PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Coup de Grace AoOs



Frosty
2010-09-09, 01:49 PM
The rules for CdG states that the attacker provokes AoOs, due to how much concentration once needs to perform the CdG. However, it mentions nothing about the AoO's damage possibly disrupting the attacker. Thus...

1) By RAW are there any rules stating that damage from an AoO in this situation (or even a readied action) can disrupt the CdG attempt?

2) By RAI, in your opinion, should damage disrupt the CdG attempt? If so, should there be a skill check or BAB check (not everyone has concentration) to keep the CdG going anyways?

3) Would it be a reasonable houserule to say that if you are provoke an AoO due to performing a CdG, and someone uses that AoO to perform an action on you that provokes its own AoO (such as Disarm attempt without Improved Disarm), you can't take the AoO because if you did, you'd be breaking your focused concnetration and methodical action? It's kind of like how I houserule if you are casting a spell (for example Summon Monster), and you know someone will try to come whack you out of it you can't cast Hesitate (an immediate action spell) to stop the enemy because you're already casting a spell at the time.

Curmudgeon
2010-09-09, 02:08 PM
I'll only answer 1) here.

Concentration (Con)

Check: You must make a Concentration check whenever you might potentially be distracted (by taking damage, by harsh weather, and so on) while engaged in some action that requires your full attention.
...
If the Concentration check succeeds, you may continue with the action as normal. If the check fails, the action automatically fails and is wasted.
The rules cover this pretty well. The Concentration DC is 10 + damage dealt.

Shhalahr Windrider
2010-09-09, 02:13 PM
I'll only answer 1) here.
The rules cover this pretty well. The Concentration DC is 10 + damage dealt.
But the CdG rules don’t state you are at risk of losing concentration (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#coupdeGrace). In fact, they don’t actually say anything about concentrating at all. It’s just like moving through a threatened square.

Greenish
2010-09-09, 02:14 PM
2) Depends on the lethality you want from the game, but given that CdG tends to kill people I should think allowing people to protect their fallen allies is reasonable. Opposed check shouldn't be necessary, since there already is a check - the AoO must hit.

3) It does make sense that someone already focusing on a task to be unable to use the opportunity the attack presents.

Frosty
2010-09-09, 02:23 PM
I'll only answer 1) here.
The rules cover this pretty well. The Concentration DC is 10 + damage dealt.
It's kinda strange that the people designed to be tough and accurate with their weapons would be bad at concentrating making precise attacks when being hurt.

But based on your views someone with a readied action can also disrupt a CdG attempt then?

Curmudgeon
2010-09-09, 03:29 PM
But the CdG rules don’t state you are at risk of losing concentration (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#coupdeGrace). In fact, they don’t actually say anything about concentrating at all.
Please read page 154 of your Player's Handbook again:

Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents because it involves focused concentration and methodical action on the part of the attacker.

In general, if an action wouldn’t normally provoke an attack of opportunity, you need not make a Concentration check to avoid being distracted.

balistafreak
2010-09-09, 09:52 PM
Oh dear. This has the potential to be a huge can of worms.

Do we take the phrase "involves focused concentration" to be read as requiring a Concentration (skill) check, or do we associate it as a fluffy rider to "provokes an AoO"?

Unless there's a more general rule somewhere that says "if it provokes an AoO, it requires a Concentration check to avoid disruption upon damage". Or something like that.

The quote about "not requiring Concentration" only confirms the opposite case, which if I recall correctly logically says nothing about the opposite opposite case (which is what we are examining) - aka there may or may not be a dichotomy.

I think I've highlighted all the possible points of controversy there. Personally, I have no opinion... yet.

Curmudgeon
2010-09-10, 03:09 AM
Do we take the phrase "involves focused concentration" to be read as requiring a Concentration (skill) check, or do we associate it as a fluffy rider to "provokes an AoO"?
I think it generally makes a difference whether the rules use synonyms or an actual skill name when talking about provoking an AoO. Since the skill in question has language to back up why and how the skill check would be necessitated for that AoO, it seem preposterous to me that they might have just happened to use a skill name without meaning to.

Look at the description for the Assassin's death attack, for a contrasting example. Lots of terms like "study", "attention", "focus" suggest that the authors would handily provide a synonym instead of "concentration" if they didn't mean to actually refer to the skill.

olentu
2010-09-10, 03:29 AM
I think it generally makes a difference whether the rules use synonyms or an actual skill name when talking about provoking an AoO. Since the skill in question has language to back up why and how the skill check would be necessitated for that AoO, it seem preposterous to me that they might have just happened to use a skill name without meaning to.

Look at the description for the Assassin's death attack, for a contrasting example. Lots of terms like "study", "attention", "focus" suggest that the authors would handily provide a synonym instead of "concentration" if they didn't mean to actually refer to the skill.

That justification is a bit weak given the different people that have worked upon the book. I suppose it might be a bit better if you demonstrated that the same person wrote all situations that use the word concentrate and the assassin death attack section plus all other sections that use synonyms for concentrate but even then it would not really be enough to make such a thing an actual rule. You know because it is not exactly concentration that is being called for but rather "full attention".

