcerer cant effectively CdG with a weapon because they cant do enough damage. If they use a spell, even if the damage doesnt kill them outright it will force a nearly unmakable fort save.
Shatteredtower 09-06-05, 03:11 AM	If you don't allow Spirited Charge + ICW the game is over.No, it's not. If I don't allow it, that has nothing to do with whether or not it's allowed. See the difference? If I don't allow it, I'm house-ruling, but by the rules, there's no reason not to allow it. I've got reasonable cause for the house rule, but it's still a house rule. (Or are you arguing that Spirited Charge involves the same sort of precision damage given to a sneak attack or critical hit?) And since it's a house rule, it has nothing to do with whether or not you can use a touch spell for a coup de grace. So let's answer this question without the house rule. Yes, it is permitted to make a touch attack while making a Spirited Charge. Does this seem too generous? Well, no, since in order to cast a spell while charging (even if the mount is charging for you), you have to quicken it. (I refer you to the rules for a charge on pp 154-55 of the PHB. The section on lances and charge attacks makes it pretty clear that the mounted character, not just the mount, is performing the charge.) So at the cost of three feats, the caster gives up the option to use a spell in the same round it's cast to deliver it in the second round, unless he's also put a fourth feat into Quicken Spell. If he misses on the attack roll, he must either try to charge a new opponent, perform the attack for normal damage, or spend two rounds lining up another charge (since he needs to ride away from his foe, then back again). So as long as he hits, great, but the tactic is hardly worth three, maybe four feats, delaying your attack by one round, and the consequences of missing. You'd be better off either just casting two ranged spells at your enemy from horseback, or going at him on foot for that touch spell attack in the first round, with the option to cast a second spell in the next round, should you survive. Now doesn't that sound pretty balanced? I still wouldn't allow it, but that is because a Spirited Charge doesn't cause precision based damage, while a coup de grace does (among other things). You'd use the former against a construct, but not the latter. Nevertheless, that's my house rule, and we're not arguing house rules. This brings up a point in regard to the problem with using a touch spell to perform a coup de grace: you can't cast the spell and perform the coup de grace in the same round unless you quicken the spell, because coup de grace is a full-round action. This would appear to rule out the use of rays as a viable means by which to line up a coup de grace. I feel it would be a reasonable house rule to allow the option, but it's tricky to determine how you'd put it together, even with the option to take a standard action in each of two rounds to perform the coup de grace (since you can't complete it without casting the spell, which is yet another standard action). You have no points at all.Untrue, as demonstrated. You've merely ignored them, not demonstrated their inaccuracy. But let's try a few more. Which of these can be used to perform a coup de grace: 1. A dragon's bite. 2. A sling stone used as an improvised melee weapon. 3. A magmin's burning touch. 4. A wraith's incorporeal touch. 5. Shocking grasp. According to this hyperliteral reading of the RAW, the answer is only #2, which can still be used to insane effect by a rogue or raging barbarian. But if you allow #1 (and is there a sensible reason not to, aside from a need to make the RAW say you clearly can't do it), you have to allow #3-5 as well, since they're all hand-held and used to make melee attacks. How do you address these issues?
Egres 09-06-05, 09:47 AM	Untrue, as demonstrated. You've merely ignored them, not demonstrated their inaccuracy. But let's try a few more. Which of these can be used to perform a coup de grace: 1. A dragon's bite. 2. A sling stone used as an improvised melee weapon. 3. A magmin's burning touch. 4. A wraith's incorporeal touch. 5. Shocking grasp. According to this hyperliteral reading of the RAW, the answer is only #2, which can still be used to insane effect by a rogue or raging barbarian. But if you allow #1 (and is there a sensible reason not to, aside from a need to make the RAW say you clearly can't do it), you have to allow #3-5 as well, since they're all hand-held and used to make melee attacks. How do you address these issues? No one. There aren't melee weapons between the attacks you listed. There aren't "weapons designed for close combat".
Mind Rogue 09-06-05, 10:32 AM	Okay, how about this list? 1.) Spear 2.) Javelin (as melee) 3.) Table Leg (as improvised melee) 4.) Earth Elemental's Slam 5.) Fire Elemental's Slam 6.) Inflict Critical Wounds
Shatteredtower 09-06-05, 12:22 PM	No one. There aren't melee weapons between the attacks you listed. There aren't "weapons designed for close combat".Like a club, you mean? A dragon's bite is most certainly designed for close combat, as are touch spells that have an offensive capacity, which is why you don't provoke attacks of opportunity for using one. But for some reason, you can perform a coup de grace with a club (a weapon anyone can make at no cost), but you can't bash someone's head in with a rock, regardless of how big the rock is. And if a half-dragon put on a gauntlet, why suddenly the claws that couldn't perform a coup de grace on a helpless target are much more lethal. The entire line of reasoning offered in the previous paragraph is dubious, which is why I can't condone the hyper-literalist treatment. Oh, in the interest of accuracy, I must confess to having made one error with the mounted touch attack. Since Ride-By Attack is a prerequisite to Spirited Charge, you can continue to perform the charging touch attack round after round. I don't see that as much of a problem, though, since it still took two rounds to set this up, and you won't get your second attack until round three, giving your opponent three rounds to have a go at you or your mount.
Egres 09-06-05, 12:44 PM	Okay, how about this list? 1.) Spear 2.) Javelin (as melee) 3.) Table Leg (as improvised melee) 4.) Earth Elemental's Slam 5.) Fire Elemental's Slam 6.) Inflict Critical Wounds 1) Ok All the others: No. Heck, you can't perform a CdG with an unarmed strike: why should you be able to perform a CdG with a touch spell?
Egres 09-06-05, 12:46 PM	A dragon's bite is most certainly designed for close combat, as are touch spells that have an offensive capacity, which is why you don't provoke attacks of opportunity for using one. I have never seen a handheld dragon's bite. Not to mention that even a monk's unarmed strike is quite effective in melee, but it can't perform CdG nonetheless.
Phrennzy 09-06-05, 03:37 PM	So, Egres, you are saying that a dragon cannot commit a Coup De Grace?
Egres 09-06-05, 05:18 PM	So, Egres, you are saying that a dragon cannot commit a Coup De Grace? Not by the RAW. It can, obviously, in my game. But... I've got reasonable cause for the house rule, but it's still a house rule.
malrick 09-06-05, 05:32 PM	by the raw we can CDG with pistol, that is stupid you ever try to non fatality shoot someone(and no not yet)? this look like its turning into another wizards vs fighter thread (remember the enemy are the clerics and druids, if you want compare how REALLY shortchanged you are). if sneak attack can be added to it then by rights it should be to CDG.
mvincent 09-06-05, 06:27 PM	Heck, you can't perform a CdG with an unarmed strike: Correct. I'm not positive that applies to monks or natural weapons though (especially considering that a Monk's unarmed strike can be considered a manufactured weapon). Yes, the rules say: "you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace" And while the glossery defines melee weapon as "a handheld weapon designed for close combat", I'm not postive that was meant to be all encompassing, or meant to exclude natural weapons that are used for melee. As for guns: interestingly this is not an issue in d20 modern, as there (http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/msrd/msrdcombat.rtf) any ranged weapon can CdG. d20 modern also allows you to do knockout blows with unarmed or other non-lethal attacks.
malrick 09-06-05, 07:50 PM	in FR the there are guns in certain areas, it refers to DMG page 162 i think, the FR books and the DMG are the DMs and thus are not here for me to doudle check.
Shatteredtower 09-07-05, 02:47 AM	I have never seen a handheld dragon's bite.Neither have I, which is why I've spoken against the hyperliteralist interpretation. How about a dragon's claw? I mean, if you prohibit them, I can guarantee you'll see dragons clutching one claw in the other, or wielding their jaws two-handed. ;) Still, when the issue is touch spells, they appear to meet both the design and hand-held requirements. Not to mention that even a monk's unarmed strike is quite effective in melee, but it can't perform CdG nonetheless.And yet if you slap a gauntlet on the monk's hand, he can do so, despite how much this reduces the efficacy of their attack forms. This reading doesn't appear to add up.
