Wyroot coup de grace


Rules Questions


3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unconscious foe. (Or unconscious rat or something)
Wyroot club.
Coup de grace.
Autocrit.
No damage.
Gain one arcane pool or ki point.
Repeat until pool is full.

Works?


That actually sounds like it would work. Seems like a loophole, but sounds like it would work.


Seems so though I can not help but wonder if the wording was just poor. I feel in my gut that the intent might have been for you to forgo the extra crit damage not all damage.

But as worded that's not the case and arguing intent is well silly.

You know on second thought maybe it does not. A Coup De grace dose not have a confirm roll. While Wyroot says "When a weapon constructed of wyroot confirms a critical hit".

I am unsure just what RAW considers "confirmed".

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Coup de Grace is an automatically confirmed critical.


Seems to me like the whole "wyroot does no damage on a crit" thing wasn't very well thought out. But aside from sloppy design complaints, anyone see a reason why you can't fill up your ki pool by bashing a sleeping baby with a wyroot stick?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
beej67 wrote:
Seems to me like the whole "wyroot does no damage on a crit" thing wasn't very well thought out. But aside from sloppy design complaints, anyone see a reason why you can't fill up your ki pool by bashing a sleeping baby with a wyroot stick?

A Witch can help you track them down with child-scent.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
beej67 wrote:
Seems to me like the whole "wyroot does no damage on a crit" thing wasn't very well thought out. But aside from sloppy design complaints, anyone see a reason why you can't fill up your ki pool by bashing a sleeping baby with a wyroot stick?
A Witch can help you track them down with child-scent.

OMG you found a reason to work a Witch's Child-Scent Hex into a real situation.

/highfive


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Coup de Grace is an automatically confirmed critical.

While it functions as so rules as written only use the term "confirm" in context of a critical "threat".

Coup de grace on the other hand does not critical threat nor confirm. It is simply an automatic hit and critical. Bypassing the threat and confirm states. "You automatically hit and score a critical hit."

So there is no threat range because there is no attack roll. there is no confirm since there is no threat. Overly strict adherence to RAW? Maybe but then again allowing this is equally stupid if not more so.


Well since there's two

Rynjin wrote:
Sounds a lot like a Hungry Ghost Monk tying a guy up/chopping off all his limbs (somehow keeping him alive) and then keeping him around to wail on when you need Ki between battles.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Barry Armstrong wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
beej67 wrote:
Seems to me like the whole "wyroot does no damage on a crit" thing wasn't very well thought out. But aside from sloppy design complaints, anyone see a reason why you can't fill up your ki pool by bashing a sleeping baby with a wyroot stick?
A Witch can help you track them down with child-scent.

OMG you found a reason to work a Witch's Child-Scent Hex into a real situation.

/highfive

Actually, I have done this often.

None of them can be posted here though.

It can used in conjunction with the Pup Shape spell though.


I would rule it that an autocrit is no crit confirmation.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

So, it's an auto unconfirmed critical?


Automatic critical bypasses the confirmation step, yes.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
So, it's an auto unconfirmed critical?

There is certainly an argument for that via certain RAW translation, if you hold to the argument that the actual trigger mechanism for the Wyroot is the "threat" rather than the "crit".

I disagree with that assessment, and here is why:

Rolling within the crit range of a weapon is considered a "threat".

Rolling again to "confirm" is either successful or unsuccessful.

Unsuccessful confirmation means a standard hit. (Wyroot would not activate)

Successful confirmation means a critical hit. (Wyroot would activate)

Wyroot activates on the successful confirmation of a critical hit.

Therefore, one can surmise that the trigger mechanism is the "crit" rather than the "threat".

Otherwise, the text would read "When a weapon constructed of wyroot threatens a critical hit" rather than "confirms".

(And, BBT, Child Scent + Pup Shape = WIN)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Without confirmation, how is it a successful critical?

Is that not an unconfirmed critical?

That's like an unsuccessful hit, that still hits, because there was no need to determine it's success, because it's success was not noted, but hit nonetheless?

How does that become a logical conclusion?


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Without confirmation, how is it a successful critical?

Is that not an unconfirmed critical?

That's like an unsuccessful hit, that still hits, because there was no need to determine it's success, because it's success was not noted, but hit nonetheless?

