| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Do the RAW support this type of action? I have a pbp situation where a character wants to break the neck of a foe who has been magically put to sleep. Any thoughts?
Do the RAW support this type of action?
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."
Unarmed strikes are melee weapons, so yes.
Unarmed Attacks: "Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except..."
|
Unarmed strikes are melee weapons, so yes.Unarmed Attacks: "Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except..."
Is 'cannot coup de grace' one of the exceptions?
Hmm... can I actually do a lethal CdG with nonlethal damage... or will this simply knock the target out?
Is 'cannot coup de grace' one of the exceptions?
No.
If unarmed strike is a melee weapon, it wouldn't need to say "much like attacking with a melee weapon" it would say "much like attacking with any other melee weapon..."
If it was a melee weapon, it wouldn't need to say things like "count as light weapons" and "considered light" and "considered a light weapon" and the damage wouldn't be "considered weapon damage" it would just be a light weapon, dealing weapon damage.
If unarmed strikes are melee weapons it wouldn't list natural weapons working "in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes."
So since unarmed strike is not a melee weapon, nor is it a bow or crossbow, you cannot use it to coup de grace.
(I would certainly house rule that anyone trained in unarmed strike could coup de grace with it.)
-edit-
JJ: "You can make a coup de grace, I would say, with anything that requires an attack roll to hit."
|
Is 'cannot coup de grace' one of the exceptions?No.
If unarmed strike is a melee weapon, it wouldn't need to say "much like attacking with a melee weapon" it would say "much like attacking with any other melee weapon..."
If it was a melee weapon, it wouldn't need to say things like "count as light weapons" and "considered light" and "considered a light weapon" and the damage wouldn't be "considered weapon damage" it would just be a light weapon, dealing weapon damage.
If unarmed strikes are melee weapons it wouldn't list natural weapons working "in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes."
So since unarmed strike is not a melee weapon, nor is it a bow or crossbow, you cannot use it to coup de grace.
(I would certainly house rule that anyone trained in unarmed strike could coup de grace with it.)
-edit-
JJ: "You can make a coup de grace, I would say, with anything that requires an attack roll to hit."
So a monk could not CdG with out a monk weapon then?
Or use combat Expertise? (You can only choose to use this feat when you declare that you are making an attack or a full-attack action with a melee weapon.)
A monk/cleric could not do a "Channel Smite"? (You can channel your divine energy through a melee weapon you wield.)
Nope, per the RAW, an unarmed strike is a melee weapon. It is even in the weapons table in equipment, has a description with the rest of the weapons, and all characters are proficient in it.
You would be closer to say that you cannot do a CdG with any "Natural Weapon" (so no dogs tearing the throats out of anybody who is down), since Natural Weapons are different than Melee Weapons. (even if I think that that RAI is to allow it).
Hmm... can I actually do a lethal CdG with nonlethal damage... or will this simply knock the target out?
As a note of interest, d20 Modern had a Knockout Blow rule that basically was an unarmed, nonlethal coup de grace. Usually dealt enough damage to knock the target unconscious.
It wouldn't apply to OP's situation, though, since the PC is trying to specifically kill the target.
For the OP's specific situation:
Let's move away from the RAW and all that for a moment.
Consider: A clean blow to the neck with a blade is extremely fast, and done right, painless (it is after all the cut of mercy). A sleeping person will likely not see it coming. But reaching down, grabbing someone by the head and twisting, takes a little longer and more skill do to right. It is still relatively quick and painless, but I can see the GM arguing there's a difference there.
Furthermore, HOW is the target magically asleep? Because the sleep spell notes "Slapping or wounding awakens an affected creature". Based on that I could also argue that getting close enough to the target to grab its head and start to twist might be enough to wake the sleeping target (at which point the target is no longer helpless), or at least (at the GM's discretion) give him another saving throw. I don't know if there are other sleeping effects off the top of my head that would disallow wakening.
Just stuff for you and the GM to take into consideration.
So a monk could not CdG with out a monk weapon then?
Any kind of melee weapon, or a bow or crossbow.
Or use combat Expertise?
A monk/cleric could not do a "Channel Smite"?
Correct, though the intent is surely that those are covered by the third paragraph of monk unarmed strike. (treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.)
Nope, per the RAW, an unarmed strike is a melee weapon.
Citation or refutation of earlier points needed.
It is even in the weapons table in equipment, has a description with the rest of the weapons, and all characters are proficient in it.
You mean the table which lists it not as a weapon, but under Unarmed Attacks? If it were a weapon, specifically a simple light melee weapon, it would not be in it's own category. (A category which SKR has said is in error, see this thread)
You would be closer to say that you cannot do a CdG with any "Natural Weapon" (so no dogs tearing the throats out of anybody who is down), since Natural Weapons are different than Melee Weapons. (even if I think that that RAI is to allow it).