JTalbain 09-07-05, 05:19 AM	First off, if you turn to page 121 in the PHB, you will see the following under the description of Unarmed Strike: An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Question 1: Can you use a light weapon to perform a Coup de Grace? Proof 1: An Unarmed Strike is always considered a light weapon. 2: A light weapon can be used to perform a CDG. 3: An unarmed strike can be used to perform a CDG. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Next, turning to p. 139 in the PHB, under Unarmed Attacks, we can see the following: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and headbutts is much like a melee attack, except for the following. Since it states that Unarmed Attacks are "like" a melee attack, it can be deduced that by melee attack, they mean an attack with a melee weapon. Continuing down two headings... Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat (page 96), a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with claws fangs and similar natural physical weapons all count as being armed. This indicates that a creature using natural weapons and a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell count as unarmed attacks. Continuing through the heading of Unarmed attacks, the mention of CDGs is totally absent. Question 2: Can Natural Weapons or spells which require a melee touch attack be used to perform a CDG? Proof 1: Unarmed attacks are treated exactly like other melee attacks except in specific ways. 2: Unarmed attacks are not specifically restricted from performing Coup de Graces. 3: Unarmed attacks can perform Coup de Graces. 4: Natural Weapons and Touch Attack spells are specifically mentioned as examples of unarmed attacks. 5: Natural Weapons and Touch Attack spells can be used to perform Coup de Graces. ----------------------- Next turn to page 134 of the PHB, and read the paragraph beginning with Multiplying Damage. It says. Sometimes you multiply damage for some factor, such as on a critical hit. Roll the damage (with all modifiers) multiple times and total the results. Below this a couple of lines though, it has a caveat: Exception: Extra damage dice over and above a weapon's normal damage, such as that dealt by a sneak attack or the special ability of a flaming sword are never multiplied. Question 3: Do you multiply the effects of a touch attack spell which is delivered via a melee critical hit or Spirited Charge? Proof 1: A critical hit multiplies the damage of an attack. 2: The Spirited Charge feat multiplies the damage of certain attacks. 3: A spell delivered via an attack is an unarmed strike. 4: An unarmed strike can critically hit. 5: An unarmed strike can be used in conjunction with Spirited Charge. 6: A Touch Attack spell's damage is multiplied when a critical hit is scored or when it is used in conjunction with Spirited Charge. I have to admit, I didn't think that the rules would say that when I started looking it up, but it looks like you can use Shocking Grasp with Spirited Charge to deliver double damage. Bloody hell. That's cool. 20 bucks says somebody's character thinks to call the move "Thunderclap" and make it their signature move. :D I'm so going to have to make a mounted sorceror with Spirited Charge now. It would actually be a cool concept for an Eldritch Knight... ---------------- I'll do more proofs later, but it's 5 in the morning. That's enough for now.
Egres 09-07-05, 08:19 AM	Neither have I, which is why I've spoken against the hyperliteralist interpretation. How about a dragon's claw? I mean, if you prohibit them, I can guarantee you'll see dragons clutching one claw in the other, or wielding their jaws two-handed. Still, when the issue is touch spells, they appear to meet both the design and hand-held requirements. Quote: Originally Posted by Egres Not to mention that even a monk's unarmed strike is quite effective in melee, but it can't perform CdG nonetheless. And yet if you slap a gauntlet on the monk's hand, he can do so, despite how much this reduces the efficacy of their attack forms. This reading doesn't appear to add up. Shatteredtower, I agree with you. But we are debating about RAW here. 2: A light weapon can be used to perform a CDG. Absolutely wrong. A melee weapon. Your argument is flawed. Since it states that Unarmed Attacks are "like" a melee attack, it can be deduced that by melee attack, they mean an attack with a melee weapon. Continuing down two headings... Even more wrong. From the PHB Glossary: melee attack A physical attack suitable for close combat. No melee weapons involved. Heck, by your reasoning a monk couldn't make melee attacks with his unarmed strikes. Unarmed attacks can perform Coup de Graces. No proof here. It's a wrong, unproved assumption. I'm not challenging you: I'm only underlining a stupid RAW, but still RAW.
Seeker95 09-07-05, 11:02 AM	edit: deleted. Although quoted, my point is no longer needed.
Egres 09-07-05, 05:55 PM	Egres, please use less inflammatory language when making your points. You'll get further in your argument. You're right. Adjusted.
Shatteredtower 09-07-05, 10:54 PM	Egres, I will go so far as to admit that the section on coup de grace should certainly have been worded better, because your interpretation (no natural attacks) is the most literal one to reach. I'd also prefer wording in Spirited Charge that prohibits charging touch attacks, not out of concern for touch spells seeing use in such circumstances, but because I suspect someone will eventually find a way to really break that with a monster at some point.
Molitor 09-07-05, 11:13 PM	Yes, but any spell which requires an attack roll and deals damage of any sort is concidered to be a weapon. I think it would work. First off, Greetings "smrtgmp". I agree with this post above. Also........ A touch spell can be used to grant flank, threaten, you're even considered armed with the spell in holding........explain how this is not a "weapon". And don't say "cause it's a spell". I want more than that. Or look at it intelligently. With a CDG your intent is to kill the guy, right? So which would be more deadly.....a whip(yes it's a weapon and the RAW doesn't mention whether the weapon has to do lethal damage) or vampiric touch?
smrtgmp 09-07-05, 11:29 PM	hello to you too. :)
Egres 09-08-05, 05:28 AM	explain how this is not a "weapon". And don't say "cause it's a spell". I want more than that. Because it's not a "handheld weapon designed for close combat".
Shatteredtower 09-08-05, 06:37 AM	Because it's not a "handheld weapon designed for close combat".It's in the hand and clearly designed for close combat. What makes you claim it's not?
Egres 09-08-05, 07:05 AM	It's in the hand and clearly designed for close combat. What makes you claim it's not?You can deliver a touch spell with an open hand too. Not to mention that, if an unarmed strike isn't a melee weapon, how can we claim a touch attack to be so?
wonlee76 09-08-05, 10:39 AM	To the OP. Yes, I would allow spells requiring attack rolls to be used for a coup de grace if that spellcaster is next to the helpless victim. However, casting a spell is typically a standard action so it would take 2 rounds essentially for the spellcaster to coup de grace the victim. 1 round to get the spell charged and ready, and the full round action to do the coup de grace.
Molitor 09-08-05, 07:37 PM	Because it's not a "handheld weapon designed for close combat". It looks like you are just trying to be difficult! The victim of vamp touch might take as much as 10d6(average 35) damage. Not including feats, which could get damage in the hundreds. Yet a whip could deal only 2 damage after the crit from the CDG. Hell you can say your using your touch spell as an improvised weapon and "that" is in the rules. My point is that as a DM I don't see a problem with it. One should look at the "intent" of the rules. When you pull up to a stop sign you stop right? You don't spend the rest of you life there, waiting.....do you? Does someone need to come up and paint a big "go" on the sign for you to leave? Do you really need everything pointed out to you in the rules? If you do that's fine............. By the way Mr/Mrs/Ms Egres, I mean NO disrespect by this post. Or you could just read page 140 and 141 of the PHB where they desribe touch attacks as "considered to be an armed attack". So you see it's been there the whole time.