How does that become a logical conclusion?

I think it works like this...

1) Threaten a cricial hit on your attack roll

2) Roll to confirm a critical hit

3) Roll critical hit damage

Coup de grace skips step 2. There is never a confirmation roll so you never "confirm a critical hit".

Coup de Grace wrote:
You automatically hit and score a critical hit

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Would not every critical be either confirmed or unconfirmed?

How does any critical not qualify as either?


RAW and logic rarely go hand in hand. RAW is a confirm roll only happens with a critical threat. RAW is also that a auto crit and a confirmed crit are not the same. How one feels that works or does not work logically has no effect on RAW.

Still it does not matter since this was covered here.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=455?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Qu estions-Here#22716

Seems it hurts and gets you the ki/arcane point. I assume it was very bad wording and the "unharmed" part was meant to mean that the "absorbs some of the life force of the creature hit." did not do any additional harm to the target.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Without confirmation, how is it a successful critical?

Is that not an unconfirmed critical?

That's like an unsuccessful hit, that still hits, because there was no need to determine it's success, because it's success was not noted, but hit nonetheless?

How does that become a logical conclusion?

It's a successful critical because Coup de Grace states that it is.

However, there is a logic in arguing that Coup de Grace is simply an automatic HIT with critical DAMAGE, but that would be against strict RAW.

If you take the words "hit and" out of the sentence, Coup de Grace would say "You automatically score a critical hit". Sounds like confirmation to me.

You can also reword the sentence to say "You automatically hit, and that hit is a critical hit". And it would still be an automatic crit.

If you don't want to allow Wyroot to activate on Coup de Grace, I cannot begrudge you interpreting that a Coup de Grace is an unconfirmed critical and therefore does not qualify for the special ability.

If you do want to allow Wyroot to activate on Coup de Grace, I cannot begrudge you interpreting that a Coup de Grace is an automatic critical not needing the confirmation roll.

But I'd still personally argue that the "crit threat" mechanic is unnecessary to activate the Wyroot because of my first post explanation.


Still, I think the dealing no damage thing is bad and/or makes no sense.

One could abuse it with a nonlethal tiny/small keen kukri; 1 in 4 hits will crit, and when you're dealing like 1d2 nonlethal damage (and no damage on crit), that's only 3-6 nonlethal damage for a ki point (assuming your target isn't just flat-out immune to nonlethal)

Because of the whole nonlethal thing, I'm thinking that it should have to be a lethal attack crit too.

Also, I don't see why you'd need to hit a rat or a sleeping kid; assuming you have some sort of companion/ally, you could just do it to them if they wouldn't take any damage if using the coup-de-gras method.

Lastly, regarding the wording of Wyroot's description, I was quite strongly thinking that by being "unharmed", it just means the life point it gains (from absorbing it from the target) isn't being stolen (lost) from the target, and that the target would still certainly take full damage from a critical hit.
While dealing no extra damage is at least reasonable, the description seems pretty clear that that's not what it meant. Because it makes no sense for it to deal no damage at all, I think my interpretation is the most reasonable.

edit:

Stome wrote:


Still it does not matter since this was covered here.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=455?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Qu estions-Here#22716
Seems it hurts and gets you the ki/arcane point. I assume it was very bad wording and the "unharmed" part was meant to mean that the "absorbs some of the life force of the creature hit." did not do any additional harm to the target.

Oh I didn't read this (or at least pay enough attention); yeah it totally makes sense that this is how it is. In fact that's how I interpreted it when reading the description previously before anyone brought this up.


Stome wrote:

RAW and logic rarely go hand in hand. RAW is a confirm roll only happens with a critical threat. RAW is also that a auto crit and a confirmed crit are not the same. How one feels that works or does not work logically has no effect on RAW.

Still it does not matter since this was covered here.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=455?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Qu estions-Here#22716

Seems it hurts and gets you the ki/arcane point. I assume it was very bad wording and the "unharmed" part was meant to mean that the "absorbs some of the life force of the creature hit." did not do any additional harm to the target.

Where in RAW does it state that an auto crit and a confirmed threat are not the same? Because that would clear up this entire issue...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If a hit is (why ever) an automatic crit you skip the confirmation step as it is unnecessary.
You go directly to hte next step.