Vangor
2010-09-10, 04:40 AM
I think it generally makes a difference whether the rules use synonyms or an actual skill name when talking about provoking an AoO. Since the skill in question has language to back up why and how the skill check would be necessitated for that AoO, it seem preposterous to me that they might have just happened to use a skill name without meaning to.

Look at the description for the Assassin's death attack, for a contrasting example. Lots of terms like "study", "attention", "focus" suggest that the authors would handily provide a synonym instead of "concentration" if they didn't mean to actually refer to the skill.

While I actually agree with you on CDG requiring a concentration check due to the wording, you and I both know wording can be terribly flawed. The rule really needs to specifically capitalize "Concentration", as found in the concentration rules multiple times, or mention explicitly, otherwise I don't make the same leaps to other rules. On the other hand, anything which requires concentrating in some manner and provokes an AoO should likely be subject to a concentration check or else fade. Being a synonym of "concentration" to me would not stop the check such as with death attack; if you get struck while studying, you need to make a concentration check.

Heliomance
2010-09-10, 04:44 AM
I think it generally makes a difference whether the rules use synonyms or an actual skill name when talking about provoking an AoO. Since the skill in question has language to back up why and how the skill check would be necessitated for that AoO, it seem preposterous to me that they might have just happened to use a skill name without meaning to.

Look at the description for the Assassin's death attack, for a contrasting example. Lots of terms like "study", "attention", "focus" suggest that the authors would handily provide a synonym instead of "concentration" if they didn't mean to actually refer to the skill.

That assumes that the people writing the book didn't simply screw up, which, as we well know, they frequently did.

FelixG
2010-09-10, 04:50 AM
I would say no, just like if you move through a threatened square getting smacked doesn't stop you (baring particular feats and abilities of course).

Lets think about this, the person who is doing the CdG is taking their full turn to deliver a single blow to an opponent who is not a threat.

Lets say this is a fighter (or Barbarian ) doing it, he doesnt even have concentrate as a class skill. and a CdG is a move mostly a fighter (or Barbarian) will attempt anyway. So they are using a turn to make sure something stays out of the fight for good while likely taking a hit in return. It would be quite pointless to even think about attempting it if you are just going to waste an attempt EVERY time you do it.

Heck even the sneaky back stabber person (Rogue) doesn't even have concentration as a class skill and will falter while trying to murder a person who is KOd.

Curmudgeon
2010-09-10, 05:35 AM
Lets think about this, the person who is doing the CdG is taking their full turn to deliver a single blow to an opponent who is not a threat.
They're only going to take a hit

if they're threatened while attempting the coup de grace
if the AoO beats their AC

Lets say this is a fighter (or Barbarian ) doing it, ... So they are using a turn to make sure something stays out of the fight for good while likely taking a hit in return.Deciding to use a coup de grace is just like any other tactical decision in D&D combat. That is, you use that tactic if it works for your character, and try something else if it's not a good fit. Paladins, Rangers, melee Clerics, Crusaders, Swordsages, Warblades, Duskblades, and many other martial classes have Concentration as a class skill, and would have a reasonable chance of making the required check. So let's not say a Fighter or Barbarian is doing it if they're threatened, because they have other options.
A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (-5 modifier). Melee attacks against a helpless target get a +4 bonus (equivalent to attacking a prone target). ... Rogues can sneak attack helpless targets. Don't you think a Fighter, Barbarian, or other full BAB class, with a full action to attack against an opponent with their AC down considerably (at least -4; more if they had any DEX bonus), has options other than a coup de grace?
Heck even the sneaky back stabber person (Rogue) doesn't even have concentration as a class skill and will falter while trying to murder a person who is KOd. Rogues, with a full attack guaranteeing sneak attack damage on every single hit, also have alternatives.

I see your straw man, and set it on fire. :smallcool:

FelixG
2010-09-10, 09:35 AM
I see your straw man, and set it on fire. :smallcool:

Well i didnt intend it as a straw man i was merely questioning the logic behind smacking melee classes that lack concentration with the nerf bat.

I am well aware of those classes that do have concentration as a class skill but i mentioned the primary infighters from core for a reason.

But lets get to the meat of the matter.

Ok, rules compendium, page 62, Helpless defenders->Attacking-> Coup De Gras

It isnt SRD so i wont quote it, but it outlines the steps of a coup de gras EXACTLY as it is done.

It does not mention a concentration check, no concentration check is needed. Better?

Aww heck, why dont i just link SRD

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#helpless

Still no mention of a concentration check, imagine that! Also might as well add this. There ARE other options as you point out. Lets look at one for fun shall we?

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#disarm

Disarm! under its attack of opertunity it states that if the attacker deals damage, your attempt fails.

Now if they went to the trouble of pointing THIS out, dont you think they would have been a bit more diligent in pointing out a concentration check is needed if an enemies AoO hits while you are making a Coup? Wouldnt they might have caught that in the SRD or maybe the Rules compendium?