JTalbain 09-08-05, 08:07 PM	First off, if you look on page 112 in the PHB, they have a section titled weapon categories. All weapons must fall into one of the categories from each given group. One of the groups is "Melee and Ranged Weapons", and the very first paragraph is: "Melee weapons are used for making melee attacks, though some of them can be thrown as well. Ranged weapons are thrown weapons or projectile weapons that are not effective in melee." Every weapon either makes melee attacks or ranged attacks. Since an unarmed strike has been shown to be a light weapon, something you did not deny, it is by definition a weapon. Since it is used to make melee attacks, it is considered a melee weapon. There is no listing for unarmed weaponry, therefore, it would have to be assumed that unarmed strikes are not weapons at all, except of course they are listed as always being a light weapon. On top of that, if you go to the equipment on page 116, Unarmed strikes are listed on the weapons chart, under the listing Unarmed Attacks, which is listed with the rest of the melee weapons. Further, you have admitted that Unarmed Strikes are a light weapon. If you scan down the page, you will see the heading: Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons. There is no equivalent heading for ranged weapons, therefore "Light Weapon" is a distinction for melee weapons only. If it is a light weapon, it must be a melee weapon. The definition you gave for melee weapon is word for word straight out of the glossary in the PHB. A glossary is intended for quick reference, and will therefore not give every single detail for any particular entry. Here's an example: rogue (Rog): A class made up of characters who primarily rely on stealth rather than brute force or magical ability. Does that mean if I play a Half-Orc with nothing but Rogue levels who wields two weapons, and specializes in tripping or disabling in order to take advantage of sneak attack, generally openly killing anyone in his way, that he is not a Rogue? He relies primarily on brute force, which by the glossary definition means he doesn't qualify. Yet if you ask the player his class, he would say "Rogue" and no one would disagree. Why is that? What about a Rogue that has maxxed out Use Magic Device, dual wield Holy Avengers, which he convinces hourly that he is really a paladin, and is covered in scrolls and wands which give him virtually any useful spell you can think of. Is he suddenly not a Rogue because he relies on magical ability? Your argument is at the core flawed because it is relying on two quick reference definitions, when in fact there are pages of additional information. Next, when I said that the PHB said Unarmed Strikeswere "like a melee attack", I misquoted. It actually says "Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:" An inability to coup de grace is not listed as one of the differences, therefore it is not a difference. Finally, the reason why I didn't have a proof for the statement "Unarmed Strikes can perform coup de graces.", was because I had already proven this earlier in my post. I felt no need to repeat my self when readers could just scroll up.
Molitor 09-08-05, 08:24 PM	First off, if you look on page 112 in the PHB, they have a section titled weapon categories. All weapons must fall into one of the categories from each given group. One of the groups is "Melee and Ranged Weapons", and the very first paragraph is: "Melee weapons are used for making melee attacks, though some of them can be thrown as well. Ranged weapons are thrown weapons or projectile weapons that are not effective in melee." Every weapon either makes melee attacks or ranged attacks. Since an unarmed strike has been shown to be a light weapon, something you did not deny, it is by definition a weapon. Since it is used to make melee attacks, it is considered a melee weapon. There is no listing for unarmed weaponry, therefore, it would have to be assumed that unarmed strikes are not weapons at all, except of course they are listed as always being a light weapon. On top of that, if you go to the equipment on page 116, Unarmed strikes are listed on the weapons chart, under the listing Unarmed Attacks, which is listed with the rest of the melee weapons. Further, you have admitted that Unarmed Strikes are a light weapon. If you scan down the page, you will see the heading: Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons. There is no equivalent heading for ranged weapons, therefore "Light Weapon" is a distinction for melee weapons only. If it is a light weapon, it must be a melee weapon. The definition you gave for melee weapon is word for word straight out of the glossary in the PHB. A glossary is intended for quick reference, and will therefore not give every single detail for any particular entry. Here's an example: rogue (Rog): A class made up of characters who primarily rely on stealth rather than brute force or magical ability. Does that mean if I play a Half-Orc with nothing but Rogue levels who wields two weapons, and specializes in tripping or disabling in order to take advantage of sneak attack, generally openly killing anyone in his way, that he is not a Rogue? He relies primarily on brute force, which by the glossary definition means he doesn't qualify. Yet if you ask the player his class, he would say "Rogue" and no one would disagree. Why is that? What about a Rogue that has maxxed out Use Magic Device, dual wield Holy Avengers, which he convinces hourly that he is really a paladin, and is covered in scrolls and wands which give him virtually any useful spell you can think of. Is he suddenly not a Rogue because he relies on magical ability? Your argument is at the core flawed because it is relying on two quick reference definitions, when in fact there are pages of additional information. Next, when I said that the PHB said Unarmed Strikeswere "like a melee attack", I misquoted. It actually says "Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:" An inability to coup de grace is not listed as one of the differences, therefore it is not a difference. Finally, the reason why I didn't have a proof for the statement "Unarmed Strikes can perform coup de graces.", was because I had already proven this earlier in my post. I felt no need to repeat my self when readers could just scroll up. Who are you responding to? :confused:
Seeker95 09-08-05, 10:35 PM	Who are you responding to? :confused:Wouldn't the first line or two have been enough of a quote to get the idea of what post you are referencing? :P
JTalbain 09-09-05, 03:41 AM	Sorry about that. I've never figured out how to make quotes from someone else's post. :embarrass I was responding to Egres.
smrtgmp 09-09-05, 03:55 AM	Its very easy. Press the quote button on the bottom right hand corner of the post you want to quote.
JTalbain 09-09-05, 04:55 AM	Its very easy. Press the quote button on the bottom right hand corner of the post you want to quote. Ah, that's how that works. I didn't realize you had to push that before starting your reply. Yay! Learned something for the day :D
Egres 09-09-05, 04:56 AM	By the way Mr/Mrs/Ms Egres, I mean NO disrespect by this post. Mr Egres.:) Or you could just read page 140 and 141 of the PHB where they desribe touch attacks as "considered to be an armed attack". So you see it's been there the whole time. Yes. Armed. But not with a melee weapon.;) First off, if you look on page 112 in the PHB, they have a section titled weapon categories. All weapons must fall into one of the categories from each given group. One of the groups is "Melee and Ranged Weapons", and the very first paragraph is: Wrong. Check out the Weapon table. There are unarmed attacks, and , below, melee weapons, and after them ranged weapons. Since it is used to make melee attacks, it is considered a melee weapon. Wrong. Read the Glossary: you can make melee attacks without melee weapons. Further, you have admitted that Unarmed Strikes are a light weapon. Show me where. The definition you gave for melee weapon is word for word straight out of the glossary in the PHB. A glossary is intended for quick reference, and will therefore not give every single detail for any particular entry. Thats' why I'm suggesting you to look at the Weapon table. He relies primarily on brute force, which by the glossary definition means he doesn't qualify. Yet if you ask the player his class, he would say "Rogue" and no one would disagree. Why is that? Bah, what an odd reply. If you have 10d6 of sneak attack, how did you get them? Practicing with your "brute force"? :rolleyes: What kind of DM do you have?
JTalbain 09-09-05, 05:45 AM	Of course it's an odd reply, it's also an odd character concept. But that doesn't change the fact that it's still a rogue. Dismissing the argument doesn't counter it. First off, where does dealing obscene amounts of damage and attacking 5 times a round come into the definition of stealth? I would say that if a person specializes in knocking you down and hacking you into little pieces, he's very much a brute force character. He knows where to slice in the right spot to cause the maximum amount of damage. Doesn't make him necessarily stealthy about it. In fact the strategy would operate just as well if he were screaming at the top of his lungs while doing so and had absolutely no ranks in hide or move silently. Precision does not equal stealth. Besides which, you dodged the point. The point is even though that character would be atypical and in disagreement with the glossary definition of rogue, he would still be a rogue. I haven't personally played the character or made him, I just know that such a build is a possibility, so don't try to blame my DM for what the rules say work. It's quite disrespectful, especially considering if we tried the same tactic with your argument, we would have all called you a moron and gone home. Second, almost all of my points were not intended to be made by themselves, and you took them out of context and away from their supporting evidence in order to support your own claims. For instance "Since it is used to make melee attacks it is a melee weapon." was preceded by saying that unarmed strikes are considered light weapons, light weapon is a distinction specifically for melee weapons, all weapons are either melee or ranged weapons, and that since unarmed strikes are used to make melee attacks, they are a melee weapon. Your post makes no mention of them however, effectively skipping to the conclusion, pointing, and saying "Nuh-uh!!" Since the chain of evidence supports that conclusion, you have to address it at somepoint in order to actually counter the argument. By the way, I admit I was wrong, you didn't admit that unarmed strikes were light weapons, instead you dodged the point entirely. Even your response to this ("Show me where.") doesn't actually adress the claim that melee attacks are always considered light weapons. So do you agree that melee attacks are considered light weapons or not? If you do, that logical train continues unhindered. By the way, your weapon's table argument is flawed at best. Considering your argument that Unarmed Strikes are not weapons, and are instead unarmed strikes, the fact that you are telling me to look on the weapons chart to find them is kind of hypocritical. :rolleyes: In any case, the main logical train still remains. 1. An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. (Quite frankly, I'm tired of fighting for this point. Just reference it under the heading for Unarmed Strike in the glossary, or the same heading on page 121, and again under the heading for Unarmed Attacks on page 139. It's in all three locations, clear as crystal, word for word.) 2. Light Weapon is a distinction for melee weapons only. (ignored point) 3. A weapon is either a melee weapon or a ranged weapon. If a weapon makes melee attacks, it is a melee weapon. (ignored point) 4. An Unarmed Strike is said to be like an attack with a melee weapon except in a few, listed, specific ways, of which the ability to inflict coup de graces is not mentioned. (ignored point) 5. An Unarmed Strike can be used to make Coup de Graces. There you go, very simple. 3 places where it says an unarmed strike is a light weapon, 2 places that prove it is a melee weapon, and yet another that shows that, even if it weren't a melee weapon, it could be used to coup de grace anyway.