So an autocrit is clearly a crit but a crit that never was confirmed because it didn't need to.

Wyroot doesn't have to actually deal a crit, it only has to confirm it.
So I could see me ruling that a confirmed crit vs someone immune to crits activates it. Even if no critical damage can be dealt.
This is the difference between dealing a crit and confirming one.

Barry wrote:

Therefore, one can surmise that the trigger mechanism is the "crit" rather than the "threat".

Otherwise, the text would read "When a weapon constructed of wyroot threatens a critical hit" rather than "confirms".

That would be yet another thing. Because it would trigger even if the confirmation failed.

You have (at least) 3 seperate triggers when it comes to criticals.
1) The threat
2) The confirmation
3) The actual dealing of a critical hit

1) would be fulfilled by rolling equal to or higher than your weapon's threat range, no matter what happens next.
2) Would be fulfilled if 1) happens and you confirm the critical with your second attack roll
3) Happens when you score a critical hit no matter how or why.

Wyroot specifically calls for 2) as it's trigger.
A Vorpal weapon for example would be yet another trigger because it works as 2) but only if you rolled a 20. So a coup de grace should not activate a vorpal weapon even if its threat range is 20.
Bashing finish on the other hand triggers by scoring a critical. So if you CdG someone while wearing a shield you could do your free shield bash following your autocrit by CdG.


Barry Armstrong wrote:
Where in RAW does it state that an auto crit and a confirmed threat are not the same? Because that would clear up this entire issue...

In RAW there is a difference between scoring a critical hit and confirming a critical hit.

Some Abilities require one, some the other.
Why would they make this differentiation if both were the same?


Umbranus wrote:
Barry Armstrong wrote:
Where in RAW does it state that an auto crit and a confirmed threat are not the same? Because that would clear up this entire issue...

In RAW there is a difference between scoring a critical hit and confirming a critical hit.

Some Abilities require one, some the other.
Why would they make this differentiation if both were the same?

That is an RAI interpretation. RAW would list, in writing, rules differences between the two.


Umm no.

Is a rock the same thing as a goblin because it does not say they are not? No? Good.

Two things are not the same unless listed specifically that they are. Not the other way around.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Does this mean a Coup de Grace is not a successful hit, as a roll to hit was not needed?

That follows the exact same logic as the lack of confirmation.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Does this mean a Coup de Grace is not a successful hit, as a roll to hit was not needed?

That follows the exact same logic as the lack of confirmation.

Yeah not at all. A crit be it auto or confirmed is still a crit. Wyroot though does not call for a "critical hit" it calls for a "Confirmed critical."

Just like when something calls for a "weapon attack." That does not automatically lump in everyone attack because the word attack is in there. Only weapon attacks.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

This means a number of critical feats have no effect on a Coup de Grace, as they require confirmation.

This seems very wrong.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

This means a number of critical feats have no effect on a Coup de Grace, as they require confirmation.

This seems very wrong.

Well 1 feat and 1 feat chain anyway. Odd yes but there are odder things RAW does. Now it very well may not be RAI and if a Dev would make a clarification somewhere that would then become the new RAW (IMO anyway though some people do not accept FAQ/clarifications as RAW.)

Though as for wyroot it does not matter as they already clarified that as I said a few post up. So for Wyroot it was just epically bad writing.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Does this mean a Coup de Grace is not a successful hit, as a roll to hit was not needed?

That follows the exact same logic as the lack of confirmation.

It is a hit, and it is a crit. But the act of confirming this crit never happened.

I can't remember any part of the rules that especially states happening on a successful attack roll. If there was something like it I'd say that it doesn't apply to CdG as well. Because even if you auto-hit there was no successful attack roll.


As he himself stated there is a big difference between an official FAQ and an answer in the ask James Thread.


Stome wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

This means a number of critical feats have no effect on a Coup de Grace, as they require confirmation.

This seems very wrong.

Well 1 feat and 1 feat chain anyway. Odd yes but there are odder things RAW does. Now it very well may not be RAI and if a Dev would make a clarification somewhere that would then become the new RAW (IMO anyway though some people do not accept FAQ/clarifications as RAW.)

Though as for wyroot it does not matter as they already clarified that as I said a few post up. So for Wyroot it was just epically bad writing.

