|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I would really appreciate it if somehow I could get some kind of official ruling on this, as I've never seen any of the game designers comment on this matter on the boards and I haven't been able to find any Errata for clarification.
There is a debate in my group on the matter of how long it takes someone to perform a coup de grace.
My understanding of the RAW regarding this matter is that the action is initiated on the initiative of the person performing the coup de grace and finishes (resulting in the crit and damage requiring the save) at the beginning of that person's next initiative, hence a full round action. Casting spells that require 1 round to cast follow the same timing.
Opposition to my understanding of this rule is that the RAW states that the coup de grace finishes at the end of the initiative round the person began the action.
Which is the correct understanding? The first allows people the opportunity to incapacitate or kill the person performing the coup de grace before it goes off, whereas the second option is an instant kill if the last person in the initiative order is the one who initiates the coup de grace, because it would go off right after they finish saying "I start a coup de grace" as it would be the end of the round.
The main argument for the opposition is this quote:
"Sorcerers and bards must take more time to cast a metamagic spell (one enhanced by a metamagic feat) than a regular spell. If a spell's normal casting time is 1 standard action, casting a metamagic version of the spell is a full-round action for a sorcerer or bard (except for spells modified by the Quicken Spell feat, which take 1 swift action to cast). Note that this isn't the same as a spell with a 1-round casting time. Spells that take a full-round action to cast take effect in the same round that you begin casting, and you are not required to continue the invocations, gestures, and concentration until your next turn."
My understanding of the rule is being dubbed a house rule, whereas I disagree and say it's RAW. So which is RAW and which is a house rule?
The above quote tells me that the term "full round action" has different meaning for different situations, as coup de grace is listed as a full round action, but so are full attacks, withdrawing, charging, running, loading a heavy crossbow, etc. These other actions like full attacks have their effects come into play immediately, however, so if coup de grace RAW functions like my understanding, do the rest of these actions technically function the same way? If a Barbarian makes a full attack on an evil cleric, could an evil wizard who goes next in the initiative order cast Hold Person on the barbarian and negate any damage his full attack had on the cleric?
It seems to me that things that have been given the same label but don't function exactly the same under that label. Or the opposition's understanding of the rule could be right and I have been making rulings on coup de grace completely wrong this entire time.
Thanks in advance!
A coup de grace is a full-round action and takes no additional time beyond that.
It is not true that full-round action has different meanings for different situations - the rule on one round casting times in no way imply that. The rules say that one-round casting time spells take one full turn to cast, and are a full-round action. As such, they are a full-round action that in _addition_ to being a full-round action take a full turn to cast. This is different from metamagic'd spontaneous spells because those are simply full-round actions.
Like metamagic'd spells and full attacks, coup de graces are full-round actions. You take the action, the stuff happens, the action is over and then you can either take another (swift or free) action or end your turn.
This isn't really unclear in the rules at all, and I don't think you'll get any "official ruling" since the rules are clear as is.
EDIT: I also think it may be seen as rude to favorite one's own posts; people generally don't do that here, though there's no rule against it or such. I know it's common in some forums but I've rarely seen people do it around here. Just a friendly hint. :)
Full round action your place in the initiative order, 1 round action continues until the start or your next action.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Asking for an official answer does you no good. The devs actually don't like it.
2. A full round action takes up your entire turn except for the 5 foot stop.
Spells that such as summon monster spells actually take one round to cast and the casting last until the next round, and have been explained by another poster I see. :)
Otherwise a full attack or a charge would also last until the beginning of the player's next turn since they are also full round actions.
It is ok DC. I have been here for a few years, and it also helps people to get used to the fact that waiting for a dev response is not a good idea.
I also think it may be seen as rude to favorite one's own posts; people generally don't do that here, though there's no rule against it or such. I know it's common in some forums but I've rarely seen people do it around here. Just a friendly hint. :)
I've never heard of such a thing - why would it be rude to favorite your own post? It is a bit silly, since you can see all of your own posts under your profile by default - but rude?