Egres 09-09-05, 06:26 AM	Long posts, poor arguments. First off, where does dealing obscene amounts of damage and attacking 5 times a round come into the definition of stealth? I would say that if a person specializes in knocking you down and hacking you into little pieces, he's very much a brute force character. He knows where to slice in the right spot to cause the maximum amount of damage. Doesn't make him necessarily stealthy about it. In fact the strategy would operate just as well if he were screaming at the top of his lungs while doing so and had absolutely no ranks in hide or move silently. Precision does not equal stealth. Right. 8 skill points per level, d6 hit die, and so on. Yeah, a very brute character. Come on... Besides which, you dodged the point. The point is even though that character would be atypical and in disagreement with the glossary definition of rogue, he would still be a rogue. I haven't personally played the character or made him, I just know that such a build is a possibility, so don't try to blame my DM for what the rules say work. It's quite disrespectful, especially considering if we tried the same tactic with your argument, we would have all called you a moron and gone home. If your DM allows you to play without nothing to do with your charatcer is a moron. It's not my fault. If you have 10d6 sneak attacks, how did you learn to do so? How did you had move silently an hide in your class skills list? By the way, I admit I was wrong, you didn't admit that unarmed strikes were light weapons, instead you dodged the point entirely. Even your response to this ("Show me where.") doesn't actually adress the claim that melee attacks are always considered light weapons. So do you agree that melee attacks are considered light weapons or not? If you do, that logical train continues unhindered. Melee attacks are always light weapons? Uh? What? What's this crazyness going on? By the way, your weapon's table argument is flawed at best. Considering your argument that Unarmed Strikes are not weapons, and are instead unarmed strikes, the fact that you are telling me to look on the weapons chart to find them is kind of hypocritical. Nope. They are listed there because they need to classify them in order to establish what proficiency you need in order to use them effectively. Simple. 2. Light Weapon is a distinction for melee weapons only. (ignored point) Wrong point, not ignored. Look at the table, and you'll see light weapons that aren't melee ones. Come on, look at that f*****g table. If an unarmed strike is a weapon, why did they write this bit: WEAPON FOCUS [GENERAL] Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for purposes of this feat. If it was a weapon that bit would be meaningless. 3. A weapon is either a melee weapon or a ranged weapon. If a weapon makes melee attacks, it is a melee weapon. (ignored point) See above. 4. An Unarmed Strike is said to be like an attack with a melee weapon except in a few, listed, specific ways, of which the ability to inflict coup de graces is not mentioned. (ignored point) Like an attack with a melee weapon, but not a melee weapon. By your reasoning we could disarm an unarmed strike. :rolleyes: Heck, this proves that it's not a melee weapon, but you are still trying to state that it is a melee weapon. Funny, really funny. 5. An Unarmed Strike can be used to make Coup de Graces. Yeah, yeah... You have convinced me....
JTalbain 09-09-05, 07:06 AM	Does it say under the description of Rogue that you must take Hide and Move Silently in order to be considered a Rogue? They happen to have a great synergy with Sneak Attacking, but you are under no obligation to take them. You can be totally and utterly unstealthy, and sneak attack STILL works. The fact that you have lots of skill points is irrelevant, because your focus is still on the sneak attacks. Your d6 hit dice is irrelevant, because your relying on INFLICTING brute force, not taking it. And on top of that, the character is still a rogue. You are merely trying to dismiss the argument because of what you think is common sense, again an act of hypocrisy because YOUR entire argument relies on an ultra-literal interpretation of the rules which defies common sense. Okay I'm looking at the table. Where does it say any sort of other type of light weapon besides melee weapons? Care to illustrate? The table does not give other examples of light weapons besides melee weapons. The freaking shuriken, which weighs 1/10 pound, IS NOT considered a light weapon. If you can find a place on the chart where it gives an example of a non-melee weapon that is listed as light, feel free to point it out. Melee attacks are always light weapons? Uh? What? What's this crazyness going on? And while you have your PHB out to do that, why don't you try actually LOOKING at the page references I gave you to prove this point. WEAPON FOCUS [GENERAL] Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or ray (if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for the purposes of this feat. It doesn't say choose it to be enhanced as if it were weapon, it says to choose it AS a weapon. Maybe it is redundant text, intended to head off stupid arguments about how you can't enhance it because it's not a weapon, and in this case it had the opposite effect. Redundant text has a way of doing that, but it in no way proves the contrary is true. The disarm argument is totally off the mark. The reason you can't disarm an unarmed strike is because the strike DOESN'T EXIST except for the purposes of the attack. During the attack, it has all the properties of an attack with a melee weapon, except where noted. Really, you need to adress the point of unarmed attacks being considered light weapons with more than "Huh? What? Where?". I've shown you where and you've been too lazy to actually look at it.
Egres 09-09-05, 07:32 AM	Does it say under the description of Rogue that you must take Hide and Move Silently in order to be considered a Rogue? They happen to have a great synergy with Sneak Attacking, but you are under no obligation to take them. You can be totally and utterly unstealthy, and sneak attack STILL works. The fact that you have lots of skill points is irrelevant, because your focus is still on the sneak attacks. Your d6 hit dice is irrelevant, because your relying on INFLICTING brute force, not taking it. And on top of that, the character is still a rogue. You are merely trying to dismiss the argument because of what you think is common sense, again an act of hypocrisy because YOUR entire argument relies on an ultra-literal interpretation of the rules which defies common sense. Uhm? Humans eat and sleep. You decide to not eat or sleep, and you dre. Did you die as a human or as a pig? Okay I'm looking at the table. Where does it say any sort of other type of light weapon besides melee weapons? Care to illustrate? The table does not give other examples of light weapons besides melee weapons. The freaking shuriken, which weighs 1/10 pound, IS NOT considered a light weapon. If you can find a place on the chart where it gives an example of a non-melee weapon that is listed as light, feel free to point it out. And while you have your PHB out to do that, why don't you try actually LOOKING at the page references I gave you to prove this point. I see no page references. :confused: Really. WEAPON FOCUS [GENERAL] Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or ray (if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for the purposes of this feat. It doesn't say choose it to be enhanced as if it were weapon, it says to choose it AS a weapon. Maybe it is redundant text, intended to head off stupid arguments about how you can't enhance it because it's not a weapon, and in this case it had the opposite effect. Redundant text has a way of doing that, but it in no way proves the contrary is true. lol. Redundant text... By your reasoning even Grapple would be a weapon. :rolleyes: The disarm argument is totally off the mark. The reason you can't disarm an unarmed strike is because the strike DOESN'T EXIST except for the purposes of the attack. During the attack, it has all the properties of an attack with a melee weapon, except where noted. Uhm? Ready action: when my opponent tries to strike me, I disarm him. Then? Really, you need to adress the point of unarmed attacks being considered light weapons with more than "Huh? What? Where?". I've shown you where and you've been too lazy to actually look at it. They are considered light weapons. Right. Not melee ones. Okay I'm looking at the table. Where does it say any sort of other type of light weapon besides melee weapons? Care to illustrate? The table does not give other examples of light weapons besides melee weapons. The freaking shuriken, which weighs 1/10 pound, IS NOT considered a light weapon. If you can find a place on the chart where it gives an example of a non-melee weapon that is listed as light, feel free to point it out. Weren't you the one who said that unarmed strikes are considered light weapons? What a crazy debate...