How do you consider an unarmed strike to be a melee weapon, but a natural weapon like claw or bite to not be a melee weapon?
How do you consider an unarmed strike to be a melee weapon, but a natural weapon like claw or bite to not be a melee weapon?
Unarmed Strike is clearly listed on the Pathfinder weapon tables as a Simple melee weapon, along with Gauntlet.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So a monk could not CdG with out a monk weapon then?Any kind of melee weapon, or a bow or crossbow.
Or use combat Expertise?
A monk/cleric could not do a "Channel Smite"?
Correct, though the intent is surely that those are covered by the third paragraph of monk unarmed strike. (treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.)
Nope, per the RAW, an unarmed strike is a melee weapon.Citation or refutation of earlier points needed.
It is even in the weapons table in equipment, has a description with the rest of the weapons, and all characters are proficient in it.You mean the table which lists it not as a weapon, but under Unarmed Attacks? If it were a weapon, specifically a simple light melee weapon, it would not be in it's own category. (A category which SKR has said is in error, see this thread)
You would be closer to say that you cannot do a CdG with any "Natural Weapon" (so no dogs tearing the throats out of anybody who is down), since Natural Weapons are different than Melee Weapons. (even if I think that that RAI is to allow it).How do you consider an unarmed strike to be a melee weapon, but a natural weapon like claw or bite to not be a melee weapon?
Nothing in his statement said that the table was in error for the unarmed strikes, only that gauntlets should not be there.
As for the natural weapons, your rulling of melee weapons only stops all animals or creatures armed with only natural weapons from doing CdG's per RAW.
If you check the FAQ, you see comments like this:
For example, you can trip with a longsword or an unarmed strike, even though those weapons don't have the trip special feature. linkage
this also implies that the dev team think that the unarmed strike is a weapon.
Also, form the equipment section:
Strike, Unarmed: A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike. A Small character deals 1d2 points of nonlethal damage. A monk or any character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat can deal lethal or nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes, at his discretion. The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.
An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike. Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Combat).
Since you can CdG with a light weapon, and an unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon, you can CdG with an unarmed strike per the RAW.
Also, nothing in the books states that Natural attacks are melee weapon attacks (or even considered them for any purpose).
Melee weapons are mostly manufactured weapon. Not all melee attacks are made with melee weapons. Unarmed strikes are in the table so they seem to count as manufactured weapons. Personally I think coup de grace should say "melee attack".
Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites,...
You can make attacks with natural weapons with attacks made with a melee weapon.....
Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons: This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon's size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon
edit:The rules are what the rules are. Unarmed strikes count, but natural attacks do not.
|
|
If unarmed strike is a melee weapon, it wouldn't need to say "much like attacking with a melee weapon" it would say "much like attacking with any other melee weapon..."
It says 'much like attacking with a melee weapon' because it IS a melee weapon. There are numerous statements of it being a melee weapon. To argue it isn't, you need to find a statement saying it is NOT a melee weapon.
you can step on a sleeping guys neck and kill him.....trust me
Unarmed Strike is clearly listed on the Pathfinder weapon tables as a Simple melee weapon, along with Gauntlet.
Look again.
* Unarmed Attacks:
-- Gauntlet
-- Unarmed strike
* Light Melee Weapons
* One-Handed Melee Weapons
* Two-Handed Melee Weapons
* Ranged Weapons
They're listed as attacks, not weapons. They're listed in the table because there's not really anywhere else to put them.
Also, they're not simple. People who do not have simple weapon proficiency are still proficient with their unarmed attacks.
Nothing in his statement said that the table was in error for the unarmed strikes, only that gauntlets should not be there.
SKR Says "Brass knuckles should be armed (light melee weapon) attacks. (As should gauntlets and spiked gauntlets.) Which makes it clear that using brass knuckles is not an unarmed attack"
This means unarmed attacks are not light melee weapons.
SKR says, further down, "Making all of these weapons act 100% like weapons and not refer to unarmed attacks at all means these questions go away."
Again, differentiating between unarmed attacks and weapons.
As for the natural weapons, your rulling of melee weapons only stops all animals or creatures armed with only natural weapons from doing CdG's per RAW.
Well, it stops anyone without a melee weapon, bow, or crossbow from performing a CdG per RAW. Animals, naked unaugmented humans, etc.
If you check the FAQ, you see comments like this:
this also implies that the dev team think that the unarmed strike is a weapon.
That's arguing to intent and common usage, not RAW.
Since you can CdG with a light weapon, and an unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon, you can CdG with an unarmed strike per the RAW.