Well, on some forums its the standard and loads of people do it, on others its seen as rude (or well not rude exactly, dont know rthe word in english, but like... Bragging, in an obviously stupid way? Maybe being full of oneself? English isnt my main language ). Since noone seems to do it around here ive assumed this to be the general attitude here but well that was just a sidenote and not meant to threadjack.
|
"1 round" is not the same as a "full round action". It sounds a lot like the same thing, but it really isn't.
Something that takes 1 round takes from the moment you start doing it until your next turn; 1 round. (More precisely: if you start doing it as a full-round action, it takes until the beginning of your next turn. If you start doing it as a standard action, it takes until after you've spent another standard action on it during your next turn.) This is the one used by spells like Summon Monster.
And then there's full-round actions: these take all of your actions during your turn. They would've been more aptly named full-turn actions; they take your entire turn during a round of combat. Examples of full-round actions:
* Charge
* Full Attack
* Coup de Grace
So if someone is in position to do CdG, and their turn rolls around, they can indeed land that finishing blow, and it's not easy to stop it. But a CdG does provoke an Attack of Opportunity; and the AoO is resolved first, just like all other AoOs. So if you kill the CdG-attempter during the AoO, he doesn't get to complete it. (This came up in a game once; pretty tense moment.)
|
Doomcrow, is this only a topic of debate because it's an automatic critical hit? There's a lot of types of full round actions; why is this the only one being questioned?
It gets questioned because if it wraps around a full round, the other PCs have the opportunity to take out the murderous NPC before he finishes killing the helpless PC.
I've seen communities that treat it as 1 round instead of merely 1 full-round action. I'm not sure if it stems from rules confusion or the desire to keep PCs safer.
By RAW, it's a full-round action to CdG. It is completed in the acting character's turn; it does not wrap around to through initiative before it is completed.
|
|
I thought adding the post as favorite was a means to track it and get notifications if someone replied to it. Since that is not the case, I removed it.
It's an issue because it makes combat really lethal. My players tend to get touchy when they fall into the negatives, and they don't die nearly as often as in other campaigns I've followed on the boards. My NPCs/monsters usually don't finish off PCs once they've dropped into the negatives, they move to the next standing target. Only when the theme of the campaign is more intense and dangerous, where the denizens are known for being ruthless - say in Ustalav or an evil nation - would they finish foes if possible.
I am starting a campaign with this kind of theme, but players tend to get discouraged and feel like they need to make another character should they die. This campaign also has a PC Witch with the Slumber hex, so CdG will basically be used frequently on my monsters/npcs at it came up in our first session. My reservations were mainly for the Players, because I thought that an instant kill from a CdG (let's face it, your chances of survival are abysmally low) would be seen as too harsh a thing. If it's the RAW, though, I'm fine with it.
If you want a less lethal game, feel free to house rule it. Remember though that it's a full round action that provokes attacks of opportunity, so as long as people try not to fall unconscious right next to an unthreatened enemy (since they can move at most 5ft if they want to full-attack) CdG's will be pretty rare.
You could always use some version of hero points that can prevent it from happening too easily while still allowing the PC's to CdG enemies.
I house ruled this as per DC. My favourite NPC, who in my mind was set up as a 'rival' rather than an 'adversary', got 'held' and the fighter next to him said "I coup de grace him." I was horrified and immediately started making up house rules to try to save his life. (Shouldn't get too attached to an NPC I suppose). In the end, in a shocking display of GM interference, I convinced the player to 'coup de subdue'.
In the wider scheme of things, I think CdG is a strange rule. It's one of those things that really only the bad guy should do (butchering a helpless foe), but in game play, only the good guys do it, because GMs tend to be pretty reluctant to instakill PCs. It's not true to say "no one's dumb enough to waste time attacking a helpless target..." because people don't tend to be helpless very long and there isn't another virtually guaranteed way of stopping them getting another go. One AoO, which may not even hit, meh, I'll take the chance to put down the fighter who failed his will save before the effect wears off.
