So I have a Sorcerer who has a Dominated Stone Giant that has been participating in combat with the party during a dungeon delve. Its wounded down to 15 hit points or so and the group is going back to town where a magically controlled Stone giant would be a problem. The sorcerer decides to take out two birds with one stone (so to speak) and uses the spell Vampiric Touch to Coups de Grace the giant.
Is it possible to use a touch spell to Coups de Grace?
Is it possible to use Vampiric Touch to Coups de grace?
If so, since the touch attack is an automatic critical, does it deal double damage and grant double the amount of temporary hit points (provided that that amount doesn't exceed the giant's current hit points+ CON score)?
Does a dominated creature count as helpless for the purpose of performing a Coups de Grace, especially if they have no way of knowing what spell is being cast?
Does a dominated creature automatically (willingly) fail its saving throw vs. a spell cast by its master? Alternately, if the dominated creature is unaware that it is being targeted with a spell (such as having his eyes closed, for instance), is it then a viable target for Coups de Grace and does it automatically fail the spell?
Just trying to get a sense of how some of these effects interact... thanks in advance.
Anything that can crit should be eligible to administer a coup de grace and that include spells that require an attack roll - and that includes vampiric touch. So, yes, you should be able to administer a coup de grace with vampiric touch.
I'd still give the stone giant another save to throw off the domination spell at the +2 bonus because remaining helpless for a coup de grace from any source should count as self-destructive.
I generally belong to the "always give the monster an even break" school of GMing. Since I would never have an NPC dominate a PC and then administer a coup de grace without that second saving throw - nor would I allow that on one of their enemies. I would also never have the be dominated into auto-failing a non-harmless spell without some good explanation for it.
No, you cannot use Vampiric Touch to deliver a coup de grace because it is not a melee weapon.
Coup de Grace: 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.
No, you cannot use Vampiric Touch to deliver a coup de grace because it is not a melee weapon.
Coup de Grace: 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.
A touch attack isn't considered a melee attack?
It is absolutely considered a melee attack. It is not considered a melee weapon. The criteria here is not melee attack, it is melee weapon.
It is absolutely considered a melee attack. It is not considered a melee weapon. The criteria here is not melee attack, it is melee weapon.
I'm not trying to be thick, but I find this to be a very confusing distinction... a melee weapon is what you make a melee attack with, no? An unarmed strike is considered a melee weapon, a claw attack is considered a melee weapon - why exactly is not a spell when it requires the same attack rolls that the others do?
Just deliver the spell via Unarmed Strike, that's a melee weapon and can be used to Coup de Grace.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Touch spells do not provoke because you are considered armed. If an attack that is "melee" and "armed" doesn't count as viable for CDG, then I think we are entering an unnecessary level of pedantry.
This direction of ruling automatically means non-proficient unarmed strikes can be used to CDG, because they are listed on the weapon table, but natural attacks can not because, as per the universal monsters rules, they are explicitly "attacks made without a weapon".
I personally find that the rules support allowing melee touch spells to CDG. I likewisehave no issue with untrained unarmed strikes CDGing either, as you can take any number of penalties, such as -4 to do lethal damage, when you auto-hit. And I certainly believe natural attacks can CDG.
I would rule favorably towards guns and ranged touch spells being used to crit, from the same requirements as bow or crossbow, specifically adjacent.
Wiggz, Quantum Steve has a viable workaround for the melee weapon issue.
Black Bard, Welcome to Pathfinder! As a new player you will find that there is regularly pedantic issues within it's rules.
Now, anyone can house-rule their way right through all those silly rules pedantry but unfortunately this is the Rules Forum where we must go with RAW primarily and RAI if RAW fails to provide an answer. I am sure you will get the hang of that. :)
(yes, I am trying to make a funny, this is not intended to be insulting.)
Seriously though, if vampiric touch were to count as a weapon then you would have to apply all sorts of buffs that affect weapons. Example: a Bard's Inspire Courage.
This came up in this FAQ with rays and weapon-like spells where, yes, some spells are weapon-like but not all spells are.
The spells which qualify as weapon-like are rays and weapon-like spells such as flame blade, mage's sword, and spiritual weapon.