It's considered a light weapon. That means if something refers to a light weapon, rather than a one-handed weapon, then unarmed strike fits that size category. Like Weapon Finesse and Two-Weapon Fighting penalties.
Also, nothing in the books states that Natural attacks are melee weapon attacks (or even considered them for any purpose).
So your statement that unarmed strikes are melee weapons is completely reliant on them, in some cases, being considered melee weapons, for some purposes? Don't you see how that means that for other purposes and in other cases, they aren't weapons?
It says 'much like attacking with a melee weapon' because it IS a melee weapon.
If it IS a melee weapon, it's not much like one, it IS one. A bunny is much like a cat, except it's not a cat. A longsword isn't much like a melee weapon, it IS a melee weapon.
There are numerous statements of it being a melee weapon.
Incorrect. There are numerous statements of it being considered a light weapon, which means it's not a light weapon, or it wouldn't be considered a light weapon.
The rules don't say a dagger is considered a light weapon for purposes of TWF, and that its damage is considered weapon damage. Because the dagger IS a weapon, and it's damage IS weapon damage.
A tiger is much like a cat, except larger.
If by "cat" you mean a domestic cat, then yes.
If you mean a Felid, a member of the cat family, then no, that's incorrect.
To rephrase in a less confusing manner:
All tigers are mammals, not all mammals are tigers.
The sentence "A tiger is much like a mammal, except they have stripes and stuff." is not correct, because a tiger IS a mammal, and having some unique characteristics doesn't change that.
The sentence "A jellyfish is much like a mammal, except they have no vertebrate..." could be correct.
Thus, "an attack with an unarmed strike is much like an attack with a melee weapon" only makes sense if the unarmed attack isn't a melee weapon.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is this honestly any sort of valid question? Seriously.
there are way too many words so far to determine if a sleeping guy can get his neck snapped?
Yes. move along.
No, it still makes sense as long as there are exceptions, which there are for unarmed strikes.
If unarmed strikes are simple light melee weapons, attacking with them would not be much like attacking with a melee weapon, it would be attacking with a melee weapon.
If unarmed strikes are simple light melee weapons, they would not be 'considered' light weapons for various purposes, they would be light weapons.
If unarmed strikes are simple light melee weapons, the damage would not be considered weapon damage, it would be weapon damage.
If unarmed strikes are simple light melee weapons, then you would not 'make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes', you would just make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with melee weapons.
If unarmed strikes are simple light melee weapons, they would be in the weapon table under simple light melee weapons.
If unarmed strikes are simple light melee weapons, they would be a valid target for Magic Weapon without requiring the monk ability.
|
|
No, it still makes sense as long as there are exceptions, which there are for unarmed strikes.If unarmed strikes are simple light melee weapons, attacking with them would not be much like attacking with a melee weapon, it would be attacking with a melee weapon.
If it was a melee weapon, attacking with them WOULD be much like attacking with a melee weapon. Because it IS attacking with a melee weapon.
Edit: Now I agree that it isn't explicitly called out as a melee weapon, I'm just arguing language.
If it was a melee weapon, attacking with them WOULD be much like attacking with a melee weapon. Because it IS attacking with a melee weapon.
Compare these two sentences:
"Monotremes are much like mammals, except they lay eggs."
"Monotremes are much like other mammals, except they lay eggs."
Now, if you didn't know what a Monotreme was, which sentence would make it clear that they are, in fact, mammals, despite laying eggs?
If you do not have Improved Unarmed Strike you may only deal non-lethal damage with your innefectual pummeling.
Dealing Lethal Damage: "You can specify that your unarmed strike will deal lethal damage before you make your attack roll, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll."
|
|
Now, if you didn't know what a Monotreme was, which sentence would make it clear that they are, in fact, mammals, despite laying eggs?
What does clarity have to do with anything?
|
Do the RAW support this type of action? I have a pbp situation where a character wants to break the neck of a foe who has been magically put to sleep. Any thoughts?Ask the character why they didn't spend 5gp on a spiked gauntlet. Let this be a learning experience and move on. :]
Am I the only one who immediately assumed that this was in a Skulls and Shackles game, where the first thing they do is take all your equipment?
Can you ... yes
Will it succeed ... probably not
Seeing that CdG is a fortitude save based offthe critic damage done, the 2d3 (med) that your adding to the DC may not be enough to ensure death.
Can you ... yes
Will it succeed ... probably notSeeing that CdG is a fortitude save based offthe critic damage done, the 2d3 (med) that your adding to the DC may not be enough to ensure death.
...+STR bonus damage and any other modifiers. If you're a Rogue, Ninja, Assassin, or Vivisectionist archetype Alchemist, you add your Sneak Attack, as well.