I had an adversary, evil son of a ***, threaten to kill the druid if they didn't stop burning his house.
He CDG'ed the baron, coz he promised he would... :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could house rule it, or you could just assume that no one's dumb enough to waste time attacking a helpless target who isn't about to get up while there are standing targets left to fight.
In a world where magical healing is oh so common, intelligent foes will probably try to make sure to neutralize fallen enemies to the best of their ability. Whether CDG, just a normal attack, or (common in our group) throwing a tanglefoot bag at their sorry Dexterity 0 asses.
DoomCrow, you could always use the Hero Point system. That could balance out the harder difficulty factor.
Burning a hero point to act out of turn can often make the difference between being alive or being dead. Yes, it makes death much less likely but it is my experience that it does not detract from the "Whew! we just barely escaped with our lives!" feeling.
Alternately, Coup-de-grace sucks, but can be avoided with smart game play. Players could use a reposition action to move the downed player away from the enemy. Then occupy the location between the enemy and the player. Other strategies exist as well.
- Gauss
|
Well, on some forums its the standard and loads of people do it, on others its seen as rude (or well not rude exactly, dont know rthe word in english, but like... Bragging, in an obviously stupid way? Maybe being full of oneself? English isnt my main language ). Since noone seems to do it around here ive assumed this to be the general attitude here but well that was just a sidenote and not meant to threadjack.
The message boards are like 8 years old, the ability to favorite posts has only been around for maybe 2 years. So many of the "old timers" don't do it out of habit. FAQ flagging your post before anyone else wieghs in, especially if it is a ruling the community thinks is clear cut can be looked down on, but favoriting is never too bad
DC- if you go to your account page and click on "my posts", the search bar in the upper right changes to the ability to search posts made by you, if you loose track of a thread that is the best way to find it again
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A house rule to stretch the CdG into a whole round doesn't strike me as absurd - a matter of taste, but a legitimate matter of taste.
As for whether CdG should/would be used often, I've heard it both ways.
Magical healing, particularly Channeling, means that you can't trust the five downed (N)PCs strewn around you to actually stay down. Although they're also Prone, so it takes a while for them to get back into the fight.
OTOH, spending time on downed enemies when there's still people trying to kill you is also often poor tactics.
In the end it'll depend a bit on the situation - sane humanoids tend to prioritize still-moving enemies, but a goblin who's finally downed a tough PC might proceed to CdG in a blood frenzy...
There are several reasons for characters not to want to make CDG's;
- Want them as prisoners/hostage/food
- Doesn't want to risk spending a full round action or simply can't get within range.
- Other threats are greater.
On the other hand, most intelligent enemies want the enemy to stay down, and some natural enemies are famous for doing basically CDG's (wolves and great cats with their crushing/breaking the neck for example).
Generally, there are several more effective ways to make sure downed opponents stay downed, at least for enemies using gear.
- A standard attack doesn't take a full-round action but will usually send the target deep down in HP far enough that they can't be healed to get back in combat. It might miss though, and might not send them far enough (and might kill them even if you don't want to).
- Nets are dirt cheap, mostly hit and will make it much harder to get up. They also have decent range, seeing as how it's a touch attack against someone with a -5 Dex modifier.
- Tanglefoot bags are like nets but better, gluing the target to the ground.
- Depending on ruling, simple oil might be enough to make the ground slippery, making any heavily armored opponent have a hard time to stand up.
- Certain spells such as Grease are quite useful in preventing a downed opponent from being useful.
Depending on DM ruling (it's an interpretation issue, but I generally allow it as it empowers martials and allows more interesting gameplay) one can use spring-loaded wrist sheaths to have nets and tanglefoot bags easily accessible.
But these are all useful methods to incapacitate a downed opponent hard enough that they usually won't be dangerous even after being healed. They're less risky for the user, and leads to fewer deaths.