This is also in the CRB under Weapon Focus where they provide a specific exception to rays as qualifying for Weapon Focus when only weapons normally qualify. In fact, unarmed strikes are also given an exception.
Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for the purposes of this feat.
Vampiric Touch is neither a ray, nor a weapon-like spell and so it does not qualify as a melee weapon and thus does not qualify for CDG or Inspire Courage. However, if you can deliver it with a weapon then it absolutely counts.
Of course, you can houserule it in your campaign. :)
Keep in mind that a lot of pedantism issue are introduced to the rules by players inclined to be pedantic and not necessarily by the rules themselves. Things that may look like exceptions may be interpreted as clarifications or examples rather than exceptions.
Bill Dunn, I agree with that, at the table. But this is the rules forum where analysis of the rules is the intent. If someone is going to house-rule a change to a rule they should understand the rule they are changing, right? :)
This FAQ is even more specific:
In the same vein as abilities like Arcane Strike that affect a character’s weapons, abilities that say “with a weapon,” “with a melee weapon,” and “with a ranged weapon” almost never work with special abilities because such wording is almost always used as shorthand for “manufactured weapon,” “manufactured melee weapon,” and “manufactured ranged weapon.”It also says that while rays are considered weapons for some feats, they still aren't considered weapons in general.
So, using that interpretation, natural attacks and unarmed strikes aren't considered weapons in general because they certainly aren't manufactured, and therefor cannot benefit from special abilities like Arcane Strike?
Been playing this game since it started, and its predecessor editions for a lot longer than that, Gauss, as have you. I take no offense at your comments regarding house rules as they are absolutely right, but I do take offense at your assumption of me as a new player. One click can check post history. If we are going to play the RAW game and not ASSUME or INFER anything, lets be fair and apply it across the playing field.
Your counter-argument is fair, and backed up with sources. I concede that by RAW, vampiric touch is not a qualifying vector for CDG.
I also reiterate, as Wiggz has, that such statements likewise invalidate natural attacks. Thus making the statement, while "accurate", not "right".
Quantum Steve's workaround is just that, a workaround. While correct, it doesn't change the dissonance created by the RAW ruling, as presented by Gauss.
RAW can only go so far. Adjudication is one of the primary reasons the role of DM exists. When things fall through the cracks between rules, it is up to the DM to make a ruling to cover that crack. If the discussion of proposed solutions to gaps, failings, and dissonance in the rules is unwelcome on the Rules Questions board then I think I have been misinterpreting the point of the board for a very long time.
A quick search for "arcane strike natural attacks" comes up with threads which exclusively conclude that Arcane Strike in fact DOES work with natural weapons.
This does give credence to the idea that natural attacks ARE in fact weapons. Despite the implication in the description of them in the Bestiary rules.
Again, my main point stands: there are grey areas in the rules. Some are contradictions, some are omissions, and some are just nonsensical oddities. It is unreasonable to expect the developers to cover all the possible unexpected interactions that lead to these grey areas. That is the purpose of the DM: to adjucate, both within the rules, and when they fail.
I don't know how interesting this is, but the CRB describes natural attacks as "attacks made with natural weapons." It also describes them as "melee attacks." But it also speaks of them in contrast to "melee weapons." So apparently they're non-melee weapons that make melee attacks anyway.
Been playing this game since it started, and its predecessor editions for a lot longer than that, Gauss, as have you. I take no offense at your comments regarding house rules as they are absolutely right, but I do take offense at your assumption of me as a new player. One click can check post history. If we are going to play the RAW game and not ASSUME or INFER anything, lets be fair and apply it across the playing field.
Your counter-argument is fair, and backed up with sources. I concede that by RAW, vampiric touch is not a qualifying vector for CDG.
I also reiterate, as Wiggz has, that such statements likewise invalidate natural attacks. Thus making the statement, while "accurate", not "right".
Quantum Steve's workaround is just that, a workaround. While correct, it doesn't change the dissonance created by the RAW ruling, as presented by Gauss.