[enter witty line here :smallcool: ]

DragoonWraith
2010-09-10, 10:05 AM
CdG says nothing about being disruptable or requiring Concentration checks, so I don't think it does. Everywhere else when something can be disrupted, the rules say so.

prufock
2010-09-10, 10:07 AM
Yes, yes, and maybe.

A coup de grace provokes because "it involves focused concentration and methodical action on the part of the attacker." You need to make concentration checks whenever you might be distracted by taking damage from some action that requires your full attention. This is RAW and RAI; the only way around it is to claim that an action which requires focus, concentration, and a full round is somehow different than an action that requires your full attention. That argument deserves a Spock eyebrow raise :smallconfused:

The third question is not RAW, as far as I can tell. I can see how it makes sense, but I am on the fence. We could consider attacking to be vigorous or violent motion, and force a concentration check at DC 10 or 15, respectively.

Curmudgeon
2010-09-10, 10:41 AM
CdG says nothing about being disruptable or requiring Concentration checks, so I don't think it does.
If it says it requires "concentration", and the Concentration skill rules require you to "make a Concentration check whenever you might potentially be distracted (by taking damage, by harsh weather, and so on) while engaged in some action that requires your full attention", is it really necessary for the coup de grace section to repeat that you've got to make a Concentration check if you're damaged while attempting a coup de grace?

Everywhere else when something can be disrupted, the rules say so. That's not even close to true. Let's just look at the Archmage's High Arcana Spell-Like Ability. There's no mention there that using a SLA requires a Concentration check to avoid being disrupted. Or the Druid's Elemental Wild Shape: "the druid gains all the elemental’s extraordinary, supernatural, and spell-like abilities" ─ but no mention there that a Concentration check is required for SLAs (also no mention that the acquired Supernatural abilities do not require Concentration).

The rules are pretty inconsistent in their inclusion of reminders of things covered elsewhere. Still, the absence of such a reminder doesn't change those rules.

DragoonWraith
2010-09-10, 10:43 AM
Using a spell-like ability while threatened provokes attacks of opportunity. It is possible to make a Concentration check to use a spell-like ability defensively and avoid provoking an attack of opportunity. A spell-like ability can be disrupted just as a spell can be. Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and to being dispelled by dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated.
Individual Spell-like Abilities can and do refer back to the general rule for Spell-like Abilities. There is no such rule for martial techniques or whatever other category CdG might fall into. Yes, I expect the rules to be explicit, since they combine fluff and mechanics all over the place.

FelixG
2010-09-10, 10:47 AM
If it says it requires "concentration", and the Concentration skill rules require you to "make a Concentration check whenever you might potentially be distracted (by taking damage, by harsh weather, and so on) while engaged in some action that requires your full attention", is it really necessary for the coup de grace section to repeat that you've got to make a Concentration check if you're damaged while attempting a coup de grace?
That's not even close to true. Let's just look at the Archmage's High Arcana Spell-Like Ability. There's no mention there that using a SLA requires a Concentration check to avoid being disrupted. Or the Druid's Elemental Wild Shape: "the druid gains all the elemental’s extraordinary, supernatural, and spell-like abilities" ─ but no mention there that a Concentration check is required for SLAs (also no mention that the acquired Supernatural abilities do not require Concentration).

The rules are pretty inconsistent in their inclusion of reminders of things covered elsewhere. Still, the absence of such a reminder doesn't change those rules.

Ok you go to super natural abilities and look at their rules

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm

It mentions concentration checks...

The rules compendium also mentions on super natural abilities:

page 119 of the Rules Compendium

"Using a supernatural ability doesn’t usually provoke attacks of opportunity. They never require Concentration checks."

It was a good try though!

Frosty
2010-09-10, 11:27 AM
I am convinced by now that by RAW it requires a Concentration check if you get hit during the CdG.

Now we need to figure out whether that is a good idea. I agree that some form of check should be required, but why should it be a check that only casters can make? They already get to do everything else...

Curmudgeon
2010-09-10, 11:27 AM
Individual Spell-like Abilities can and do refer back to the general rule for Spell-like Abilities.
That's implied, of course, but not explicitly stated in either of the two examples I provided. Just as using a phrase like "involves focused concentration" ought to imply checking the general skill rules for Concentration.

FelixG
2010-09-10, 11:33 AM
That's implied, of course, but not explicitly stated in either of the two examples I provided. Just as using a phrase like "involves focused concentration" ought to imply checking the general skill rules for Concentration.

"Its a spell like ability so i shouldn't have to check the rules for spell like abilities as it doesn't explicitly say i have to look at the rules for spell like abilities!" is your whole argument?

Impressive! That sounds like denial more than any argument fallacy...

Again i direct you to the post where i quite the SRD and rules compendium where it states concentration is no part of the act.

Unless you are ignoring them specifically because they prove your argument wrong?