JTalbain 09-09-05, 08:12 AM	Uhm? Humans eat and sleep. You decide to not eat or sleep, and you dre. Did you die as a human or as a pig? <SNIP ... please keep your comments polite and constructive. -- WizO the Hutt> If you had read the post I had given before, you would know what references I was talking about to unarmed strikes being light weapons. Let me refresh your memory: p. 139 under Unarmed Strike Damage: Unarmed strikes count as light weapons. p. 121 under Strike, Unarmed (paragraph 2): An Unarmed Strike is always considered a light weapon. p. 113 Right Column, 4th line: An Unarmed Strike is always considered a light weapon. Did you really not get the page references, or are you being deliberately obtuse? Yes by my reasoning, I suppose grapple could be considered a weapon, and thus used to perform a coup de grace. Except for the fact that Coup de Grace isn't an option listed under grappling. Yes, redundant text exists. If nothing else, look up a bit, I just gave you three locations where it says the same thing. Your fist doesn't morph into an unarmed strike because you're hitting someone with it. The unarmed strike is the blow itself. Feel free to ready action and cut your face off after he punches you. On top of that, disarm actually mentions knocking the weapon from the person's hand. It has to be an object that is in their hand to be eligible for disarm. It is not an object that is in their hand, mainly because it is not an object, and therefore is not eligible. Finally what's the point of your last points? I'm maintaining that the Unarmed Strike IS a melee weapon, and therefore belongs there. On top of that, you actually say "Right." In response to "they are light weapons", but then you completely ignore the fact only melee weapons have this distinction, instead trying to say that I said Unarmed Attacks are light weapons as your defense. If they are light weapons, and this is only a melee weapon distinction, then your last two points merely prove mine. Unarmed Strikes are melee weapons. And if you reread the question which prompted that (where you so elegantly told me to "read the :censored: chart"), I asked for a location where anything else was actually distinguished as a light weapon on the table. It does not say light unarmed attacks. The only two real points you've made lately were the wording of weapon focus and disarming. These aren't even good points: They're trying to address the topic indirectly by how other game mechanics would be influenced by interpretation, and the core of your argument supposedly lies within the literal meaning of the rules. Why don't you actually refute my arguments with logic that counters them directly?
Egres 09-09-05, 12:05 PM	Did not eating or sleeping make you sprout a hog nose and wallow in the mud? If not, you probably died as a human. A human many would consider utterly stupid, but a human nonetheless. If you had read the post I had given before, you would know what references I was talking about to unarmed strikes being light weapons. Let me refresh your memory: p. 139 under Unarmed Strike Damage: Unarmed strikes count as light weapons. p. 121 under Strike, Unarmed (paragraph 2): An Unarmed Strike is always considered a light weapon. p. 113 Right Column, 4th line: An Unarmed Strike is always considered a light weapon. Did you really not get the page references, or are you being deliberately obtuse? Light weapon. Not a melee one. Not to mention that unarmed strikes are considered, but aren't light weapons. Reread those paragraphs. On top of that, disarm actually mentions knocking the weapon from the person's hand. It has to be an object that is in their hand to be eligible for disarm. It is not an object that is in their hand, mainly because it is not an object, and therefore is not eligible. Mmh? Wasn't, for you, an unarmed strike a melee weapon, a handheld weapon? In response to "they are light weapons", but then you completely ignore the fact only melee weapons have this distinction, instead trying to say that I said Unarmed Attacks are light weapons as your defense. If they are light weapons, and this is only a melee weapon distinction, then your last two points merely prove mine. Unarmed Strikes are melee weapons. What a silly parrot: alway6s repeating the same mistake. They aren't light weapons: they are considered light weapons in order to benefit from feats like Power attack. Damn, can't you understand this simple point? Considered. Considered. Considered. Why don't you actually refute my arguments with logic that counters them directly? Uhm? You are always repeating the same mistakes, and I'm always showing how far from the rules your reasonings are. What else should I do?
JTalbain 09-09-05, 09:31 PM	Stooping to name-calling now are we? Considered a light weapon would mean it can be used to do anything that a light weapon can do, because it is for all intents a light weapon. Just like a natural weapon is "considered" to be an armed strike, a melee touch attack with a spell is "considered" to be an armed attack, and a punch from a person with Improved Unarmed Strike is "considered" to be an armed attack. Armed by definition means "using or in possession of a weapon", but even though they aren't actually using a weapon, they are "considered" to be using one. Forget using evidence, use a dictionary. Since you have YET AGAIN not addressed the point that "light weapon" is a distinction for melee weapons only, I will consider you to have dropped this point, just as you've dropped half the other points I've listed, trying to dismiss them without actual proof. For those that have actually been in a debate, that means you lost about 10 posts ago, and I've been continuing merely to humor you. No, I wasn't considering unarmed strikes to be a handheld weapon, you were. I was considering the definition of melee weapon from the glossary to be overly simplified. Want another example? How about the definition of light weapon? Light Weapon: A weapon suitable for use in the wielder's off-hand, such as a dagger. A light weapon is considered to be an object two sizes smaller than its designated wielder (for example, a Medium dagger is a tiny object). See that pesky "considered" word there again? Notice how later on in the definition, it is interchanged with "is"? An unarmed strike "is" a light weapon, just as a dagger "is" a tiny object. You're merely splitting hairs now. Debating the true meaning of the word "is" didn't help Bill Clinton, and it won't save you here. Basically, if it is "considered" to be a light weapon, it "is" a light weapon for the purposes of using it. There is no caveat stating that this distinction is only for the purposes of using feats. Therefore this lack of distinction means that it can be used for any use for which light weapons are suited, including a coup de grace.
Shatteredtower 09-10-05, 02:49 AM	You can deliver a touch spell with an open hand too. Not to mention that, if an unarmed strike isn't a melee weapon, how can we claim a touch attack to be so?Well, see, this isn't my problem. Both the touch attack and the touch spell are in hand -- or other appendage. They aren't the appendage, but are held within it. So again, how are they not eligible to perform a coup de grace when they are hand-held weapons designed for melee combat? By your reasoning we could disarm an unarmed strike. :rolleyes:This example doesn't work, I'm afraid. You can't disarm someone of spiked gauntlets, for example. Now for some reason the RAW don't mention an inability to disarm gauntlets, though if you're wearing medium or heavy armor (except for breastplate), the armor includes gauntlets and you can't disarm armor. Very curious. It's a good thing you didn't try to pick this argument apart with the example of attempts to sunder the unarmed strike, though. It's one time that hardness isn't a concern. ;)
Egres 09-10-05, 06:36 AM	Considered a light weapon would mean it can be used to do anything that a light weapon can do, because it is for all intents a light weapon. Just like a natural weapon is "considered" to be an armed strike, a melee touch attack with a spell is "considered" to be an armed attack, and a punch from a person with Improved Unarmed Strike is "considered" to be an armed attack. Armed by definition means "using or in possession of a weapon", but even though they aren't actually using a weapon, they are "considered" to be using one. Forget using evidence, use a dictionary. For the last time. The last. Light or one-handed are distinction used only for melee weapons. Right. But there are non-weapons, like an unarmed strike, that aren't melee weapons. So, there's a problem: how can we classify them for purposes of feats like Power Attack, or for opposed rolls? Easy: we classify them as light weapons. In fact, this is proved by two things: 1) The term "considered" 2) The fact that the table list them outside the melee weapons. Heck, if they were light melee weapons, why didn't they list in the right column? Come on, I agree with you that being not able to perform a CdG with an unarmed strike is silly, but we are debating about RAW here. Well, see, this isn't my problem. Both the touch attack and the touch spell are in hand -- or other appendage. They aren't the appendage, but are held within it. So again, how are they not eligible to perform a coup de grace when they are hand-held weapons designed for melee combat? Nowhere I read that they are in hand. If I can deliver something with my open hand, even unintentionally, how can you say that it's something "handheld", and "designed for close combat"? This example doesn't work, I'm afraid. You can't disarm someone of spiked gauntlets, for example. Now for some reason the RAW don't mention an inability to disarm gauntlets, though if you're wearing medium or heavy armor (except for breastplate), the armor includes gauntlets and you can't disarm armor. Very curious. It's a good thing you didn't try to pick this argument apart with the example of attempts to sunder the unarmed strike, though. It's one time that hardness isn't a concern. Meaningless. I was only showing that there are many things that aren't explicitly prohibited and aren't possible nonetheless, as you are showing with the Sunder example.
