|
Unarmed strikes are listed in the weapons section, as a weapon.Addressed in post 19. Not yet refuted.
It's listed under weapon descriptions too, not just the table.
It's listed under weapon descriptions too, not just the table.
Where else are they going to put it? And that text also features the "considered" which implies it's not a weapon.
By this reasoning, no one can take weapon focus for unarmed strikes or any natural weapons. Not a weapon, then no weapon focus.
Weapon Focus (Combat): "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."
That's just it, try to take RAW, especially if you are disallowing Unarmed Strikes a Coup de Grace, in real life. You don't think if I punch as hard as I can on somebody's head while they are helpless on the floor, I wouldn't have a good chance of killing them? Not to mention curb stomping (a la American History X)?
It is a judgement call by the GM.
Grabbing the neck should be considered initiating a grapple which may or may not break the "Sleep" spell. To me, it is slightly ambiguous as slapping the character would awaken it, but in order to awaken it you have to make an aid-another check.
My interpretation is that the creature would take longer to regain consciousness if unaided, making the neck snapping more feasible.
Mechanically, the creature is helpless. This makes CdG available. Sitting the creature up to snap it's neck would be enough to partially awaken it, losing it's helpless state, thus negating CdG.
Just have him palm thrust the nose-bridge into the brain. Just as cool without all the complication.
I say have him describe how he goes about it and make a judgement call. Does how he described the actions constitute enough disturbance to qualify as a slap-equivilent action?
I say let the player do it. Common sense. I don't believe the mechanics support it, but it's definitely enough of a gray area to let the player have some fun.
Wow people are being real...what is the word how do you Americans say argumentativeness ...nit picky. It is obvious by RAW and by RAI that unarmed strikes can be delivered to CDG. If I can punch a goblin to death with my bare hands! what changes? If he not awake and is helpless and laying there I cant say "Guys I would love to karate chop him in the throat ...but (as he wipes the blood off his hands form all the other goblins he karate chopped to -30 hp) you see these killing machine hands don't work like that can we have the fighter do it instead?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow people are being real...what is the word how do you Americans say
"precise"
It is obvious by RAW and by RAI that unarmed strikes can be delivered to CDG.
So you can refute all the points I've made using quotes from the rules?
If I can punch a goblin to death with my bare hands!
Nothing is stopping you from punching it to death. Only from performing the coup de grace action which requires a melee weapon, a bow or a crossbow, which your fists, feet, and head are not.
There are better uses for your outrage. Remember, we're discussing, by the OP's request, only the exact rules as written. The same rules which don't allow you to coup de grace with a firearm. The same rules that leave diagonal gaps in medium reach weapons threatened areas. The same rules that make Sunder a standard action. The same rules that allow a silent invisible creature to provide flanking even when the target has no idea they are threatened.
There's a good chance that most of you would run each one of those rules differently at your table. But that's explicitly not what the OP asked.
Natural weapons, can be used to make melee attacks, and thus, are melee weapons.
Note, the text in coup de grace does not say manufactured melee weapons.
You are assuming all melee attacks are made with melee weapons. My quoted text disagrees with you however.
"Melee weapon" is in the equipment chapter, and it describes how those weapons are used, not natural attacks. If that is not the case then you would have to explain why my post has them as seperate things. I think coup de grace should say "melee attacks", but it doesn't.
The pedantic reading of coup de grace to disallow doing it with unarmed strikes or natural weapons is just silly.
I agree that RAI natural weapons count, but RAW they don't. Personally I just let all melee attacks work, just like I did with haste before it was errata'd.
It used to specify "held weapons".
Jiggy pointed me to a post where Sean (developer) considered unarmed attacks to be treated as weapons, going on to specifically state that the "melee weapon" signification did not equate to "manufactured weapon". It simply meant that, what you used to melee an opponent, whether that's a greatsword or your pinky.
Jiggy pointed me to a post where Sean (developer) considered unarmed attacks to be treated as weapons, going on to specifically state that the "melee weapon" signification did not equate to "manufactured weapon". It simply meant that, what you used to melee an opponent, whether that's a greatsword or your pinky.
I don't think all melee weapons have to be manufactured weapons, but natural attacks still don't make the cut. Unarmed strikes do. That is the RAW anyway. I just don't think I have a better chance of killing you with a punch than a dragon would with a bite, if they existed. That is why I would like to be changed to melee attack, but I guess that would open up melee touch attacks in strange situations, but the wording could be redone to account for that.
I would still like some clarification on nonleathal damage and a CdG. I know you can obviously beat a person to death (as nonlethal turns into lethal as it is aquired) but since CdG is a 1 round (6 second) action ... how does using nonlethal work?
