Hi all,
I'm building a Witch with the Slumber hex and I would like for her to be able to coup de grace her helpless enemies herself. However, she has 7 Str, so her damage output is abysmal, meaning even if she would coup de grace someone they would most likely still be able to make their Fort save. So I got to thinking what would be the best weapon for her to coup de grace with to potentially boost this damage.
She's a level 6 character and we're using automatic bonus progression, meaning she can get a +1 enhancement bonus on a weapon or an equivalent special weapon quality. Here's what I came up with:
1) Coup de grace automatically hits, so she doesn't even need to be proficient with the weapon, since the only penalty for non-proficiency is a -4 to your attack roll. This is entirely irrelevant here.
2) We want a x4 crit weapon.
Combining points (1) and (2), the scythe (2d4-2/x4) is the most obvious choice. However, this still only deals a meager 8d4-8 damage. Quite terrible actually.
3) We still have a +1 enhancement bonus to play with, and thanks to Automatic Bonus Progression this can also be a special weapon property with a +1 equivalent bonus. For this, I think we could make use of the [Thundering](https://aonprd.com/MagicWeaponsDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Thundering) special weapon quality:
A thundering weapon creates a cacophonous roar like abilities thunder whenever it strikes a target with a successful critical hit. The sonic energy does not harm the wielder. A thundering weapon deals an extra 1d8 points of sonic damage on a successful critical hit. If the weapon’s critical multiplier is ×3, add an extra 2d8 points of sonic damage instead, and if the multiplier is ×4, add an extra 3d8 points of sonic damage. Subjects dealt critical hits by a thundering weapon must make a successful DC 14 Fortitude save or be deafened permanently.
Since the scythe is a x4 crit weapon, I think this would automatically deal an additional 3d8 damage on any coup de grace for a total of 8d4 + 3d8 - 8 damage, which is an average of 25 damage. This would make the DC of the ensuing Fort save 10 + 25 = 35, which is pretty impossible for anyone to hit at level 6.
My question is twofold: (1) Is all of this valid? (2) Can you do better?
The only thing I can think of is to use a firearm instead.
Technically a coup de grace has to be done with a melee weapon, a bow or a crossbow but this is clearly an oversight, so any decent GM should allow it.
The main advantage of a firearm is that you don't suffer the STR-penalty, but also a Double Hackbut deals 2d12 damage, so a +1 Thundering Double Hackbut would deal 8d12+3d8+1 damage on a crit. The main downside is that it's heavy.
Obviously if your GM doesn't want firearms in your campaign you can ignore this advice.
The other thing I thought of is to get an Agile Thundering Light Pick when you get to a a level that would let you take a +2 enchantment, but that's probably not yet. I also haven't checked the maths on it.
Take the feat "Additional Traits" for Hierloom Weapon and Killer.
Hierloom Weapon can give you proficiency with the Scythe.
And Killer would add +4 to your damages on a crit/CdG since your Scythe has a x4 modifier. That should help make up for your negative Strength modifier.
Pretty sure your crit would be 8d4 + 3d8 - 2 with that scythe… I don’t remember exactly where the rule is located, but I remember there is a rule that states you do not multiple negative ability modifiers on crits.
Take the feat "Additional Traits" for Hierloom Weapon and Killer.
Hierloom Weapon can give you proficiency with the Scythe.
And Killer would add +4 to your damages on a crit/CdG since your Scythe has a x4 modifier. That should help make up for your negative Strength modifier.
Why would I need proficiency if I only want to use this weapon for coup de grace which automatically hit anyway?
Pretty sure your crit would be 8d4 + 3d8 - 2 with that scythe… I don’t remember exactly where the rule is located, but I remember there is a rule that states you do not multiple negative ability modifiers on crits.
AFAIK you simply roll damage a number of times equal to your crit modifier, which would mean you also apply your penalties an equal number of times (since you would normally also apply them to each damage roll individually).
The only thing I can think of is to use a firearm instead.
Technically a coup de grace has to be done with a melee weapon, a bow or a crossbow (unless I missed an FAQ or something) but this is clearly an oversight, so any decent GM should allow it.
The main advantage of a firearm is that you don't suffer the STR-penalty, but also a Double Hackbut deals 2d12 damage, so a +1 Thundering Double Hackbut would deal 8d12+3d8+1 (~66.5) damage on a crit. The main downside is that it's heavy.
Obviously if your GM doesn't want firearms in your campaign you can ignore this advice.
The other thing I thought of is to get an Agile Thundering Light Pick when you get to a a level that would let you take a +2 enchantment, but that's probably not yet. I also haven't checked the maths on it.
While I love this idea mechanically, the idea of roleplaying a stealth assassin witch slumbering people, only to then kill them by setting up an entire heavy firearm contraption just to kill someone seems a bit impossible to me haha. I guess the Thundering enhancement doesn't synergize with stealth assassinations either since it involves sound and sonic damage, but that somehow seems less far-fetched to houserule as only affecting the creature struck (since no else seems to suffer any damage either).
(1) Is all of this valid? (2) Can you do better?
Yes and yes. A Tetsubo (a cross between a baseball bat and a flail) has a (slightly) higher average damage (for +2 average damage on a crit), but the actual best weapon is the Butchering Axe (+9 average crit damage over a scythe). You'll need Muleback Cords or a Heavyload Belt to carry it around, though (not a huge problem with ABP, of course).