I also concur that Wyroot was bad writing. I'll even concur that RAI says it should require a normal attack roll and not just a Coup de Grace. That's a cheap exploitation of the rules and I would personally disallow it using the "unconfirmed critical" valid argument.

But I have to admit that RAW can be interpreted to allow it.

Dev posts/FAQ are clarifications of RAI, not RAW. But I will take their word as law, since these clarifications basically become Errata.

That would be the same as saying "Constitutional Rights" say that a President can be elected forever. We had to write Amendments to the Constitution as "Errata" to prevent unexpected consequences. The original RAW of the Constitution had no Bill of Rights etc...so a strict interpretation is dangerous. Same with RPG interpretation.

Long story short, it's the DM's call either way due to Rule 0, no matter what RAW, RAI, or Developers say.


Umbranus wrote:

I would rule it that an autocrit is no crit confirmation.

How does the wyroot plant know or care whether the hit was almost not a crit or not? A coup de grace is just a very well placed crit. It's not like it does any less damage, or bashes any less brain in, or cuts any fewer arteries, than a randomly rolled crit. A crit is a crit.

What is wyroot supposed to be anyway? Magic wood that heals crits back up in return for life force, I presume. And if not that, then what? Wy would magic wood that heals crits back up in return for life force care how the crit was rolled?

Seems to me, if you're going to change the rules, change them so the wyroot still does damage, it just exchanges the *crit* for the life force.

(Edit: hadn't gotten to the errata when I posted that, thanks for the link)


Stome wrote:

RAW and logic rarely go hand in hand. RAW is a confirm roll only happens with a critical threat. RAW is also that a auto crit and a confirmed crit are not the same. How one feels that works or does not work logically has no effect on RAW.

Still it does not matter since this was covered here.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=455?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Qu estions-Here#22716

Seems it hurts and gets you the ki/arcane point. I assume it was very bad wording and the "unharmed" part was meant to mean that the "absorbs some of the life force of the creature hit." did not do any additional harm to the target.

Aha, thanks for the link. Someone should add that to d20pfsrd. (I will in a few hours when I'm off my ipad if nobody else has yet)


They really should - would have saved my hours of surfing the website, writing in the forum, consideing how a magus with a reasonable amount of arcane point would work, considered if dropping black blade for a Wyroot weapon would be worth the lower crit range - it's a catch 22 by the way if you had the 15-20 crit range you would have a chance to get arcane point back at like 30% of your attacks - that would allow you to use spell recall enough to use spellcombat with a reasonable spell most turns, but since you don't get the higher crit range you have only 20% chance, so you don't have enough arcane points, so you... well you get the idea - someone should add the designers RAI to the website...


I think there is one? wooden weapon with a crit range greater than plain old 20. Since the weapon has to be wooden to be made of Wyroot this negates any attempts at getting a Wyroot weapon with a 15-20 crit range.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Guys, no one is hitting the FAQ button? At least to get a better wording for this item.

You can use wyroot with weapon with a wooden handle and a battleaxe isn't a horrible weapon for a magus.
An alternate option is to get a ironwood scimitar. Making it a permanent magic item will cost some pretty penny, but it is feasible if your master allow custom magic items.

The Exchange

The terbutje is a 1d8 19-20/x2 one-handed martial weapon mostly made out of wood.

The dan bong is a 1d3 19-20/x2 light exotic weapon which I'm assuming is wooden (it's a stick, right?).

I can't seem to find a wooden or wooden-hafted one-hander with the 18-20 critical range... is there one?


I originally considered a crit-focused wyroot-handled wakizashi wielding TWF'ing ninja, who would full attack, (with an extra attack at full BAB for one ki point) then had 7 chances to steal some back (with keen, or improved critical to up the threat range).

I kind of would have figured you could get a wakizashi made with a wooden handle, but I hadn't really thought about it too much, so perhaps not.

Also, the whole thing sounded a bit more complex than needed. Slicing and dicing is simple enough without worrying about crits and ki points.


Ironwood scimitar is definitely the way to go with wyroot, problem is, you need a Druid to recast it periodically since its not on the permanency list in Pathfinder.

Or maybe staff magus with a custom intelligent wyroot magic staff that has the transformative quality on it. Hrmm..

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Wyroot coup de grace All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.