Coup de Grace Rule


Rules Questions


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Can a Ghoul deliver a Coup de grace? As I read the rules, I would say no.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Yes.


While this is a very odd place to post such a question (flagged for you), I see your point:

PRD wrote:
As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace... You can also use a bow or crossbow, provided you are adjacent to the target.

Since natural weapons are never explicitly mentioned, and are in fact very carefully not mentioned, I think you're absolutely within RAW here.

On the other hand, if you roll through the AP obit threads and see just how many PCs have died to ghoul CdG's, I think you'd be in the minority of GMs in ruling that way.

Yes; I personally have allowed ghouls to coup de grace. They're intelligent creatures and they know where the vital parts are, so I allow it. I'd never noticed the explicit reference to "melee weapon" until I was trying to quote PRD for you.

Liberty's Edge

Anyone who can make a full round action can coup de grace. This of course means your run of the mill Zombie can't under normal circumstances, as they are always staggered. But a coup de grace provokes an Attack of Opportunity and anything immune to precision damage or critical hits is immune to coup de grace.

If you didn't already know a coup de grace isn't an automatic kill all the time, despite what some may think. What it is is an automatic critical hit on a helpless enemy, if they aren't killed by the crit damage alone they get a Fort save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or they die. The damage is still modified by DR and hardness. Its rare for something to survive a coup de grace (if they aren't immune) at low and mid level, but it does happen.

Outside of combat though you can just repeatedly coup de grace until the enemy dies, most GMs handwave the damage and save for coup de grace outside of combat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just a note, staggered creatures CAN coup de grace, but it takes two rounds to perform.

CRB p186 wrote:

Start/Complete Full-Round Action

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


PorscheTim911 wrote:
Can a ghoul deliver a "Coup de Grace"?

Yes.

A more important question for a GM is "Should a ghoul use coup de grace?", to which the answer is usually, "No". Its CR does not properly account for the instant-death effect that CDG typically produces.

The coup de grace rules are one of the few save-or-die effects still in the game, and unfortunately one of the most abuse-able.

The Exchange

There's also a question of the ghoul's motivation to deliver a coup de grace...

The victim needs to be alive and infected with ghoul fever to have a chance of turning into a ghoul (infecting them then bashing their skull in with a rock doesn't count as the victim having died of ghoul fever).

The ghoul shouldn't want to eat you as you're too fresh, unless it's starving (and then it's more likely to just start gnawing on you than it is to take the time to coup de grace you).

Maybe if it wants to store your dead body somewhere to let it 'mature' properly... but then it'd be better off keeping you alive until it got you to its storehouse ('cos carting corpses around is a pain... better to tie 'em up and let 'em walk there themselves before offing them).

... or, put another way, there's probably a few good reasons for the GM to avoid having a ghoul murderer a PC without completely popping the players' collective willing suspension of disbelief.

But yes, rules-wise, they can coup de grace like anything else.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Raynulf wrote:
PorscheTim911 wrote:
Can a ghoul deliver a "Coup de Grace"?

Yes.

A more important question for a GM is "Should a ghoul use coup de grace?", to which the answer is usually, "No". Its CR does not properly account for the instant-death effect that CDG typically produces.

The coup de grace rules are one of the few save-or-die effects still in the game, and unfortunately one of the most abuse-able.

I don't disagree in spirit, only in wording. To me it's not a question of CR. It's one of intelligence. Any creature smart enough to think of finishing someone, might.


ProfPotts wrote:

There's also a question of the ghoul's motivation to deliver a coup de grace...

The victim needs to be alive and infected with ghoul fever to have a chance of turning into a ghoul (infecting them then bashing their skull in with a rock doesn't count as the victim having died of ghoul fever).

The ghoul shouldn't want to eat you as you're too fresh, unless it's starving (and then it's more likely to just start gnawing on you than it is to take the time to coup de grace you).

Maybe if it wants to store your dead body somewhere to let it 'mature' properly... but then it'd be better off keeping you alive until it got you to its storehouse ('cos carting corpses around is a pain... better to tie 'em up and let 'em walk there themselves before offing them).

... or, put another way, there's probably a few good reasons for the GM to avoid having a ghoul murderer a PC without completely popping the players' collective willing suspension of disbelief.

But yes, rules-wise, they can coup de grace like anything else.

Some prefer living victims while others prefer rotten flesh.

Source: Classic Horrors Revisited

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Anguish wrote:
I don't disagree in spirit, only in wording. To me it's not a question of CR. It's one of intelligence. Any creature smart enough to think of finishing someone, might.

