|
A CdG isn't a 'full-round attack' in any sense. It's its own full-round action. That full-round action includes letting you make a melee attack (usually a standard action). So what's the problem in letting a chap cast a spell instead (usually a standard action)?
Or, at the very least, how is that much of a justification to disallow things like using a ray of frost to inflict a CdG (if at point blank range to the target, of course)? If you don't like the idea, then just say no... ;)
For performing CDGs with effects not listed in the Core rulebook, I think I would at least require the following:
* The effect must be 'weapon-like', that is, it must use an attack roll
* If performing a CDG with a ranged attack, you must be adjacent to the target
* You must spend at least a Full-Round Action to perform a CDG. If you are casting a spell whose casting time is shorter than that, you must increase it to a full round
* Attacks of Opportunity are provoked as normal; it is possible for a character to provoke Attacks of Opportunity for casting a spell, and for using a ranged attack, and for performing a CDG.I'm thinking about adding a stipulation that any attacks made as part of the CDG must be focused on the same target. It seems to me that CDGs should work similarly for each character, so I'm not sure a spellcaster should easily be able to CDG an opponent with Scorching Ray while simultaneously attacking two other targets.
/Agree
Throw weapons: those weapons don't fly in straight line, so you can aim with enough precision to be capable to deliver a coup de grace.
I disagree. I can throw an harpoon in straight line against an adjacent helpless target just fine.
Firearms and lasers are directed fire weapons, so they should be capable to deliver a coup de grace.
they *should* but they *aren't*. They aren't listed in the coup de grace description, just like the ray of frost.
Question: does a laser pistol works? If yes... why "searing light" does not? Or, said othwer wise... does a freezing laser pistol works (with stats similar to Ray of Frost)? What about a disintegrating laser pistol from Numeria? Does it work? And a wand of disintegrate?
|
A CdG isn't a 'full-round attack' in any sense. It's its own full-round action. That full-round action includes letting you make a melee attack (usually a standard action). So what's the problem in letting a chap cast a spell instead (usually a standard action)?
Or, at the very least, how is that much of a justification to disallow things like using a ray of frost to inflict a CdG (if at point blank range to the target, of course)? If you don't like the idea, then just say no... ;)
Would you allow a caster to cast a spell as an AoO? If not, then you don't really have justification to allow a spell to be used as a CdG in the same round it's cast.
Spells like ray of frost, and many other ray or ray-like spells have their effect go off the instant the casting is over. There is no time to "line up the shot" so the speak once doing so. Something like pyrotechnics, however, allows you to toss your fire in the next round, so you could use that for a CdG, just not in the same round you cast.
|
|
Question: does a laser pistol works? If yes... why "searing light" does not? Or, said othwer wise... does a freezing laser pistol works (with stats similar to Ray of Frost)? What about a disintegrating laser pistol from Numeria? Does it work? And a wand of disintegrate?
RAW? Nope, none of those work for a CdG.
Should they? See Rule Zero.
Would you allow a caster to cast a spell as an AoO? If not, then you don't really have justification to allow a spell to be used as a CdG in the same round it's cast.A CdG isn't a 'full-round attack' in any sense. It's its own full-round action. That full-round action includes letting you make a melee attack (usually a standard action). So what's the problem in letting a chap cast a spell instead (usually a standard action)?
Or, at the very least, how is that much of a justification to disallow things like using a ray of frost to inflict a CdG (if at point blank range to the target, of course)? If you don't like the idea, then just say no... ;)
Pointless, as you can use a Bow as a Coup de Grace, and you can't use it as an AoO, so being able to be used as an AoO is completelly irrelevant to know if it can be used for CdG or not.
"The idea that a spell's casting time eliminates it from use as a CdG seems a little odd to me... it's not like you're getting to cast the spell any faster "
Actually if you try to deliver a Coup de Grace with a spell you are trying to do exactly that.
A coup de grace is a full round action, casting a spell is normally a standard action, so doing both things in the same round is acting faster. You get a free attack in the same round in which you cast the spell but that isn't the same thing of a full round attack.