Mind Rogue 09-10-05, 11:53 AM	But, as has already been stated before, the term "considered" means that the thing really is one of those for game purposes except for the specific exceptions that are given there. Thus, when it says that an unarmed strike is considered to be a light weapon, it means that the unarmed strike really is a light weapon. Oh, and here is a definition for considered (dictionary.com) 2. To think or deem to be; regard as. See Usage Note at as. Since forming an opinion or pondering heavily don't fit in the sentence, this is the definition that should be used here, then the unarmed strike really is (not just similar to) a light weapon and the damage it deals really is (not just thought to be) weapon damage. Since you yourself just said that 'light weapon' is a classification for only melee weapons, the Unarmed Strike must be a melee weapon and be capable of a coup de grace.
Molitor 09-10-05, 11:59 AM	Or you could just read page 140 and 141 of the PHB where they desribe touch attacks as "considered to be an armed attack". So you see it's been there the whole time. Mr. Egres....what does the word "armed" mean to you? That's the point, that's it, that's all of it. Nothing more there than that one question.
Purkake 09-10-05, 12:08 PM	Yay, this has now turned into the: Try to argue with Egres, to prove that the not-so-well written rules allow CdG with a bunch of stuff. Rules are written poorly, you are free to change that in your games. Happy sportin' Egres ;) and go RAW
Egres 09-10-05, 02:04 PM	But, as has already been stated before, the term "considered" means that the thing really is one of those for game purposes except for the specific exceptions that are given there. Thus, when it says that an unarmed strike is considered to be a light weapon, it means that the unarmed strike really is a light weapon. Oh, and here is a definition for considered (dictionary.com) 2. To think or deem to be; regard as. See Usage Note at as. Since forming an opinion or pondering heavily don't fit in the sentence, this is the definition that should be used here, then the unarmed strike really is (not just similar to) a light weapon and the damage it deals really is (not just thought to be) weapon damage. Since you yourself just said that 'light weapon' is a classification for only melee weapons, the Unarmed Strike must be a melee weapon and be capable of a coup de grace. Mind Rogue, are you a human or are you considered a human? Besides that, I wonder why no one tries to reply to my observation: why did they list the unarmed strike outside the melee weapons list? Come on. Mr. Egres....what does the word "armed" mean to you? That's the point, that's it, that's all of it. Nothing more there than that one question. Uhm? Armed? That doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity and threatens the area around it.
Mind Rogue 09-10-05, 02:15 PM	Mind Rogue, are you a human or are you considered a human? Both. I am deemed to be, regarded as, and considered to be a human, a humanoid, warm-blooded, and a mammal because I am all of those things.
Purkake 09-10-05, 03:20 PM	So they DO let you out of the CoCo area? :D
The Abominable Darkling 09-10-05, 03:20 PM	This is nuts. Are you two really arguing incompatible positions here? Can't you both agree to the following? 1. As written, the coup-de-grace rules limit the ways it can be done more than they should (and more than the designers intended). 2. A reasonable DM will allow other forms of coup-de-grace so long as they are sufficiently similar to an explicitly allowed form. Where "sufficiently similar" is a subjective judgement on the part of that DM.
smrtgmp 09-10-05, 03:22 PM	I agree with The Abominable Darkling.
JTalbain 09-10-05, 04:58 PM	Yes it is an incompatible position. It basically boils down to Egres says that Unarmed Strikes can't be used for CDG, and others say they can. The better point: Egres has ALREADY admitted that if the rules do indeed state you can't use an unarmed strike, that it doesn't make sense. He was merely saying under the rules you can't because of the strict definitions limiting the function of a coup de grace. However, when hard rules are introduced to show how the unarmed strike would be able to fit into this strict definition, as it is printed, he tries to counteract them with logic not directly related to the task at hand. He's using a slippery slope argument: If you admit the CDG rules allow for unarmed strikes, then all the other game mechanics, such as disarm and sunder, fall apart. Basically, he's trying to use logic to defend a point that he's already admitted doesn't logically make sense. If he's going to use poor rules writing as an excuse for why the Unarmed CDG isn't allowed, he has to use specific rules and references showing that Unarmed Strikes are not eligible for CDG. The other rules are irrelevant, and ultimately independent of this debate. Luckily his point which was not addressed by everyone else puts the final nail in the coffin. The reason why unarmed strikes are separate from the other melee weapons on the list is because they have their distinctive status. They are considered light weapons, and thus melee weapons, for the purposes of their attacking only. They are not eligible for anything else that you would be doing to or with a melee weapon, only the attack. For instance, you can't enchant them. Disarming and sundering is likewise restricted. As Egres has pointed out many times, they don't fit the exact definition of melee weapon. They aren't suppose to, because they are a specifically mentioned exception. On top of that, as he has already stated, weapons are separated on the chart by proficiency, and those two weapons are the ones that would require Improved Unarmed Strike to attack with them w/o drawing an attack of opportunity. Merely a categorization along that line. The reason why this is done is because it causes the least amount of redundant writing and rules overlap. If they put it into the definition of "melee weapon" as written, then they would have to go into EVERY other rule that covers what you can do to or with a melee weapon and change it accordingly. As is, they can cover what all you can do with a melee weapon and then merely say where Unarmed Strikes are an exception. Egres, when you meet someone new, do you shake Unarmed Strikes with them? No you shake hands with them. That's because striking someone unarmed is an action, not an object. The gauntlet is an object too, but it is considered a worn item as well, and thus also immune to the effects of such actions as disarm and sunder. Neither of these can have anything done to them because the D&D system does not support called shots. The shield is not a weapon per se, but can also be used as one, and "considered" a weapon. Why aren't they in Unarmed Attacks then? Because a shield can be sundered and targeted by actions. Unarmed attacks can not. This unique distinction is precisely why Unarmed Strikes have a different spot on the chart.
Seeker95 09-10-05, 06:51 PM	Yes it is an incompatible position. It basically boils down to Egres says that Unarmed Strikes can't be used for CDG, and others say they can.And this is impacting your life how? Is it your immediate goal to convince Egres of something? I already changed my mind with regard to CdG and spells (and, consequently, with any touch attack that can cause a critical), so I find myself in disagreement with Egres. But I don't find my view weakened in any way by Egres holding a view different from my own.
Egres 09-10-05, 07:31 PM	Yes it is an incompatible position. It basically boils down to Egres says that Unarmed Strikes can't be used for CDG, and others say they can. The better point: Egres has ALREADY admitted that if the rules do indeed state you can't use an unarmed strike, that it doesn't make sense. He was merely saying under the rules you can't because of the strict definitions limiting the function of a coup de grace. However, when hard rules are introduced to show how the unarmed strike would be able to fit into this strict definition, as it is printed, he tries to counteract them with logic not directly related to the task at hand. He's using a slippery slope argument: If you admit the CDG rules allow for unarmed strikes, then all the other game mechanics, such as disarm and sunder, fall apart. Basically, he's trying to use logic to defend a point that he's already admitted doesn't logically make sense. If he's going to use poor rules writing as an excuse for why the Unarmed CDG isn't allowed, he has to use specific rules and references showing that Unarmed Strikes are not eligible for CDG. The other rules are irrelevant, and ultimately independent of this debate. Luckily his point which was not addressed by everyone else puts the final nail in the coffin. What? All this blah blah to say nothing new? I have already countered each of your arguments. The reason why this is done is because it causes the least amount of redundant writing and rules overlap. If they put it into the definition of "melee weapon" as written, then they would have to go into EVERY other rule that covers what you can do to or with a melee weapon and change it accordingly. As is, they can cover what all you can do with a melee weapon and then merely say where Unarmed Strikes are an exception. Or, perhaps, simply because they aren't melee weapons.(Occam's Razor.) And thus you can't CdG with them.