A ghoul has a 13 intelligence. Clearly smart enough to think of doing it.


Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:
Anguish wrote:
I don't disagree in spirit, only in wording. To me it's not a question of CR. It's one of intelligence. Any creature smart enough to think of finishing someone, might.
A ghoul has a 13 intelligence. Clearly smart enough to think of doing it.

Sure, but also smart enough to realize they may not need to and diverting attention to do so may be bad, particularly when faced with other opponents who are still fighting back.

Liberty's Edge

I just read a post in another thread by the same OP here and someone responded that Natural Attacks can't Coup de Grace by RAW.

Quote:
As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace (pronounced "coo day grahs") to a helpless opponent. You can also use a bow or crossbow, provided you are adjacent to the target.

So unless there's a FAQ or other rule somewhere that states that Natural Attacks count as "Melee Weapons" (as opposed to manufactured) for these purposes, there's likely going to still be some small confusion over this...

Also what of Unarmed Strikes? Considering Natural Attacks and Unarmed Strikes aren't explicitly called weapons, but both count a character as "Armed" (Unarmed with the appropriate feat) I'd say it's pretty damn strongly implied that Natural Attacks and Unarmed Strikes are intended to function as weapons for this. It also makes no sense at all that a Monk wouldn't be able to break a neck with a Coup de Grace, or a Wolf wouldn't be able to rip out a throat... or a Dragon tear someone to shreds.

Additionally, the phrase Natural Attack and Natural Weapon are both used throughout the rules. This tells me that "Natural" is merely a descriptor of the weapon or attack type rather than explicitly excluding it from being considered a weapon. Just as Melee Weapon and Melee Attack are both used, one to describe whether an attack is Melee or not (Natural Attacks are usually melee) and the other refers to any weapon used in melee.

Liberty's Edge

NobodysHome wrote:

While this is a very odd place to post such a question (flagged for you), I see your point:

PRD wrote:
As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace... You can also use a bow or crossbow, provided you are adjacent to the target.

Since natural weapons are never explicitly mentioned, and are in fact very carefully not mentioned, I think you're absolutely within RAW here.

On the other hand, if you roll through the AP obit threads and see just how many PCs have died to ghoul CdG's, I think you'd be in the minority of GMs in ruling that way.

Yes; I personally have allowed ghouls to coup de grace. They're intelligent creatures and they know where the vital parts are, so I allow it. I'd never noticed the explicit reference to "melee weapon" until I was trying to quote PRD for you.

Yeah, I'm in favor of ruling that Natural Attacks can Coup de Grace. If you look throughout the rules you'll see that Natural Attack and Natural Weapon are both phrases used. So if a Natural Attack is made with a Natural Weapon, and that Natural Attack is a Melee Attack, by RAW I think it still counts as a Melee Weapon. And it is DEFINITELY intended for it to work this way.

Scarab Sages

hasteroth wrote:

I just read a post in another thread by the same OP here and someone responded that Natural Attacks can't Coup de Grace by RAW.

Quote:
As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace (pronounced "coo day grahs") to a helpless opponent. You can also use a bow or crossbow, provided you are adjacent to the target.

So unless there's a FAQ or other rule somewhere that states that Natural Attacks count as "Melee Weapons" (as opposed to manufactured) for these purposes, there's likely going to still be some small confusion over this...

Also what of Unarmed Strikes? Considering Natural Attacks and Unarmed Strikes aren't explicitly called weapons, but both count a character as "Armed" (Unarmed with the appropriate feat) I'd say it's pretty damn strongly implied that Natural Attacks and Unarmed Strikes are intended to function as weapons for this. It also makes no sense at all that a Monk wouldn't be able to break a neck with a Coup de Grace, or a Wolf wouldn't be able to rip out a throat... or a Dragon tear someone to shreds.

Additionally, the phrase Natural Attack and Natural Weapon are both used throughout the rules. This tells me that "Natural" is merely a descriptor of the weapon or attack type rather than explicitly excluding it from being considered a weapon. Just as Melee Weapon and Melee Attack are both used, one to describe whether an attack is Melee or not (Natural Attacks are usually melee) and the other refers to any weapon used in melee.

Erm... a weapon can be a fist, a claw or a dagger. If you use the melee rules, as opposed to ranged rules, for the attack... then you just attacked with a melee weapon of some sort.

Liberty's Edge

Lorewalker wrote:
hasteroth wrote:

I just read a post in another thread by the same OP here and someone responded that Natural Attacks can't Coup de Grace by RAW.

Quote:
As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace (pronounced "coo day grahs") to a helpless opponent. You can also use a bow or crossbow, provided you are adjacent to the target.