That would remove casting a spell and delivering a a coup de grace in the same roundWe are left with:
- held touch attacks spells. Those can probably deliver a CdG;
- spells that create weapon like effects, like flame blade, that are wielded exactly like weapons and so can make CdG.
Both can't deliver a CdG in the round in which they are cast.
that actually sounds awesome in a cimematic sense:
first round an passed out foe on the ground, the wizard moves up and casts shocking grasp.next round, the wizard lingers over and places his hand over top of the head of his victim, and zapp!
|
|
Would you allow a caster to cast a spell as an AoO? If not, then you don't really have justification to allow a spell to be used as a CdG in the same round it's cast.Pointless, as you can use a Bow as a Coup de Grace, and you can't use it as an AoO, so being able to be used as an AoO is completelly irrelevant to know if it can be used for CdG or not.
Agreed. It's just as irrelevant as a melee attack taking a standard action compared to the casting of a spell. Apples and dump trucks here. You CAN use what's on the list. You CANNOT use anything else. Simple as that. The reasons why are pointless, though always open to speculation.
I don't see a problem thematically with lining up a spell.
A creature lies on the ground; perhaps asleep, paralyzed, whatever. A sorceror walks over, crouches down in front of the creature, makes an imaginary gun with his fingers, presses it against a vital spot of the Helpless creature and casts an attack spell.
I can't imagine that not hitting, and I can't imagine that not critting. At that point we may be down to 'well, maybe your foot randomly slips and you miss' territory of justifying it.
I would phrase this as: During a full round action, you are lining up the spell and then you are casting it. Just like how you line up a bow then fire, or line up a sword swing and then strike.
But hey, maybe the spell always comes from the hand that casts it. Rules don't say (heheh).
Still, I think we're quickly approaching the 'everybody has had their say and will soon get the urge to just repeat themselves' point, so I expect to bow out soon if new information isn't introduced. I think I've reached a conclusion how I think the issue should go, and the discussion is there for anybody that sees it in the future.
Still recommending that if attacks produced by a spell (I'm looking at you, Scorching Ray) are allowed to CDG, then they should all be focused on the same target so somebody doesn't get easy CDGs while simultaneously fighting other critters.
Agreed. It's just as irrelevant as a melee attack taking a standard action compared to the casting of a spell. Apples and dump trucks here. You CAN use what's on the list. You CANNOT use anything else. Simple as that. The reasons why are pointless, though always open to speculation.
Sure, by RAW, anything not in the list isn't allowed.
That rules out a grapple coup de grace, for example (breaking the neck) or a .44 Magnum shot in the nape.
|
|
I would phrase this as: During a full round action, you are lining up the spell and then you are casting it. Just like how you line up a bow then fire, or line up a sword swing and then strike.
I'm convinced you can CdG with any spell you can crit with now. Provided you perform the CdG action the round prior to casting the spell. The only thing special about a bow or crossbow is you are (per RAW) allowed to fire as part of the CdG action. I'm gonna stick to my understanding you can't cast a spell as part of the CdG action, but can easily get behind the idea of casting after it.
really? would you allow using CdG as full-round (but doing nothing) and then next round making a melee attack? does that automatically crit for some reason? but it's damage applies to the Death DC for the CdG action taken the previous round? when does the Death Save occur then, anyways? i would assume when the CdG action is taken.
if somebody is holding the charge for an attack spell, they could attack with that as part of CdG.
otherwise, i don't see getting behind these 'casting after using CdG' appoaches.
EDIT: you can also Cast a Quickened Spell as Swift Action and then take the CdG Full-Round action.
I'd just like to point out: "If penalties reduce the damage result to less than 1, a hit still deals 1 point of damage."
This was the rule in D&D 3E. Like many stupid little things, paizo decided to change this for no good reason, and PF's rule change is the sole cause of the OP's issue. This, among many other little bits of rules, is a place where I advocate using the 3E rules over the PF rules.