Curmudgeon
2010-09-10, 02:34 PM
Again i direct you to the post where i quite the SRD and rules compendium where it states concentration is no part of the act.
You've actually quoted nothing (just cited page numbers and provided links), and there is also nothing in those sources that "states concentration is no part of the act". (Failing to state that a check is required is not the same as stating that the check is not required.) The SRD is an edited, shortened version of the core rules. I already quoted the Player's Handbook section which states:
Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents because it involves focused concentration and methodical action on the part of the attacker. The Rules Compendium is a quick reference guide to some of the D&D 3.5 rules. But if you want an actual Rules Compendium quote, how about this one:
Focused Act

When you focus your attention on what you’re doing, you divert your attention from the battle. The Actions in Combat table, page 8, notes many activities that provoke attacks of opportunity for this reason. Some such actions allow you to make a Concentration check to avoid provoking (see Concentration, page 33). Even actions that normally provoke attacks of opportunity can have exceptions. And there's also this:
CONCENTRATION (CON)
You must make a Concentration check whenever you’re distracted while engaged in an activity that requires your full attention.
...
The following table summarizes various types of distractions that force you to make a Concentration check, as well as the DCs for those distractions.
...
Injury

Injury is damage from any source.
So Rules Compendium states that you "must make a Concentration check" when engaged in a focused activity that requires your full attention when you're injured, and the Players Handbook says a coup de grace "involves focused concentration". That pretty well proves the point.

Your reasoning in this matter suffers by jumping to conclusions.

A list of examples should never be confused with a limiting statement. In this case, a few examples of when a Concentration check is mandated is not the same as a list of the only cases when such a check is required. (Unless the rules say the list is complete, of course.) Here they use terms like "many", "some such", and "various", so it's clear that they're just providing examples.
Failing to find a rule isn't the same as that rule not existing. I just found some things that you apparently missed by not looking in enough places.

olentu
2010-09-10, 02:40 PM
You've actually quoted nothing (just cited page numbers and provided links), and there is also nothing in those sources that "states concentration is no part of the act". (Failing to state that a check is required is not the same as stating that the check is not required.) The SRD is an edited, shortened version of the core rules. I already quoted the Player's Handbook section which states: The Rules Compendium is a quick reference guide to some of the D&D 3.5 rules. But if you want an actual Rules Compendium quote, how about this one: And there's also this: So Rules Compendium states that you "must make a Concentration check" when engaged in a focused activity that requires your full attention when you're injured, and the Players Handbook says a coup de grace "involves focused concentration". That pretty well proves the point.

Your reasoning in this matter suffers by jumping to conclusions.

A list of examples should never be confused with a limiting statement. In this case, a few examples of when a Concentration check is mandated is not the same as a list of the only cases when such a check is required. (Unless the rules say the list is complete, of course.) Here they use terms like "many", "some such", and "various", so it's clear that they're just providing examples.
Failing to find a rule isn't the same as that rule not existing. I just found some things that you apparently missed by not looking in enough places.


I am sorry but "focused concentration" is not shown to be equal to "full attention".

Fax Celestis
2010-09-10, 02:42 PM
I think it generally makes a difference whether the rules use synonyms or an actual skill name when talking about provoking an AoO. Since the skill in question has language to back up why and how the skill check would be necessitated for that AoO, it seem preposterous to me that they might have just happened to use a skill name without meaning to.

"Concentration", in the CdG rules, is not capitalized. Skill names are always capitalized when referenced, just like spells are always italicized. If it's not capitalized, it's not referring to the skill, it's referring to the dictionary definition.

Curmudgeon
2010-09-10, 03:06 PM
"Concentration", in the CdG rules, is not capitalized. Skill names are always capitalized when referenced, just like spells are always italicized. Spell names aren't italicized in their primary entries, nor in any lists of spells. And the capitalization of skill names is a mostly, not always thing:

Check: Your Hide check is opposed by the Spot check of anyone who might see you. You can move up to one-half your normal speed and hide at no penalty.
If it's not capitalized, it's not referring to the skill, it's referring to the dictionary definition. This use of "hide" without capitalization is certainly referring to an action that requires a skill check in the game (as opposed to merely the dictionary definition) because the "at no penalty" clause is specific to the skill check rules.

If they're inconsistent in capitalization in the Skills chapter, why would you expect better in other parts of the rules?

Fax Celestis
2010-09-10, 03:17 PM
The very quote you made:


Check: Your Hide check is opposed by the Spot check of anyone who might see you. You can move up to one-half your normal speed and hide at no penalty.

When referring to a check, the name of the skill is capitalized. When referring to an action, it is uncapitalized.

The coup de grace rules refer to an action ("concentrating"), not a required skill check ("Concentration check").

For instance:


Check

You must make a Concentration check whenever you might potentially be distracted (by taking damage, by harsh weather, and so on) while engaged in some action that requires your full attention. Such actions include casting a spell, concentrating on an active spell, directing a spell, using a spell-like ability, or using a skill that would provoke an attack of opportunity. In general, if an action wouldn’t normally provoke an attack of opportunity, you need not make a Concentration check to avoid being distracted.
The first instance is clearly referring to a skill check. The second instance is referring to an action, unless you think "concentrating on a spell" in an unthreatened area, under normal weather, etc. requires a Concentration check merely because it uses the word "concentrating":

Concentration
The spell lasts as long as you concentrate on it. Concentrating to maintain a spell is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Anything that could break your concentration when casting a spell can also break your concentration while you’re maintaining one, causing the spell to end.