JTalbain 09-10-05, 08:45 PM	What? All this blah blah to say nothing new? I have already countered each of your arguments. Or, perhaps, simply because they aren't melee weapons.(Occam's Razor.) And thus you can't CdG with them. Ah, no new information. Noted. I'll consider the points I made in my last post dropped. I'm not dealing with perhaps, I'm dealing with what the rules say. And with regard to Seeker's comment, it doesn't impact my life at all. If it impacted me I would have been the OP. I'm posting in order to try to explain what I feel the rules say for anyone else that has the same questions and turns to the thread for help. As is though, I think we're both at a standstill. The point of debate is two parties arguing intelligently over a subject in order to try to convince a third party of something. We obviously both feel that anyone with half a brain would see it our way, and have absolutely no chance of convincing the other, so let's leave it at that. Any further "debate" is merely an argument over semantics, and utterly pointless.
Egres 09-11-05, 08:08 AM	Ah, no new information. Noted. I'll consider the points I made in my last post dropped. Maybe one day you'll show us your "points".;)
Seeker95 09-11-05, 08:25 AM	JT and Egres. Please....
mvincent 09-11-05, 09:21 PM	The rules don't say this (although the d20 modern CdG rules (http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/msrd/msrdcombat.rtf) imply this), but I feel that lethal CdG's are not possible with non-lethal damage. Would we need rules clarifying this to safely assume it? Also, from my real-life experience with fire, cold, acid, electricity, etc., I know that they generally aren't tightly focused enough to perform a CdG (and I'd imagine sonic, negative energy, force, etc. would be similar). At the very least it shouldn't be easier* than with a normal weapon. * i.e. if spell CdG's were allowed, the higher damage dealing potential from spells would make the Fort save DC's considerably higher I'd probably still allow both non-lethal attacks and energy-spells to do double damage with a CdG attempt, but I would likely not include the save or die feature.
Egres 09-12-05, 08:10 AM	The rules don't say this (although the d20 modern CdG rules (http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/msrd/msrdcombat.rtf) imply this), but I feel that lethal CdG's are not possible with non-lethal damage. Would we need rules clarifying this to safely assume it? From the FAQ: What happens if you attempt a coup de grace with a weapon that deals nonlethal damage, such as a sap or a weapon with the merciful property? Is the coup de grace still automatically a critical hit? Is the target required to make a Fortitude save? If so, what’s the DC, and what happens if the target fails? What happens if you use a normally lethal weapon to deal nonlethal damage as a coup de grace? This question takes us beyond the rules. You could rule that you cannot deliver a coup de gace with nonlethal damage, but if you want rules for using nonlethal damage in such an attack, try these: When you attempt a coup de grace with a weapon that deals nonlethal damage, you automatically hit and inflict a critical hit. Note that you cannot deliver a coup de grace to a creature that is immune to critical hits. Calculate the nonlethal damage from the resulting critical hit just as you would normally. If the nonlethal damage isn’t sufficient to render the subject unconscious (see page 153 in the Player’s Handbook), the subject should make a Fortitude save (DC of 10 + the nonlethal damage dealt). If the save fails, the subject is rendered unconscious. The subject immediately suffers enough nonlethal damage to make his current nonlethal damage total equal to his current hit points +10. For example, you perform a nonlethal coup de grace on a helpless gnoll that currently has 12 hit points. You hit the gnoll and deal 10 points of nonlethal damage, not enough to knock out the gnoll. The gnoll, however, must make a DC 20 Fortitude save. If the gnoll fails the save, its nonlethal damage total immediately rises to 22 (current hit points +10), and it falls unconscious. This is roughly the equivalent of being killed when you fail your saving throw against a lethal coup de grace, since death occurs at –10 hit points.
Shatteredtower 09-14-05, 09:27 AM	Meaningless.I'm afraid you're going to have to offer a more substantial objection than that. I've demonstrated that it's not always possible to disarm a weapon, which is all I needed to do. On the other hand, I don't see any reason to disallow disarm attempts to be made against touch spells (though this would no more harm the caster than would disarming him of a dagger). I was only showing that there are many things that aren't explicitly prohibited and aren't possible nonetheless, as you are showing with the Sunder example.Actually, sundering an unarmed strike or touch spell is quite easy. Creatures may have more hit points than manufactured weapons, but they tend to have a lot less hardness. ;)
Egres 09-14-05, 01:11 PM	I'm afraid you're going to have to offer a more substantial objection than that. I've demonstrated that it's not always possible to disarm a weapon, which is all I needed to do. On the other hand, I don't see any reason to disallow disarm attempts to be made against touch spells (though this would no more harm the caster than would disarming him of a dagger). Uhm..no. I was only showing that the part JTalbain quoted wasn't all inclusive:nothing more. Actually, sundering an unarmed strike or touch spell is quite easy. Creatures may have more hit points than manufactured weapons, but they tend to have a lot less hardness. ;) Actually, you can't sunder a touch spell or an unarmed strike. Not to mention that sundering a touch spell would automatically trigger it on the sundering opponent.
Shatteredtower 09-15-05, 03:19 AM	Uhm..no. I was only showing that the part JTalbain quoted wasn't all inclusive:nothing more.But it showed more than you intended. It showed that not all weapons can be disarmed. Thus, the inability to disarm a touch spell Actually, you can't sunder a touch spell or an unarmed strike.Sure you can! If you do 34 hp of damage to a wizard with 24 hp, you've sundered the vampiric touch he was holding. It may not be called that in the rules, but that is exactly what you've done. Not to mention that sundering a touch spell would automatically trigger it on the sundering opponent.No it wouldn't. It's no different than the result of sundering a spell-storing or poisoned weapon. Would you rule that a monk acquires a negative level if he reduces a vampire spawn to 0 hp with an unarmed strike?
LadyPhoenix 09-15-05, 03:59 AM	When I judge and among the players that I play with, we have the following specific ruling for CDG with spells. 1) Spell must require touch attack 2) It must be eligible for critical hits 3) It must do damage as primary effect (ray of enfeeblement, disintegrate, enervation do not allow CDG) 4) IF ranged touch, you must be next to the foes. We do this to allow things like melf's acid arrow for CDG against Trolls and other similiar monsters.
Mind Rogue 09-15-05, 09:58 AM	Most ranged spells, such as Scorching Ray or Acid Arrow, cannot be "held" and stored for later. Since you must shoot the ray immediately, and the CdG is a seperate action from casting the spell, you cannot CdG with these spells. One notable exception is Produce Flame, but in this case, you would be using it as a melee weapon anyway.
High Octane 09-15-05, 10:07 AM	I would say any spell that requires an attack roll you can Coup de Gras with.
Egres 09-15-05, 02:57 PM	But it showed more than you intended. It showed that not all weapons can be disarmed. Thus, the inability to disarm a touch spell You can't eat a building. You can't eat a car. A car is a building? Sure you can! If you do 34 hp of damage to a wizard with 24 hp, you've sundered the vampiric touch he was holding. It may not be called that in the rules, but that is exactly what you've done. Nope. You have killed the wizard, but he could have his arm perfectly sane, while the rest of his body could be badly injured. No called shots. No it wouldn't. Uhm? From the SRD: If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. Come on Shatteredtower. You are a good RL: you know that the RAW are with me on this issue. They are silly, yeah, but still RAW.
startide1 09-15-05, 04:58 PM	you are arguing points you don't even agree with. if you seriously think the intent of the game design was to not allow unarmed strike CdG then go ahead with your bad self. Everyone else will play it correctly.