Jiggy pointed me to a post where Sean (developer) considered unarmed attacks to be treated as weapons, going on to specifically state that the "melee weapon" signification did not equate to "manufactured weapon". It simply meant that, what you used to melee an opponent, whether that's a greatsword or your pinky.I don't think all melee weapons have to be manufactured weapons, but natural attacks still don't make the cut. Unarmed strikes do. That is the RAW anyway. I just don't think I have a better chance of killing you with a punch than a dragon would with a bite, if they existed. That is why I would like to be changed to melee attack, but I guess that would open up melee touch attacks in strange situations, but the wording could be redone to account for that.
Why would you think a melee touch attack shouldn't be able to CdG if it's doing damage? I can easily see a sorcerer with silent spell stealthfully casting 'shocking grasp' and then sneaking up behind a dozing guard and putting one hand on either side of his head and discharging the spell between his hands through his skull and frying his brain.
Actually, I think that's a rather cool image. I've got to remember to try to do that in a game sometime.
I would still like some clarification on nonleathal damage and a CdG. I know you can obviously beat a person to death (as nonlethal turns into lethal as it is aquired) but since CdG is a 1 round (6 second) action ... how does using nonlethal work?
Assuming you're using a weapon, it works just like it says. Full-round action, automatically hit and score a critical hit. If the target survives, Fort save vs death (DC 10+damage dealt).
Or, just take a -4 penalty on the attack roll, which you don't have to make, thus dealing lethal damage instead.
Jiggy pointed me to a post where Sean (developer) considered unarmed attacks to be treated as weapons, going on to specifically state that the "melee weapon" signification did not equate to "manufactured weapon". It simply meant that, what you used to melee an opponent, whether that's a greatsword or your pinky.
Did SKR say that last sentence, or is that your own conclusion?
When SKR said unarmed strikes are treated as weapons, for what purpose was he referring?
That quote wasn't any of these, was it?
If you're armed with a weapon, you're not unarmed.
some monks prefer weapons to unarmed attacks.
Disarm, sunder, and trip are normally the only kinds of combat maneuvers in which you’re actually using a weapon (natural weapons and unarmed strikes are considered weapons for this purpose)
weapon damage doesn't progress for any class except through the use of feats and magic. Monks are able to increase their weapon damage just as fighters do (fighter = best class with weapons), but fighters get more feats for that purpose and should be better than the weapon-using monk.
(...)
if monks naturally increased their weapon damage based on class level, then fighters should be able to do so as well
(...)
the monk should do the best unarmed damage in the game. The fighter should do the most consistently better weapon damage in the game
Jiggy pointed me to a post where Sean (developer) considered unarmed attacks to be treated as weapons, going on to specifically state that the "melee weapon" signification did not equate to "manufactured weapon". It simply meant that, what you used to melee an opponent, whether that's a greatsword or your pinky.I don't think all melee weapons have to be manufactured weapons, but natural attacks still don't make the cut. Unarmed strikes do. That is the RAW anyway. I just don't think I have a better chance of killing you with a punch than a dragon would with a bite, if they existed. That is why I would like to be changed to melee attack, but I guess that would open up melee touch attacks in strange situations, but the wording could be redone to account for that.Why would you think a melee touch attack shouldn't be able to CdG if it's doing damage? I can easily see a sorcerer with silent spell stealthfully casting 'shocking grasp' and then sneaking up behind a dozing guard and putting one hand on either side of his head and discharging the spell between his hands through his skull and frying his brain.
Actually, I think that's a rather cool image. I've got to remember to try to do that in a game sometime.
I think it would, but I was assuming there is some strange corner case that would not work conceptually.
@Grick (The last sentence was mine, not SKR's)
It was this from the comments section of here
Serisan wrote:
Another minor clarification: You mention trip being used with weapons. Is that "weapons in general" or "trip weapons only?" I assume the latter, but I've heard arguments for the former from some people, who state that the trip weapon bonus is only that you can drop the weapon if you fail the check.
Every time this blog entry says "weapon" instead of "trip weapon," it means "any weapon."In other words, you can make disarm, sunder, and trip checks with any weapon, and you apply your bonuses (enhancement bonus, Weapon Focus, and so on) to the disarm, sunder, or trip combat maneuver roll.
It doesn't have to be a manufactured weapon (thus you can use unarmed strikes and/or natural attacks ) and it doesn't have to be a weapon with a special feature relating to that combat maneuver (such as a disarm weapon or trip weapon). Thus you can trip with a whip, longsword, unarmed strike, bite, greatsword, and so on, and apply your bonuses to the combat maneuver roll.