If your attack did nonlethal, it does min. 1 nonlethal. If it was lethal, it does min. 1 lethal damage. More sensible, and avoids headaches, like the one this thread is about.
|
|
really? would you allow using CdG as full-round (but doing nothing) and then next round making a melee attack? does that automatically crit for some reason? but it's damage applies to the Death DC for the CdG action taken the previous round? when does the Death Save occur then, anyways? i would assume when the CdG action is taken.
Completely uncessary with a melee attack, as you can do that as part of the CdG action. I'd allow the casting of a spell to be performed in the next round and count for the effect of the CdG, provided that spell requires an attack roll, deals hit point damage, is not denied a critical threat range for any reason, and is capable of targeting only a single creature.
if somebody is holding the charge for an attack spell, they could attack with that as part of CdG.
otherwise, i don't see getting behind these 'casting after using CdG' appoaches.
EDIT: you can also Cast a Quickened Spell as Swift Action and then take the CdG Full-Round action.
I'm 100% behind using a held charge of a spell already cast before hand for a CdG, and the same goes for a quickened spell which can be cast in the same round as performing the CdG.
would you rule that the spellcasting is actually taking place over the entire 1 round + 1 standard action then? and can be interrupted during that period? that seems the most plausible if you are going to depart from RAW here anyways, modifying the CdG/spellcasting to be one action that takes longer.
|
|
would you rule that the spellcasting is actually taking place over the entire 1 round + 1 standard action then? and can be interrupted during that period? that seems the most plausible if you are going to depart from RAW here anyways, modifying the CdG/spellcasting to be one action that takes longer.
I would not allow an AoO to interrupt the spell if it was cast prior, and the CdG performed with a held charge, so I see no reason for that the other way around. The casting would provoke separately from the CdG though, and because they occur on different round could provoke from the same creature each time. Any damage taken during the casting would interrupt normally.
All said though, it'll probably be easier to just hit the guy with a rock or kick him in the head. I can't imagine anyone really attempting the use of a spell for a CdG except for show.
I would be more likely to allow holding the charge for ranged touch spells like scorching ray...
I'm not really sure why ranged touch was excluded from holding the charge in the first place.
Saying that CdG's Saving Throw includes events in the next round, but only CERTAIN events and not others just feels wierd to me.
I can definitely imagine using spells for CdG, because a Full Caster's melee attacks may well not be enough to have a high Death DC even with a Crit, while a Critting Scorching Ray would have a high DC. If you only have 1 for-sure round of Hold Person, then you want to confirm the kill.
|
|
I think holding the charge with a ranged touch spell is not an option for balance between ranged and melee combat, and that if you miss with a held charge on a melee touch, you do not discharge the spell, gut it's difficult to imagine missing with a ranged touch spell and not discharging it in the attempt.
As for including events in the following round to affect the CdG's saving throw, it wouldn't apply exclusively to spells, but as it happens anything but a spell (melee, ranged and natural weapons) need not take the extra time. I suppose you could (dramatically) take the extra time, but why?
If the target's only going to have one round of helpless, better to time things so the rogue (with all those sneak attack dice) or the fighter (with a power attack and a x4 crit damage weapon) perform the CdG.
well sure, assuming the rogue/fighter are still alive/in-combat and within 5' step to threaten the target with CdG.
if the caster is the only PC in that situation, and already has a held touch spell/ can swift cast a spell, i would go for it :-)
All said though, it'll probably be easier to just hit the guy with a rock or kick him in the head. I can't imagine anyone really attempting the use of a spell for a CdG except for show.
Well, if the wizard is the only character able to make the CoG (for example, others characters are engaged, or not in 5' of a target that will not be helpless for more than 1 round), he might preffer to do a shocking grasp for 5d6 damage and high DC fort save, than hitting with a 1d3 kick or 1d4 improvised weapon. Specially if he has Str 8 or 7, as a DC 11 or 12 Fort Save isn't that hard to make.
|
|
How about carrying a heavy pick or a sythe? Provided Strength isn't dumped too much, that's an easy 4d6 or 8d4 and just as high a fort save, and no spell expended. I still think the spell is just flashy and mostly unnecessary.