You can’t cast a spell while concentrating on another one. Sometimes a spell lasts for a short time after you cease concentrating. Why would I need a Concentration check to maintain a spell cast or to negate an attack of opportunity to concentrate on a spell when it doesn't even provoke?

Or unless you think you need to make a Concentration check to cast a spell to begin with:

To cast a spell, you must be able to speak (if the spell has a verbal component), gesture (if it has a somatic component), and manipulate the material components or focus (if any). Additionally, you must concentrate to cast a spell.

Greenish
2010-09-10, 03:18 PM
I am convinced by now that by RAW it requires a Concentration check if you get hit during the CdG.

Now we need to figure out whether that is a good idea. I agree that some form of check should be required, but why should it be a check that only casters can make? They already get to do everything else...Well, casters can arguably use a full round for something more useful, and if melee can be interrupted doing it, well, let 'em. CdG kills people. Allowing one to protect fallen allies seems to me to be something that ought to be encouraged, and if an AoO can interrupt the CdG, let it, say I. It still requires being close enough and actually hitting with the AoO.

Thalnawr
2010-09-10, 03:37 PM
Well, there's always the fact that the fighter and barbarian can just move on to other targets, such as whoever he'd be provoking attacks of opportunity from with the Coup de Grace. That way, they're doing less of the clean-up after the casters, and more meaningful fighting, since helpless enemies are well, helpless.

Then of course there's the fact that the barbarian can't even execute a coup de grace while he's raging.


While raging, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except for Balance, Escape Artist, Intimidate, and Ride), the Concentration skill, or any abilities that require patience or concentration, nor can he cast spells or activate magic items that require a command word, a spell trigger (such as a wand), or spell completion (such as a scroll) to function.
Honestly, I don't see a problem with it requiring a Concentration check, in order to complete the CdG. However, I don't generally use CdG vs my helpless foes, or see it used in any game I play all that often, due to the fact that we mostly play Good-ish types.

Curmudgeon
2010-09-10, 03:38 PM
I am sorry but "focused concentration" is not shown to be equal to "full attention".
I'll show you, then, in two ways.

Dictionary.com entries for concentration (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concentration), focused (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/focused), and full (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/full):

con·cen·tra·tion
–noun
2. exclusive attention to one object; close mental application.
focus
–verb (used with object)
8. to concentrate: to focus one's thoughts.
full
–adjective
2. complete; entire; maximum I'd say that "focused concentration", shown above to be equal to "concentrated concentration", is "full" (complete, entire, maximum) concentration, which is shown to be equal to "full attention".

Next, Rules Compendium quotes:

Focused Act
When you focus your attention on what you’re doing, you divert your attention from the battle. The Actions in Combat table, page 8, notes many activities that provoke attacks of opportunity for this reason. Some such actions allow you to make a Concentration check to avoid provoking (see Concentration, page 33).
CONCENTRATION (CON)
You must make a Concentration check whenever you’re distracted while engaged in an activity that requires your full attention. In both the dictionary and the game rules, "focused" and "full" are used as synonyms, as are "attention" and "concentration".

Fax Celestis
2010-09-10, 03:53 PM
I'll show you, then, in two ways.

You have failed to address my points.

olentu
2010-09-10, 03:57 PM
I'll show you, then, in two ways.

Dictionary.com entries for concentration (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concentration), focused (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/focused), and full (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/full):
I'd say that "focused concentration", shown above to be equal to "concentrated concentration", is "full" (complete, entire, maximum) concentration, which is shown to be equal to "full attention".

Next, Rules Compendium quotes:
In both the dictionary and the game rules, "focused" and "full" are used as synonyms, as are "attention" and "concentration".

The dictionary merely says that they may be the same not that they always are the same in every case. Thus the dictionary proves nothing since if it does not follow from all definitions in all dictionaries that exist it is not necessarily true.

Well now that the first has been dealt with on to the second. Focused Act does not contain the word full. Thus you are wrong.

Toliudar
2010-09-10, 04:03 PM
Whether or not RAW requires a concentration check, I'd be inclined to agree with Frosty. Coup de grace is an ability mostly used by melee/skillmonkey types (okay, and Firali :smallwink:), and taking away the assurance of completing an action that they should be good at, relatively speaking, seems unhelpful.

gomipile
2010-09-10, 04:07 PM
Even if it does provoke by RAW, I'd say that the RAI seems fairly strong against it provoking.

If it were intended by the designers, they would have had an example of it somewhere. Also, concentration would likely be a class skill for at least one of the core martial classes which have no casting or supernatural/psionic abilities.

Thalnawr
2010-09-10, 04:13 PM
Even if it does provoke by RAW, I'd say that the RAI seems fairly strong against it provoking.