Shatteredtower 09-15-05, 10:15 PM	You can't eat a building. You can't eat a car. A car is a building?Neither a car nor a building is a hand-held weapon designed for close combat. Both chill touch and a short sword are, so the analogy falls apart. You have killed the wizard, but he could have his arm perfectly sane, while the rest of his body could be badly injured. No called shots.No called shots are required. Killing the wizard effectively sunders the weapon. From the SRD: If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges.Correct. So how many hp of damage does your greataxe take from harm? At best, you can damage the weapon that sundered your spell, but the sundering attempt does not harm your attacker directly. You are a good RL: you know that the RAW are with me on this issue. They are silly, yeah, but still RAW.I know you can read them that way, but you must wilfully choose to do so. Better wording would help, but it's not required.
Egres 09-16-05, 05:33 AM	you are arguing points you don't even agree with. if you seriously think the intent of the game design was to not allow unarmed strike CdG then go ahead with your bad self. Everyone else will play it correctly. I'm not trying to force anyone to play in either way. I'm just showing what the RAW are. Have fun. Both chill touch and a short sword are, so the analogy falls apart. Nope. As i said before, Chill touch isn't a weapon, and isn't handheld at all. No called shots are required. Killing the wizard effectively sunders the weapon. Nope. Once again: the wiz could be killed with his arm perfectly sane, without a single injury. You cannot sunder his arm, unless your DM allows you to do so with a HR. In D&D you can't attack your opponent's arm, unless otherwise specified. Correct. So how many hp of damage does your greataxe take from harm? At best, you can damage the weapon that sundered your spell, but the sundering attempt does not harm your attacker directly. But this shows that you can't sunder a touch spell. You must admit it. I know you can read them that way, but you must wilfully choose to do so. Better wording would help, but it's not required. Willfully? No. I'ts just a literal reading, like the RAW acronym requires.
Shatteredtower 09-16-05, 08:44 AM	As i said before, Chill touch isn't a weapon... So you've said, but you've offered no proof of that. ...and isn't handheld at all.Whereas this is simply incorrect. ...Once again: the wiz could be killed with his arm perfectly sane...Egres, I'm not sure what word you mean to be using here, but it's not "sane." Sane does not mean what you're meaning to write: ...without a single injury.Entirely academic. I refer you to table 9-8, pg 166 of the PHB. Note the distinction between a blade, a metal-hafted weapon, and other hafted weapons, especially in regard to hardness and hit points. Why is there a distinction? It's because it's easier to sunder a weapon with a wooden handle than a metal one. In other words... ...you can sunder a greataxe without damaging its blade at all. Or to put it another way: If you sunder (by which I mean kill) the wizard, contact with the spell -- or even with his arm -- is entirely academic. This shows that you can sunder a touch spell, since your body becomes, for all intents and purposes, the haft of the weapon. However, I was arguing carelessly in this regard, for which I must apologize. You don't trigger a touch spell at all in the act of "sundering" it. It doesn't matter where you hit the wizard/handle. It is, however, relevant to disarm attempts. In D&D you can't attack your opponent's arm, unless otherwise specified.Irrelevant to sunder attempts, as I've already shown with hafted weapons. Theoretically more relevant to disarm attempts, except that we've already been shown that attacking your weapon is considered separately from attacking you. But here's a funny thing: the rules for disarm attempts (as well as the spirit behind them) make no mention of a need for you to in any way strike your opponent's weapon. Thus a monk can disarm a shocking grasp without fear of being zapped. (And be grateful that this is as far as it goes, otherwise you've got monk's zapping you with your own touch spell!) But this shows that you can't sunder a touch spell. You must admit it.How? No, seriously, tell me how it shows what you're claiming. Otherwise, I must treat this as an empty claim. I'ts just a literal reading, like the RAW acronym requires.But it's not the only literal reading.
Egres 09-16-05, 11:57 AM	So you've said, but you've offered no proof of that. Negativa non sunta probanda. You claim it's a weapon, you must prove it. Whereas this is simply incorrect. I've already proved it's not handheld. Read my previous posts fro reference. Egres, I'm not sure what word you mean to be using here, but it's not "sane." Sane does not mean what you're meaning to write: Sorry, you're right. I meant, of course, unharmed. Entirely academic.[snip] Not "entirely academic". Simply based on a wrong assumption, that you are the haft of the touch spell. An odd assumption. How? No, seriously, tell me how it shows what you're claiming. Otherwise, I must treat this as an empty claim. Uhm? Did you prove that you can Sunder a touch spell? I must have missed it.
Thamior Magus Rex 09-17-05, 08:09 AM	I'd allow a coup de grace with a spell that requires an attack roll. Spells that don't allow attack rolls are too inaccurate for this purpose since you have to aim for a specific body part to kill them outright.
Shatteredtower 09-17-05, 08:45 AM	Negativa non sunta probanda.Grandstanding with Latin is the academic equivalent of waving one hand in the air to draw attention away from what the other is doing during a magic trick. You claim it's a weapon, you must prove it.You can use it to threaten an area in melee and harm an opponent. Of course it's a weapon. I've already proved it's not handheld.You most certainly have not. You're delivering it by touch. Are you saying that the spellcaster must use his tongue? Big toe? Hip check? I suppose these are all options, but the default for touching is by hand, no? Simply based on a wrong assumption, that you are the haft of the touch spell. An odd assumption.Not at all. It's really quite straightforward. The ultimate sundering of all weapons is killing the wielder. A manufactured weapon can be retrieved if you do that, but not a touch spell or (without some work, at least) a natural weapon. So if you can't retrieve the weapon, is it not sundered, the way a halberd is sundered by cutting the haft (and yet leaving the blade intact, since it's pretty unlikely that the metal blade has less hardness than that of a dagger)? Did you prove that you can Sunder a touch spell?Yes, though you're going to maintain otherwise. What part of a halberd causes the damage? What part of a halberd do you have to damage to sunder the weapon? Are they the same parts of the weapon? Are they made of the same material? If you break the haft, can the blade still be used as a halberd for the rest of the fight? How is a touch spell delivered? Can the touch spell be used if you, the wielder, are cut down? Is the touch spell in your hand any less attached to you than the metal blade of a halberd is attached to the wooden pole? Really, I'm doing my best to avoid turning this into the Dead Parrot Sketch, but we've pretty much reached a "No it's not," and "Yes, it is," position, haven't we?
Seeker95 09-17-05, 08:58 AM	Now you're both just getting ridiculous in your arguments. Please just agree to disagree before you both and up looking foolish in the attempt to support an opinion that neither of you has to agree with or like since the two of you do not play in the same game. And if the two of you *do* play in the same game, whichever one of you is the DM is right.
Egres 09-17-05, 10:47 AM	You can use it to threaten an area in melee and harm an opponent. Of course it's a weapon. By your reasoning even an unarmed strike would be a weapon. From the SRD: WEAPON FOCUS [GENERAL] Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for purposes of this feat. You most certainly have not. You're delivering it by touch. Are you saying that the spellcaster must use his tongue? Big toe? Hip check? I suppose these are all options, but the default for touching is by hand, no? With an open hand is certainly not handheld at all. Not to mention that you have just admitted that you can deliver it with your feet too. The ultimate sundering of all weapons is killing the wielder. Unfortunately you can't sunder a creature. SUNDER You can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding. If you’re attempting to sunder a weapon or shield, follow the steps outlined here. (Attacking held objects other than weapons or shields is covered below.) What part of a halberd causes the damage? What part of a halberd do you have to damage to sunder the weapon? Are they the same parts of the weapon? Are they made of the same material? If you break the haft, can the blade still be used as a halberd for the rest of the fight? How is a touch spell delivered? Can the touch spell be used if you, the wielder, are cut down? Is the touch spell in your hand any less attached to you than the metal blade of a halberd is attached to the wooden pole? Come on Shattaredtower. The caster's body is simply a mean to deliver the spell, not part of the spell itself, like the haft is.