So unless there's a FAQ or other rule somewhere that states that Natural Attacks count as "Melee Weapons" (as opposed to manufactured) for these purposes, there's likely going to still be some small confusion over this...

Also what of Unarmed Strikes? Considering Natural Attacks and Unarmed Strikes aren't explicitly called weapons, but both count a character as "Armed" (Unarmed with the appropriate feat) I'd say it's pretty damn strongly implied that Natural Attacks and Unarmed Strikes are intended to function as weapons for this. It also makes no sense at all that a Monk wouldn't be able to break a neck with a Coup de Grace, or a Wolf wouldn't be able to rip out a throat... or a Dragon tear someone to shreds.

Additionally, the phrase Natural Attack and Natural Weapon are both used throughout the rules. This tells me that "Natural" is merely a descriptor of the weapon or attack type rather than explicitly excluding it from being considered a weapon. Just as Melee Weapon and Melee Attack are both used, one to describe whether an attack is Melee or not (Natural Attacks are usually melee) and the other refers to any weapon used in melee.

Erm... a weapon can be a fist, a claw or a dagger. If you use the melee rules, as opposed to ranged rules, for the attack... then you just attacked with a melee weapon of some sort.

I agree with you on that, but in digging through the forums there seems to have been several arguments (in addition to the one reply to a duplicate thread by this same OP from today) over whether a Natural Attack can CdG. Even though by RAW it still seems that Natural Attacks are made with Natural Weapons (which are Melee generally) there are people who still seem to get confused about it. The confusion seems to arise from viewing the Coup de Grace rules in a vacuum, and also from an implicit awareness of the distinction made between manufactured weapons and natural weapons in many rules. In some cases the distinction is only made as "natural weapons and weapons."


Oh, gods... No more of the "natural attacks and unarmed strikes aren't weapons" BS, please.

Silver Crusade

Melee just means the range, not what it's manufactured out of.

Liberty's Edge

Ah sorry. Didn't think people would treat my post like I was trying to make the argument (I most definitely am not). I was more trying to make sure the OP was aware that Natural Attacks do count as Weapons for CdG.

Silver Crusade

Ah yeah I saw that in yours, sorry if my post came across as hostile.


I think that's stretching a bit... phrases such as

PRD wrote:
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes...

really make me think the designers wanted to keep melee weapons in a separate category from natural weapons.

On the other hand, I don't think the designers honestly wanted a wolf to be unable to coup de grace a helpless sheep because its teeth aren't "melee weapons".

Who knows? Off to play in the FAQs for a few...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PRD - Combat wrote:
Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet). These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks). If you possess only one natural attack (such as a bite—two claw attacks do not qualify), you add 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage rolls made with that attack.
PRD - Equipment wrote:
Simple, Martial, and Exotic Weapons: Anybody but a druid, monk, or wizard is proficient with all simple weapons. Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers are proficient with all simple and all martial weapons. Characters of other classes are proficient with an assortment of simple weapons and possibly some martial or even exotic weapons. All characters are proficient with unarmed strikes and any natural weapons possessed by their race. A character who uses a weapon with which he is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls.

"Natural attacks"/"natural weapons" are weapons and can be used to coup the grace.


We house ruled away the Fort save vs death on Coup de Grace. It makes it a little less taboo, and it still hurts plenty, especially at lower levels or coming from strong opponents. If you're particularly bloodthirsty or think CdG should be a little more "special" I guess you could increase the crit mod by x1.

Players rarely like the idea of house ruling their pet combo (Frigid Touch + Gentle Rest for instance or Slumber hex + scythe perhaps), but house ruling CdG might seem like a little more of a two way street, especially if the DM is known to use ghouls, mummies, etc.

Sovereign Court

I don't think there's 100% consistency of categories here, but in most cases I would say that a natural attack is a "weapon" (and usually a melee weapon, too). It is not however a manufactured weapon.

It does make sense that ghouls can CdG; they just rip out your paralyzed PC's jugular with their teeth/claws.

Sovereign Court

Yes.


Natural attacks qualify as weapons, and natural attacks are usually melee weapons. Therefore, most natural attacks (melee ones) can be used with CdG.


I would have to go with yes in this case also.


Why wouldn't you be able to use natural weapons to coup de grace?

Why can you slit somebody's throat with a dagger or bash their head in with a mace, but you can't claw or bite their throat out?

As for pure RAW support, Protoman is absolutely correct.


On the one hand, I think every responder is in 100% agreement that yes, a ghoul can CdG with its claws.