And friends should never be underestimated. If the plan was to CdG the target, someone should have been in place to do so. If not, it's probably not a good idea or one made of desperation.
|
|
Or again, Heavy crossbow, anyone can use it, it's cheap and it's 2d8dmg on a crit.
Or, indeed, 2d10 on a crit if the character (and heavy crossbow) in question is medium-sized.
By RAW only an attack with a melee weapon, a bow, or a crossbow can deliver a CdG. I think everyone agrees on that. Everything else is a question of what RAI is or what houserules people would use.
Generally it's only going to be a serious question in situations like the one the OP presented where a character is trying for a very low CdG damage. Usually you're likely to have access to time and methods to kill a potential CdG target anyway, so whether you let the weak Wizard do so with a spell (and waste his resources but look flashy and wizard-like whilst doing so) or force him to borrow the Barbarian's greataxe to chop the target's head off (probably with a rather comical description of the Wizard trying to heft the axe) comes down to a question of style more than rules. In a few situations it may arise that the character only has a moment or two to inflict a CdG on a potential target, and in those situations a Wizard beling able to CdG with a high damage spell or being forced to use whatever low-damage melee weapon he forgot to cross off his equipment list when he hit level 3 could have some relevance. Whether those cases are enough to veto the 'rule of cool' is an individual GM's call, IMHO.
In organised play RAW is king, so if you think it likely you're going to need to CdG with a low Strength character then, yes, carry a crossbow.
Out of curiosity, Has this come up often?
Wizards wanting to do the coup de grace?
I had a rogue who LOVED doing them... and had the feat that let you do it to someone who was only stunned... It was awesome WHEN it worked...Quite frankly, Getting THAT close to someone and still being able to Full round Action was INSANELY difficult for my Stabbing ROGUE to do...
Our WIZARD was NEVER that close to a target...
If you've got all the time in the world to take out a helpless guy... why isn't the melee wondering aroudn the field doing it?
My personaly philosophy would be anything that you can crit with, you can 'auto crit' with... Provided you are adjacent with the target. . Just makes sense to me...
I wouldn't let wizards use rays and wands and other crazy things from across the room... Not if you need to be 5' away with a BOW... but if they are for SOME reason standing RIGHT there when the guy drops?? I don't see it as OP for any reason...
How about carrying a heavy pick or a sythe? Provided Strength isn't dumped too much, that's an easy 4d6 or 8d4 and just as high a fort save, and no spell expended. I still think the spell is just flashy and mostly unnecessary.
And friends should never be underestimated. If the plan was to CdG the target, someone should have been in place to do so. If not, it's probably not a good idea or one made of desperation.
Sure, if it's a planned thing you could bring a guillotine or whatever. But if it's something that happen in the middle of a fight for whatever reasons, probably the STR 8 wizard isn't carrying a two handed weapon he is unproficient with "just in case".
It's never happened in my games, although I imagine it could. Trolls seem to pop in my games all the time, and I've been running a halfling sorceror player without a melee weapon for five levels until he finally bought a rod that could conveniently be used as a club.
By the way, if you've been having problems getting to an enemy to CDG in time for your Rogue, there's a feat that makes it a Standard action IIRC.
By the way, if you've been having problems getting to an enemy to CDG in time for your Rogue, there's a feat that makes it a Standard action IIRC.
O.O
I never saw that one....
It's never happened in my games, although I imagine it could. Trolls seem to pop in my games all the time, and I've
Coup-de-Gracing a troll with an Acid Arrow is one of those things that Rule of Cool are made for :)
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
It's never happened in my games, although I imagine it could. Trolls seem to pop in my games all the time, and I'veCoup-de-Gracing a troll with an Acid Arrow is one of those things that Rule of Cool are made for :)
do you need to overcome their regeneration to kill them with a coup-de-grace?
the save or die isn't based on HPs, they can have hundreds or thousands left and still just die.Creatures with regeneration... cannot die as long as their regeneration is still functioning (although creatures with regeneration still fall unconscious when their hit points are below 0). Certain attack forms, typically fire and acid, cause a creature's regeneration to stop functioning on the round following the attack. During this round, the creature does not heal any damage and can die normally... Attack forms that don't deal hit point damage are not healed by regeneration.