If it were intended by the designers, they would have had an example of it somewhere. Also, concentration would likely be a class skill for at least one of the core martial classes which have no casting or supernatural/psionic abilities.
But why are the core martial types performing a CdG mid-combat? If an enemy is helpless, then they're unable to affect the fight until no longer helpless. Generally, as a fighter or barbarian, you want to be out there fighting, rather than sitting around killing off the cripples, who might or might not be getting back into the fight before all other enemies are disabled or dead.

olentu
2010-09-10, 04:19 PM
But why are the core martial types performing a CdG mid-combat? If an enemy is helpless, then they're unable to affect the fight until no longer helpless. Generally, as a fighter or barbarian, you want to be out there fighting, rather than sitting around killing off the cripples, who might or might not be getting back into the fight before all other enemies are disabled or dead.

I would assume for things with short or possibly shot durations such as hold person.

Curmudgeon
2010-09-10, 04:34 PM
The very quote you made:

Check: Your Hide check is opposed by the Spot check of anyone who might see you. You can move up to one-half your normal speed and hide at no penalty.
When referring to a check, the name of the skill is capitalized. When referring to an action, it is uncapitalized.
I do wish you would pay better attention to the details, as they're central to your argument. :smallsigh:

You may hide (the action) without impediment. You may only Hide (the skill check) at no penalty. Penalty is a game mechanism applied to checks. It's not applied to a person's non-game actions (except in a legal context, and nobody's issuing restraining orders here).

The quote I provided plainly shows that they screwed up and used hide (uncapitalized) when referring to a check.

Fax Celestis
2010-09-10, 04:36 PM
I do wish you would pay better attention to the details, as they're central to your argument. :smallsigh:

And I wish you would not get caught up in the semantics of what is likely a typographical error and address the rest of my post.

olentu
2010-09-10, 04:38 PM
I do wish you would pay better attention to the details, as they're central to your argument. :smallsigh:

You may hide (the action) without impediment. You may only Hide (the skill check) at no penalty. Penalty is a game mechanism applied to checks. It's not applied to a person's non-game actions (except in a legal context, and nobody's issuing restraining orders here).

The quote I provided plainly shows that they screwed up and used hide (uncapitalized) when referring to a check.

I was not aware that XP was a check since there are XP penalties.

Curmudgeon
2010-09-10, 04:44 PM
I was not aware that XP was a check since there are XP penalties.
Here again we have an example of confusing an example with a limiting specification. "Penalty is a game mechanism applied to checks" is an example. If I said "Penalty is a game mechanism applied only to checks" that would be a limiting specification. Please try to learn the difference, as it will help greatly in understanding the game rules.

olentu
2010-09-10, 04:45 PM
Here again we have an example of confusing an example with a limiting specification. "Penalty is a game mechanism applied to checks" is an example. If I said "Penalty is a game mechanism applied only to checks" that would be a limiting specification. Please try to learn the difference, as it will help greatly in understanding the game rules.

So that just means what I was responding to is meaningless and of no import since you were not saying that the use of penalty requires that it be a check because penalty is something applied only to checks.

Fax Celestis
2010-09-10, 04:48 PM
Here again we have an example of confusing an example with a limiting specification. "Penalty is a game mechanism applied to checks" is an example. If I said "Penalty is a game mechanism applied only to checks" that would be a limiting specification. Please try to learn the difference, as it will help greatly in understanding the game rules.

I will take your lack of refutation of the rest of my argument as an admission of defeat.

Frosty
2010-09-10, 04:52 PM
Whether or not RAW requires a concentration check, I'd be inclined to agree with Frosty. Coup de grace is an ability mostly used by melee/skillmonkey types (okay, and Firali :smallwink:), and taking away the assurance of completing an action that they should be good at, relatively speaking, seems unhelpful.
Everybody needs to carry around a scythe, especially at low levels. Color Spray ---> decapitation

Why give the enemy a chance to recover and act? :smallbiggrin: Unless there's a Crusader nearby to White Raven Tactics you later that turn so you can perform the CdG yourself.

Curmudgeon
2010-09-10, 04:53 PM
The coup de grace rules refer to an action ("concentrating"), not a required skill check ("Concentration check").

And I wish you would not get caught up in the semantics of what is likely a typographical error and address the rest of my post.
Since the rest of your post rests on the assumption that words without the skill name capitalization do not refer to skill checks, and I've refuted that (ignoring your "likely a typographical error" non-argument), the rest of your post need not be addressed.

Fax Celestis
2010-09-10, 04:54 PM
Since the rest of your post rests on the assumption that words without the skill name capitalization do not refer to skill checks, and I've refuted that (ignoring your "likely a typographical error" non-argument), the rest of your post need not be addressed.

So by your argument, then, since casting a spell requires "concentration", a wizard must make a Concentration check even when not threatened every time he casts a spell, no matter how insignificant.