On the other hand, being a pedant, I'd like to keep hammering away at the point: The rules make a very clear distinction between "natural weapons" and other types of weapons, not only in my quote cited above, but in spells like Magic Weapon (does not work on natural weapons) and Magic Fang (only works on natural weapons).

So the notion that natural weapon = melee weapon is not supported anywhere in the PRD. Note that Protoman's post only proves that a natural weapon is a melee attack, not necessarily a melee weapon.

Yes, I agree the statement should be true, but I haven't been able to find any concrete statement that it is.

But saying, "It should be, therefore it is," is a rather specious argument.

If we're going to have a rule that says, "You can only do this with a melee weapon," I'd really like to see a concrete definition of melee weapon somewhere. As far as I can tell, there isn't one, so it's left to common sense.

Usually, I like leaving stuff to common sense. But if you're going to say, "xx only works when yy is true," then I'd like a clear definition of yy, please.

EDIT: In other words, I'm agreeing with everyone 100%, up until the point they say, "It's obvious because it's RAW."
RAW = Rules as Written, and I'm not finding that definition written anywhere.


In that case, you should probably make a new thread specifically to discuss whether natural weapons are weapons. CDG rules no longer enter the question.


NobodysHome wrote:
So the notion that natural weapon = melee weapon is not supported anywhere in the PRD. Note that Protoman's post only proves that a natural weapon is a melee attack, not necessarily a melee weapon.
PRD - Equipment with the WEAPONS section wrote:
Simple, Martial, and Exotic Weapons: Anybody but a druid, monk, or wizard is proficient with all simple weapons. Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers are proficient with all simple and all martial weapons. Characters of other classes are proficient with an assortment of simple weapons and possibly some martial or even exotic weapons. All characters are proficient with unarmed strikes and any natural weapons possessed by their race. A character who uses a weapon with which he is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls.

Natural Weapons are listed as a weapon one gets proficiency with. It's a weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:

On the one hand, I think every responder is in 100% agreement that yes, a ghoul can CdG with its claws.

On the other hand, being a pedant, I'd like to keep hammering away at the point: The rules make a very clear distinction between "natural weapons" and other types of weapons, not only in my quote cited above, but in spells like Magic Weapon (does not work on natural weapons) and Magic Fang (only works on natural weapons).

So the notion that natural weapon = melee weapon is not supported anywhere in the PRD. Note that Protoman's post only proves that a natural weapon is a melee attack, not necessarily a melee weapon.

Yes, I agree the statement should be true, but I haven't been able to find any concrete statement that it is.

Is it referred to as a weapon (as in "natural weapon")? Is it used in melee? Then as far as I'm concerned weapon + melee = melee weapon. That's so obvious to me that the explicit "natural weapon = melee weapon" is unnecessary. Weapon + melee = melee weapon.

It's only the persistence of the term "natural attack" without using the term weapon that, I think, should give any pause here. But since natural weapon is explicitly used in some places like Magic Fang, I think it's pretty clear that natural attack = natural weapon.

Sovereign Court

I think that you're being too picky NobodysHome.

For a game, at some point you have to rely upon your audience to be able to apply a modicum of implicit logic. If everything were said explicitly RPG books would end up looking like law books and be just as dense/unreadable.


QuidEst wrote:
In that case, you should probably make a new thread specifically to discuss whether natural weapons are weapons. CDG rules no longer enter the question.

That implies that I'm passionate about it.

I agree with Charon's Little Helper -- I don't want the rules to turn into law books.

As I said, it's more that I'm irritated when the books use a term as if it is a concrete technical term, but never define it.

I run into the same thing in my son's Biology textbook, and it's something we drill into our teammates in my job: "If you use a term, make sure you have defined it."

Not legalese, but rather a way to avoid unnecessary arguments/unclarity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
In that case, you should probably make a new thread specifically to discuss whether natural weapons are weapons. CDG rules no longer enter the question.

That implies that I'm passionate about it.

I agree with Charon's Little Helper -- I don't want the rules to turn into law books.

As I said, it's more that I'm irritated when the books use a term as if it is a concrete technical term, but never define it.

I run into the same thing in my son's Biology textbook, and it's something we drill into our teammates in my job: "If you use a term, make sure you have defined it."

Not legalese, but rather a way to avoid unnecessary arguments/unclarity.

The problem is Pathfinder was built on 3.5 which was built on 3.0 which was overhauled from even earlier editions. There was a lot of copy paste (followed by editing) and as such the system inherited a lot of issues that existed with the previous edition of Dungeons and Dragons.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Coup de Grace Rule All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.