RAW can only go so far. Adjudication is one of the primary reasons the role of DM exists. When things fall through the cracks between rules, it is up to the DM to make a ruling to cover that crack. If the discussion of proposed solutions to gaps, failings, and dissonance in the rules is unwelcome on the Rules Questions board then I think I have been misinterpreting the point of the board for a very long time.
Again, I was making a funny, I was not making an assumption you were new. In fact, I quite figured the opposite which is why it is called 'tongue in cheek'. I even posted that it was intended to be a funny but apparently you didn't read that line.
As for the Rules Forum, discussing proposed solutions etc is not unwelcome, but that doesn't mean that the rules as written should be ignored. They should be identified, acknowledged, and then the solutions discussed.
A number of people in this thread reacted to my statement regarding the "melee weapon" rule negatively rather than looking at the rules themselves simply because it didn't 'make sense'.
|
The wording was put in to specifically rule out missile and spells being used to deliver a CDG.
Now specific rules over generic, so unless there is a spell (or missile weapon feat) that specifically calls out that it can be used to CDG, you cannot.
Happy for someone to point to an FAQ that changes this if they know of one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is absolutely considered a melee attack. It is not considered a melee weapon. The criteria here is not melee attack, it is melee weapon.I'm not trying to be thick, but I find this to be a very confusing distinction... a melee weapon is what you make a melee attack with, no? An unarmed strike is considered a melee weapon, a claw attack is considered a melee weapon - why exactly is not a spell when it requires the same attack rolls that the others do?
The simple solution is to deliver the touch spell via an unarmed strike.
You get the additional (non-lethal) damage from the unarmed strike in addition to the damage from the touch spell.
Normal rules apply for resolving the coup-de-grace.
It is absolutely considered a melee attack. It is not considered a melee weapon. The criteria here is not melee attack, it is melee weapon.I'm not trying to be thick, but I find this to be a very confusing distinction... a melee weapon is what you make a melee attack with, no? An unarmed strike is considered a melee weapon, a claw attack is considered a melee weapon - why exactly is not a spell when it requires the same attack rolls that the others do?The simple solution is to deliver the touch spell via an unarmed strike.
You get the additional (non-lethal) damage from the unarmed strike in addition to the damage from the touch spell.
Normal rules apply for resolving the coup-de-grace.
Just take the -4 penalty to do lethal. Coup de Grace with non lethal damage doesn't make any sense anyway.
The wording was put in to specifically rule out missile and spells being used to deliver a CDG.
Now specific rules over generic, so unless there is a spell (or missile weapon feat) that specifically calls out that it can be used to CDG, you cannot.
Happy for someone to point to an FAQ that changes this if they know of one.
Presumably taking this route would mean that you have to cast the spell as a standard action and then the following round you spend your full round action to make the Coups De Grace and the spell discharges on its own... i.e. the touch attack isn't actually required to finish casting the spell and once cast, the spell can be held, correct?
I know it sounds like I'm splitting hairs here, but this IS Pathfinder after all - just look at this thread for instance.
Just take the -4 penalty to do lethal. Coup de Grace with non lethal damage doesn't make any sense anyway.It is absolutely considered a melee attack. It is not considered a melee weapon. The criteria here is not melee attack, it is melee weapon.I'm not trying to be thick, but I find this to be a very confusing distinction... a melee weapon is what you make a melee attack with, no? An unarmed strike is considered a melee weapon, a claw attack is considered a melee weapon - why exactly is not a spell when it requires the same attack rolls that the others do?The simple solution is to deliver the touch spell via an unarmed strike.
You get the additional (non-lethal) damage from the unarmed strike in addition to the damage from the touch spell.
Normal rules apply for resolving the coup-de-grace.
The whole point is getting an auto-crit with a spell while killing your opponent.
Coup-de-grace with an unarmed strike and a held spell achieves this goal while avoiding the technical argument that you cannot coup-de-grace with a touch spell. You can; you just have to change how you declare the attack.
There is no -4 penalty to deal normal damage with a coup-de-grace. It is auto-hit.
There is no -4 penalty to deal normal damage with a coup-de-grace. It is auto-hit.
Which is why there's no reason not to take it. Why do non-lethal damage when you can choose to do lethal for no penalty?