I have never heard of anyone ruling in this fashion.

olentu
2010-09-10, 04:57 PM
Since the rest of your post rests on the assumption that words without the skill name capitalization do not refer to skill checks, and I've refuted that (ignoring your "likely a typographical error" non-argument), the rest of your post need not be addressed.

Er you just said you did not refute it. You just said that you were not saying that the use of penalty means that the lower case use of hide is a check since you said that you were not being absolute. Thus you did not show that the uncapitalized use of hide must mean a skill check and thus you have not provided a counter example to the assumption that checks are always capitalized.

Curmudgeon
2010-09-10, 04:58 PM
So by your argument, then, since casting a spell requires "concentration", a wizard must make a Concentration check even when not threatened every time he casts a spell, no matter how insignificant.
And yet again, confusion between an example and a limiting specification.

I've shown that in at least some cases, a skill check is required when the rules do not use the capitalized skill name (an example). This does not mean, nor have I argued, that any word that looks like a skill name always requires a check (a limiting specification).

OzymandiasVolt
2010-09-10, 04:59 PM
Coup de Grace

As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless opponent. You can also use a bow or crossbow, provided you are adjacent to the target.

You automatically hit and score a critical hit. If the defender survives the damage, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die. A rogue also gets her extra sneak attack damage against a helpless opponent when delivering a coup de grace.

Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents.

You can’t deliver a coup de grace against a creature that is immune to critical hits. You can deliver a coup de grace against a creature with total concealment, but doing this requires two consecutive full-round actions (one to "find" the creature once you’ve determined what square it’s in, and one to deliver the coup de grace).

There is no mention of Concentration or concentration. There is no mention of distruption.

Therefore we can conclude that RAW, no you can't disrupt.

RAI, well, they don't even hint at disruption, so no there too.

olentu
2010-09-10, 05:01 PM
And yet again, confusion between an example and a limiting specification.

I've shown that in at least some cases, a skill check is required when the rules do not use the capitalized skill name (an example). This does not mean, nor have I argued, that any word that looks like a skill name always requires a check (a limiting specification).

No you have not since you have not shown that that lower case use of hide must be a skill check since by your own admission you were not saying that penalty always means a skill check.

Curmudgeon
2010-09-10, 05:04 PM
There is no mention of Concentration or concentration.
As I already noted in the previous page of this thread, the SRD is a shortened, edited version of the core rules. Please read pages 153-154 of your Player's Handbook for the full coup de grace rules, which do include such a mention. Or you can just look at the previous page where I've excerpted a handy quote for you.

Frosty
2010-09-10, 05:04 PM
There is no mention of Concentration or concentration. There is no mention of distruption.

Therefore we can conclude that RAW, no you can't disrupt.

RAI, well, they don't even hint at disruption, so no there too.
Read the text in the actual PHB. It says that delivering a coup de grace "provoke attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents because it involves focused concentration and methodical action on the part of the attack."

Fax Celestis
2010-09-10, 05:06 PM
And yet again, confusion between an example and a limiting specification.

I've shown that in at least some cases, a skill check is required when the rules do not use the capitalized skill name (an example). This does not mean, nor have I argued, that any word that looks like a skill name always requires a check (a limiting specification).

Then how does casting a spell (which provokes but allows a Concentration check to negate):

To cast a spell, you must concentrate. If something interrupts your concentration while you’re casting, you must make a Concentration check or lose the spell. The more distracting the interruption and the higher the level of the spell you are trying to cast, the higher the DC is. If you fail the check, you lose the spell just as if you had cast it to no effect.

If while trying to cast a spell you take damage, you must make a Concentration check...

If you are affected by a spell while attempting to cast a spell of your own, you must make a Concentration check...

The only spells you can cast while grappling or pinned are those without somatic components and whose material components (if any) you have in hand. Even so, you must make a Concentration check (DC 20 + the level of the spell you’re casting) or lose the spell.

...If you are riding on a moving mount, taking a bouncy ride in a wagon, on a small boat in rough water, below-decks in a storm-tossed ship, or simply being jostled in a similar fashion, you must make a Concentration check...

If you are on a galloping horse, taking a very rough ride in a wagon, on a small boat in rapids or in a storm, on deck in a storm-tossed ship, or being tossed roughly about in a similar fashion, you must make a Concentration check...

You must make a Concentration check if you try to cast a spell in violent weather.

If you want to cast a spell without provoking any attacks of opportunity, you must make a Concentration check...

If you want to cast a spell while entangled in a net or by a tanglefoot bag or while you’re affected by a spell with similar effects, you must make a DC 15 Concentration check...
...and concentrating on an already-cast spell (which doesn't provokes but includes the word "concentration")...

The spell lasts as long as you concentrate on it. Concentrating to maintain a spell is a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Anything that could break your concentration when casting a spell can also break your concentration while you’re maintaining one, causing the spell to end.

You can’t cast a spell while concentrating on another one. Sometimes a spell lasts for a short time after you cease concentrating.

...differ from a coup de grace (which provokes but doesn't have a Concentration clause)?

As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless opponent. You can also use a bow or crossbow, provided you are adjacent to the target.