You can read literally, but that means they are immune to all death effects. The Tarrasque's description's mention of Regeneration specifically calls out , which isn't necessary if death by disentigration or death effects is suppressed by normal Regeneration.
Note that the description of when the Regen-suppressing damage is applied says . Dying normally means dying from HP loss, not death effects or disentigration.The last (quoted) line also says that attack forms that don't deal damage are not healed by regeneration, which literally is obvious because if there is no HPs damage no healing CAN happen, but I think it's reasonable to read the line as saying that Regeneration offers no protection vs. such attacks, e.g. death attacks.
Of course, CdG usually does HP damage, but the Fort Save is an effect independent of doing HP damage, even if all damage is absorbed by DR, there is still a Fort Save that any creature can roll a 1 on and die.
...???
And if you want to get really technical, the book doesn't even say that CDG is a Death effect.
I've spoken with people that think it's painfully obvious that it's a Death effect, and people that think it's painfully obvious that it isn't. I never remembered to chase down if there's any clarification on it.
On the fun side of the interpretation, if a GM says that they can only be killed when their Regeneration is suppressed, then take the biggest part of a dead~ troll and seal it into a can. Whenever you're feeling sassy in a dungeon, pop them open and run away.
|
It's never happened in my games, although I imagine it could. Trolls seem to pop in my games all the time, and I'veCoup-de-Gracing a troll with an Acid Arrow is one of those things that Rule of Cool are made for :)
But it don't work.
When you use acid arrow the troll regeneration is working, so you can't kill it.The next round his regeneration stop working thanks to the acid damage, so he can be killed by a normal weapon.
@Quandry.
"Attack forms that don't deal hit point damage are not healed by regeneration. Regeneration also does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation."
So death effects aren't healed by regeneration.
A Coup de Grace is a death effect? No, thankfully, or raise dead would be way less useful.
Probably adding a row to the Coup de grace saying that it put you at negative hit points equal to (your total constitution +1) would make the RAW clearer, but it would be less pleasant to read.
Note that disintegration now deal HP of damage. If you lose all your hp you are turned to fine dust.
It is an interesting question if that dust will regenerate or not.
I foresee a derailment in the direction of regeneration and death effects.
I find the idea that a creature could be CDG'd when the damage is reduced to zero to be strange. Isn't there a general rule about some effects not triggering when the attack delivering them deals no damage? We always ran it that a Monk wouldn't Stun and a snakebite wouldn't poison you if the respective attacks dealt no damage, for example.
I suppose it could be a houserule, since we usually referred to them as 'rider effects' which I'm certain isn't a game term, but I'd be surprised if the principle isn't in play.
It's never happened in my games, although I imagine it could. Trolls seem to pop in my games all the time, and I'veCoup-de-Gracing a troll with an Acid Arrow is one of those things that Rule of Cool are made for :)But it don't work.
When you use acid arrow the troll regeneration is working, so you can't kill it.
The next round his regeneration stop working thanks to the acid damage, so he can be killed by a normal weapon.
It wouldn't work under RAW, that's why I say this is one of the things Rule of Cool is made for ;)
Honestly I find RAW regeneration to be a bit stupid in Pathfinder. If you hit a Troll with a Candle, doing 1 point of fire damage, next round you can cut him into slices. But if you hit a troll with a maximized meteor swarm, you need to hit him again next round (with a wooden stick, it doesn't matter), or he will start to regenerate in two rounds. Kinda weird.
We ussually use it the other way around in my game table. We fight trolls with swords, then we coup-de-grade them with fire and acid (alchemist fire for example). I know it's a house-rule, but it looks cooler in my opinion. I'd rather have that, instead of doing 1 hp of fire damage and then beating the trolls with a club next round.