So while this particular post was talking about combat maneuvers, he's stated that he considers "weapon" to mean "any weapon", I would take that to be applicable to CdG as well.
He replies a few times in that blog post...good read.
He says "Every time this blog entry says "weapon" instead of "trip weapon," it means "any weapon."
He is not saying weapon always means "any weapon". He is saying for the purpose of that particular discussion. That means it has to be taken in context, and it is specifically talking about getting bonuses vs when you can not get bonus. That has nothing to do with coup de grace.
I wouldn't imagine it being a very far stretch that he would apply this to CdF. It would apply in that case making "an attack from a melee weapon" meaning "an attack from ANY melee weapon". Again, common sense would suggest that if I can strike hard enough with my fist to cause damage then there is NO reason I can't try to kill you while you are helpless on the ground.
It does need to be taken in context, but just because the post itself was about combat maneuvers I think it makes sense when applying his logic to the special attack of CdG.
you can step on a sleeping guys neck and kill him.....trust me
I was thinking more along the lines of an assassin-style twisting neck snap.
It does since the subject was when to apply bonuses, and how they interact with CMB based attacks. That has nothing to do with coup de grace. The game is very specific, and how things interact matters. CdG is not a CMB based attack
It matters in that blog so he wont have to say "trip weapon, "disarm weapon", and so on since they all work the same way regarding using a weapon to get the bonus.
As an example if you have an amulet of mighty fist natural attacks count for the bonus for CMB based attacks. Instead of calling out "natural attacks" or "natural attacks with trip", you just say weapons, and since the natural attack has a bonus from the amulet of mighty fist everything is simple.
I don't even see the connection between a statement "for this blog", and you saying it always counts. That is like if I am 16, and my parents say I can drive the car tonight. That does not mean I always get to drive the car.
I wouldn't imagine it being a very far stretch that he would apply this to CdF. It would apply in that case making "an attack from a melee weapon" meaning "an attack from ANY melee weapon". Again, common sense would suggest that if I can strike hard enough with my fist to cause damage then there is NO reason I can't try to kill you while you are helpless on the ground.
It does need to be taken in context, but just because the post itself was about combat maneuvers I think it makes sense when applying his logic to the special attack of CdG.
I agree that the RAW is not realistic, but by RAW it the rules fail at times. This is one of them. I don't know any GM's that would enforce this ruling though since many would not count it as RAI.
Fair enough, I agree specifics matter but the RAI (or in this case his blog) matter as well. That post also mentions earlier in the comments section that AoMF is likely a GM ruling, and I imagine the same for unarmed CdG. But, again, RAW:no, GM:probably yes.
A Monk, who's hands get treated as manufactured, that should be able to CdG as per RAW then, no?
If you can deal lethal damage with your unarmed attacks (ie improved unarmed), I don't see why you logically couldn't.
Wraithstrike is right, for this thread, the OP is specifically asking for RAW. I too have to deal with that, much as I don't like it.
Fair enough, I agree specifics matter but the intent behind the rules (or in this case his blog) matter as well. That post also mentions earlier in the comments section that AoMF is likely a GM ruling, and I imagine the same for unarmed CdG.
A Monk, who's hands get treated as manufactured, that should be able to CdG as per RAW then, no?
I agree that monks can coup de grace by RAW since unarmed strikes are melee weapons, at least that is my reading of the rules.
I thought you were trying to extend the definition of melee weapons to natural attacks .
edit:I read Grick's post. They are not melee weapons. Oh well that is just another rule for me to ignore. :)
This would clear it up.
A Melee Attack is any attack made with any weapon, spell, or natural attack in which a continuous contiguous connection is made between the Attacker, the attacker's weapon, and the target, and the target is within the modified reach of the attacker.
When making a Melee Attack (See above), you may... blah blah blah <standard CdG text>.You may make a Coup-De-Gras attempt only with a Melee Attack that does hit point damage. If the attack does HP damage, then the target dies on a failed save. If the attack does temporary HP damage, then the target is unconscious until they make a fortitude save equal to the Coup De Gras save. They may make a save every hour.
This would clarify all the 'may I use <insert weapon>' to make a CdG and all the 'what if it's a sap or unarmed attack' questions. Any weapon with reach can be used at full reach, any ranged weapon can't (although the arrow can be used, it's just hard to CdG with an arrow).
Why is this even a question? The answer to this is so self-evident that if the rules contradict it, the rules are wrong.
Probably should hit FAQ then since there could be a number of non-functioning things if a unarmed strike isn't a melee weapon.