Spring loaded wrist sheathes? For something the size of a gladiator's net? Very cinematic and great idea for a legendary hero style game, might break the mood a bit if you're playing a more gritty game (where CdG is going to be more common anyway). Of course, for a downed opponent who is other than a melee fighter, being prone and/or entangled isn't that big a problem - although such opponents tend to be hit point light so "just stabbing them again" will probably have the same effect.
Spring loaded wrist sheathes? For something the size of a gladiator's net? Very cinematic and great idea for a legendary hero style game, might break the mood a bit if you're playing a more gritty game (where CdG is going to be more common anyway).
The RAW is fuzzy so of course the DM could say no to it.
In our games we allow it but only with nets made from silk or spider's silk (custom made item with same weight alterations as rope, so 3lbs for silk and 2.5 for spider silk). That's clearly within house rule territory but works well for our group. Our fighter in our most high-leveled game uses a +1 ghost touch spider silk net in a spring-loaded wrist sheaths; it's been useful many times against both downed opponents and incorporeals and generally most obnoxious enemies.
Of course, for a downed opponent who is other than a melee fighter, being prone and/or entangled isn't that big a problem - although such opponents tend to be hit point light so "just stabbing them again" will probably have the same effect.
The drastic drop in movement is a problem for anyone that don't like being in the thick of things, like casters. Also, entangled forces concentration checks DC 15+spell level, which is quite a big deal until mid levels. And being prone prevents use of most ranged weapons.
That AoO the CDG invokes? Doesn't have to be for 1d8+X damage, you can bull-rush the guy, pushing him out of range.
Bullrush AoOs are great for many things, Barbarian Knockback or Shield Slam are the most common ways I know of to be able to do it.
Disarm or Sunder to the weapon also works well, either negating the CdG completely or forcing a suboptimal weapon.Or trip him; I'd rule that someone hoisted on their petard isn't going to be able to finish a full-focus CDG that round.
Why wouldn't they?
Why create some random new penalty for being Tripped when you've already mentioned options which CAN achieve that outcome?At a minimum, it'd resolve with the -4 prone penalty to melee attacks
[allies] can use "Aid Another" special attack (either as their regular attack routine, or as the AoO) to boost the CDG-target's AC two points.
Uh... You do know that CdG is auto-hit/crit regardless of AC or miss chance?
I don't think I've ever run into anybody houseruling Aid Another to work as an AoO. ...There's always something new.|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*shrug* if you've got rules questions, ask them. That's what this forum is for, after all, and we're happy to help you :)
Honestly, the difference between "casting time: 1 round" and "full-round action" is awkward wording. If you call it "full-turn action" it's much easier to understand.
Well I'd never thought about it, but now that I have I'm house ruling that a coup de grace is a 1 round action, cannot be performed if you have taken damage in the previous round, automatically fails if you are subject to an AoO, and automatically fails if you take damage during your round from any source. I don't know if you've ever tried to pin someone down and drive a knife into their armpit in a melee but I assure you it's an excellent way to get yourself killed. You're completely vulnerable to any active combatant near you and in no position what so ever to defend yourself.
So by your house rules, sticking a dagger in a helpless enemy's eye takes far more concentration and is far more difficult to achieve than, say, casting a spell or shooting an accurately arrow at a moving target several hundred feet away.
Spellcasters at least get a concentration check to defend themselves while casting or to maintain their focus if they take damage, but CDGers auto-fail without even a concentration check. And if I draw my bow and aim at anyone, I might get hit and take damage, but then I can fire my bow without penalty to my attack roll, but your CDGer cannot even stab his helpless enemy if he takes even 1 point of damage in the entire round?
While your point about making yourself vulnerable is somewhat valid, at the very least, having it provoke an AoO is the existing game mechanic for making yourself vulnerable - there are tons of actions that provoke AoOs for exactly this reason, you make yourself vulnerable, but NONE of them cause you to auto-fail what you're doing if the AoO succeeds - not even casting spells.
I suggest not overreacting. Sure, CDG is dangerous, sure it can be a game changer, but so can many other things in the game, so don't overreact to the envisioned danger of this one little thing.