A reasonably build PFS-legal melee character is easily looking at a DC 18 check at a minimum at level 1. Additionally, at this level, the damage itself will kill most opponents. If it's higher level, you can reasonably assume decent modifiers to make this much, much more difficult to save against.
In regard to the save, does the damage added to the DC only include lethal? Since a standard unarmed attack does non-lethal which is described as "not real" would that mean the damage from the CdG would have to exceed their Max HP and thus convert to lethal to count toward the save DC?
|
|
Natural weapons and unarmed strikes are melee weapons. This means you can perform a Coup de Grace with either.
See here.
Natural weapons and unarmed strikes are melee weapons. This means you can perform a Coup de Grace with either.
See here.
Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites,...
You can make attacks with natural weapons with attacks made with a melee weapon.....
On a tangent, obviously you cannot execute someone by sending a bullet through his head. CdG does not mention Firearms being allowed for the deed.
Other than bashing in the poor sod's skull with it, that is.
It's a melee weapon. It works by RAW.
And by fluff, I don't see how you can reject it. It's perfectly plausible to crush a windpipe with a karate chop or bust his skull with a kick to a temple or send cartellege to his brain with a blow to his nose.
Since this thread haven't gone on long enough, looking a tiny bits of text and tables, I'll smoothly jump to another nice part of the Helpless Defender rules.
A helpless opponent is someone who is bound, sleeping, paralyzed, unconscious, or otherwise at your mercy.
So a lvl 3 Paladin can use his lay on hands to set up an opponent for coup de grace (or other helpless-niceness)...
|
|
Since this thread haven't gone on long enough, looking a tiny bits of text and tables, I'll smoothly jump to another nice part of the Helpless Defender rules.
A helpless opponent is someone who is bound, sleeping, paralyzed, unconscious, or otherwise at your mercy.So a lvl 3 Paladin can use his lay on hands to set up an opponent for coup de grace (or other helpless-niceness)...
That's not RAW, that's playing with words.
Don't be silly.
That's not RAW, that's playing with words.
Don't be silly.
I had hoped the bolding/enlarging of words, the argument combined with the initial statement would send the message that it was a point of sillyness rather than seriousness.
However it quite fully summize the problem prevalent in so many threads, where people claim something to be RAW, when the rules is anything but clear on the matter.
Playing as a monk makes it a non-issue as you can choose lethal damage with your fists AND your unarmed attacks are considered manufactured.
The way I get think of it is...
Since you are making a CdG, obviously the enemy is helpless.
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.
As it is mentioned by others, unarmed attacks ARE a melee attack. If the enemy is helpless it is likely laying on the ground. With your helpless enemy's head on the hard floor your fist is kind of like Gallagher's hammer. Especially if gauntleted or brass knuckled.
I think the distinction is that your melee attack doesn't have to be able to deal lethal damage (as per the PRD above, allowing non-monks to use fists or feet) since a helpless opponent loses his Dex.
A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (–5 modifier).
And any AC it has is by armor or natural, remove his helmet THEN do a CdG to his head. Booted foot to the temple for preference.
Playing as a monk makes it a non-issue as you can choose lethal damage with your fists AND your unarmed attacks are considered manufactured.
Finish the rule. "...for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."
A coup de grace is neither a spell nor an effect that enhances or improves either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
As it is mentioned by others, unarmed attacks ARE a melee attack.
Yes, it's a melee attack.
No, it's not a melee weapon. Nor a bow, nor a crossbow. Therefore, you cannot use it to coup de grace.
Especially if gauntleted or brass knuckled.
That would be an unarmed attack made with a melee weapon. Since you're using a melee weapon (the gauntlet or spiked gauntlet) you can perform the coup de grace. (See here for why a gauntlet is a melee weapon)
I think the distinction is that your melee attack doesn't have to be able to deal lethal damage (as per the PRD above, allowing non-monks to use fists or feet) since a helpless opponent loses his Dex.
The distinction is whether your hand (or foot or head) is a melee weapon. Lethal damage is irrelevant. You can coup de grace with a sap, dealing nonlethal damage and hoping he fails a save. Or you can take a -4 penalty on the non-existent attack roll and deal lethal damage with the sap.
And any AC it has is by armor or natural, remove his helmet THEN do a CdG to his head.
AC and dex have nothing to do with it. The coup de grace automatically hits.
The pedantic reading of coup de grace to disallow doing it with unarmed strikes or natural weapons is just silly.
The original post specifically asked for the rule as written.
The rule as any sane person would run it in a home game was linked in post 10.
Bruce Lee did it in Enter the Dragon. It's only fair I'd allow my players to do the same, RAW be damned.