You automatically hit and score a critical hit. If the defender survives the damage, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die. A rogue also gets her extra sneak attack damage against a helpless opponent when delivering a coup de grace.

Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents.

You can’t deliver a coup de grace against a creature that is immune to critical hits. You can deliver a coup de grace against a creature with total concealment, but doing this requires two consecutive full-round actions (one to "find" the creature once you’ve determined what square it’s in, and one to deliver the coup de grace).

Coup de grace contains no "make a Concentration check" clause.

Fax Celestis
2010-09-10, 05:13 PM
Read the text in the actual PHB. It says that delivering a coup de grace "provoke attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents because it involves focused concentration and methodical action on the part of the attack."

I don't deny that. But there is no statement stating that being struck by an AoO during a CdG negates the attempt, nor is there a DC listed for the check other than the typical 10+damage included in the Concentration skill. The Concentration skill makes no direct mention of a coup de grace, while it does reference many other actions.

Following the logic that Curmudgeon is presenting, being struck by an AoO during a failed Tumble negates your movement if you don't make a Concentration check--which requires a feat. Being struck by an AoO while moving without Tumbling stops your movement--which requires a feat. Failing a Concentration check while trying to bull-rush someone means you don't get to bull-rush them. And so on and so forth.

Curmudgeon
2010-09-10, 05:20 PM
Coup de grace contains no "make a Concentration check" clause.
That reminder, though it would have alleviated the whole confusion that brought about this thread, isn't necessary. Both the Player's Handbook and (more clearly) Rules Compendium state that if you're injured "while performing an act that requires focused attention" (which coup de grace is), "you must make a Concentration check" or "you fail at what you were trying to do, wasting your effort".

As with many things in life, and the D&D rules, "some assembly is required". Compared to sorting out the Hide rules, this one is dead easy.

olentu
2010-09-10, 05:23 PM
That reminder, though it would have alleviated the whole confusion that brought about this thread, isn't necessary. Both the Player's Handbook and (more clearly) Rules Compendium state that if you're injured "while performing an act that requires focused attention" (which coup de grace is), "you must make a Concentration check" or "you fail at what you were trying to do, wasting your effort".

As with many things in life, and the D&D rules, "some assembly is required". Compared to sorting out the Hide rules, this one is dead easy.

Er yeah that would actually be "full attention" which does not necessary include the coup de grace.

Frosty
2010-09-10, 05:26 PM
That reminder, though it would have alleviated the whole confusion that brought about this thread, isn't necessary. Both the Player's Handbook and (more clearly) Rules Compendium state that if you're injured "while performing an act that requires focused attention" (which coup de grace is), "you must make a Concentration check" or "you fail at what you were trying to do, wasting your effort".

As with many things in life, and the D&D rules, "some assembly is required". Compared to sorting out the Hide rules, this one is dead easy.
What's wrong with the Hide rules?

Fax: That post wasn't really directed at you. It weas to OzymandiasVolt :smallwink: But yes, I can see your argument as well, which is why initially I was confused and made this thread. I also asked separate questions. Even if RAW is contested (which I'm not so sure it is now, but you make some good arguments Fax), I'm the DM and I want opinions on RAI and how to handle it. RAI is more important than RAW in this case.

To those that have made reasonable suggestions already, thanks for your opinions!

Fax Celestis
2010-09-10, 05:38 PM
What's wrong with the Hide rules?

Fax: That post wasn't really directed at you. It weas to OzymandiasVolt :smallwink: But yes, I can see your argument as well, which is why initially I was confused and made this thread. I also asked separate questions. Even if RAW is contested (which I'm not so sure it is now, but you make some good arguments Fax), I'm the DM and I want opinions on RAI and how to handle it. RAI is more important than RAW in this case.

To those that have made reasonable suggestions already, thanks for your opinions!

If that's what you're seeking, then it boils down to "how much do I care/how often will it come up/how much more do I want to give noncasters the shaft?" You don't, frankly, need a ruling if it never comes up.

In my opinion, if it were intended to require a check, then warrior classes would get Concentration as a class skill. They don't, so it doesn't. IF you rule that it does, I would add Concentration to warrior-type's skill lists.

Frosty
2010-09-10, 06:13 PM
If that's what you're seeking, then it boils down to "how much do I care/how often will it come up/how much more do I want to give noncasters the shaft?" You don't, frankly, need a ruling if it never comes up.

In my opinion, if it were intended to require a check, then warrior classes would get Concentration as a class skill. They don't, so it doesn't. IF you rule that it does, I would add Concentration to warrior-type's skill lists.
It came up in recently in two different games for me, so yes it does happen.

And I would give warrior types the Concentration skill, except the peeps with 2+int points are already on a tight enough budget as it is, which is why I'm thinking about a BAB or level check. And then I'll need to come up with the DC. Damage vastly outstrips the rate at which BAB grows, so having it based on 10+damage would make the check impossible at many levels.

Fax Celestis
2010-09-10, 06:16 PM
You could make it a Fort save vs. incoming attack roll, maybe.