Also, yes, you don't care about proficiency, VoodistMonk's suggestion makes no sense. Chell Raighn is also wrong: "Sometimes you multiply damage by some factor, such as on a critical hit. Roll the damage (with all modifiers) multiple times and total the results." CRB pg. 179
Chell Raighn is also wrong: "Sometimes you multiply damage by some factor, such as on a critical hit. Roll the damage (with all modifiers) multiple times and total the results." CRB pg. 179
Am I? I had some time to look up the rule again... and I'm confident that I'm not wrong on this.
"Critical Hits: When you make an attack roll and get a natural 20 (the d20 shows 20), you hit regardless of your target's Armor Class, and you have scored a “threat,” meaning the hit might be a critical hit (or “crit”). To find out if it's a critical hit, you immediately make an attempt to “confirm” the critical hit—another attack roll with all the same modifiers as the attack roll you just made. If the confirmation roll also results in a hit against the target's AC, your original hit is a critical hit. (The critical roll just needs to hit to give you a crit, it doesn't need to come up 20 again.) If the confirmation roll is a miss, then your hit is just a regular hit.
A critical hit means that you roll your damage more than once, with all your usual bonuses, and add the rolls together. Unless otherwise specified, the threat range for a critical hit on an attack roll is 20, and the multiplier is ×2." CRB pg. 182
It is also stated multiple times in the rules that negative modifiers are Penalties and do not count as bonuses... and of course the rule of "specific trumps general". The general rule for multiplying damage is "all modifiers" which includes penalties. The specific rule for crits is "all your usual bonuses" therefore not including penalties.
Where you're wrong is in believing that "with all your usual bonuses" and "(with all modifiers)" are regular rule text. They're not, as indicated by the former using a more casual language, and the latter using parentheses. You could remove either phrase and not alter the functionality of the sentence in any way - that makes the phrases reminder or explanatory text (so that people don't confuse "damage roll" with "rolling damage dice"). There is no specific beats general, because neither modify the general rule.
Pathfinder, especially the CRB, was written under the design principle of "things should be the same, or they should be different." If two things are identical in 99% of all instances, and the remaining 1% is not in any way called out, it's probably meant to be the same as the rest, too.
I like the idea of using a Pistol for performing Coups de Grace, but like Mr. Charisma said, you should check with your GM first. There's honestly no good reason for a GM to disallow performing a CDG with a firearm imo, but you never know.
But I also like the idea of using a Scythe for this, because as a Witch you can use Enemy's Heart with a slashing weapon. The duration is perfect for dungeon crawls; it can give you some temp health, a Profane bonus to Str (future CDG's will be higher damage), and +1 Caster Level, and.... YOU EAT YOUR ENEMY'S HEART. How cool is that for a witch, amirite?
Where you're wrong is in believing that "with all your usual bonuses" and "(with all modifiers)" are regular rule text. They're not, as indicated by the former using a more casual language, and the latter using parentheses. You could remove either phrase and not alter the functionality of the sentence in any way - that makes the phrases reminder or explanatory text (so that people don't confuse "damage roll" with "rolling damage dice"). There is no specific beats general, because neither modify the general rule.
Pathfinder, especially the CRB, was written under the design principle of "things should be the same, or they should be different." If two things are identical in 99% of all instances, and the remaining 1% is not in any way called out, it's probably meant to be the same as the rest, too.
You are making a gross misrepresentation of that principle here. What they meant by that was abilities that are functionally identical but differ only in name are in fact the same ability, such as Channel Energy and Channel. And removing either phrase from the rules DOES in fact alter it in a meaningful way. First in the multiplying damage rule removing the line (with all modifiers) brings into question if any modifiers are actually to be applied or not, some would certainly argue that no modifiers are multiplied since you don’t roll modifiers. Second in the critical hits rules removing “with all your normal bonuses” creates the same problem, only this time it adds more credibility to not multiplying any modifiers with the following line of “add the rolls together” seeming quite clear that you would only add up multiple dice rolls. With those lines included though it firmly eliminates any possibility of not multiplying any modifiers.
But since I’m sure I’m not going to convince you that you are wrong and you certainly aren’t going to convince me either on this one, let’s just agree to disagree.
There is evidence in the weapon rules that proves that all modifiers are applied to crits, not just bonuses: "Critical: The entry in this column notes how the weapon is used with the rules for critical hits. When your character scores a critical hit, roll the damage two, three, or four times, as indicated by its critical multiplier (using all applicable modifiers on each roll), and add all the results together." This explicitly applies to critical hits, and explicitly says "all applicable modifiers".
removing either phrase from the rules DOES in fact alter it in a meaningful way. First in the multiplying damage rule removing the line (with all modifiers) brings into question if any modifiers are actually to be applied or not
The text is phrased in a way that it must included modifiers: The section is called "multiplying damage", not "multiplying damage rolls" or something like that, and modifiers are indubiously part of the damage. The rules also list one exception, additional damage dice. It would be utterly nonsensical to not multiply modifiers without calling that out, too.
some would certainly argue that no modifiers are multiplied since you don’t roll modifiers
To shut down "some would argue" is literally the definition of a clarification. And while Paizo does misuse parentheses for things like maximum values, in ordinary rule text, it's used for explanatory text and references, as it should be. Similarly, the use of the word "usual" in the text in the attack action rules clearly indicates that it merely keeps the norm intact.
You are making a gross misrepresentation of that principle here.
Like hell I am. The literally first example SKR gives is about rules, not class features. Either you didn't actually read SKR's post, and thus talk about something you know nothing about, or you're refusing to apply it solely because it makes you look bad.