3.5 A construct can deliver a coupe de grace?

[Quentinas]

In the last session i fought a spellcaster (probably a cleric) and his flesh golem (i think) and the cleric used wrack against my character which failed the save with a 1 on the roll . The cleric then died killed by my companion but it remains the golem. One of the character retreated because he was near to die, and the other one tried to provoke the golem , going far from me , because we were fighting in a lake and he had some problem with the water .The DM had to interrupt the session for some problem , and because he had to control some rules, before making my character die (until now i had not taken a single hit ) So now is the turn of the golem , can he deliver a coupe de grace against my character even if it is not intelligent ? (The order that were given are Kill All) because neither me or my DM know that so if by some rules there is an answer thanks

[NNescio]

In the last session i fought a spellcaster (probably a cleric) and his flesh golem (i think) and the cleric used agony against my character which failed the save with a 1 on the roll . The cleric then died killed by my companion but it remains the golem. One of the character retreated because he was near to die, and the other one tried to provoke the golem , going far from me , because we were fighting in a lake and he had some problem with the water .The DM had to interrupt the session for some problem , and because he had to control some rules, before making my character die (until now i had not taken a single hit ) So now is the turn of the golem , can he deliver a coupe de grace against my character even if it is not intelligent ? (The order that were given are Kill All) because neither me or my DM know that so if by some rules there is an answer thanks

Nothing says a mindless creature can't coup de grâce. Flavor-wise, it's just finishing off a downed or helpless target, and is thus fully within the purview of a "Kill All" order, especially if there aren't any other creatures around within reach.

Though I am curious as to why your character is considered helpless (in order to qualify for getting CdG) in the first place. As far as I know, there is no Cleric spell called "Agony".

[Quentinas]

Nothing says a mindless creature can't coup de grâce. Flavor-wise, it's just finishing off a downed or helpless target, and is thus fully within the purview of a "Kill All" order, especially if there aren't any other creatures around within reach.

Though I am curious as to why your character is considered helpless (in order to qualify for getting CdG) in the first place. As far as I know, there is no Cleric spell called "Agony".

Sorry wrack my error, is from spell compendium ( i traduced directly from Italian without controlling the manual)

I'm the nearest one as character (he doesn't need to move to attack me) but the question which came is if he knows that i am helpless (the DM says that i'm screaming for the spell)

[Luckmann]

You are helpless, and whether the mindless construct knows or not, it'll stomp you to paste as you're unable to defend yourself. In the narrative sense, do not think of a CdG as a discrete action, but rather as a consequence of relentless combat and your character checking out.

[RatElemental]

A coup de grace doesn't need to be deliberately slitting the target's throat or whatever, a good old fashioned slam straight to center of mass without the target being able to defend themselves or try to soften the blow will do the same thing.

[Mr Adventurer]

If the golem is mindless, how does it know that you - as opposed to your moving, acting allies - are still alive to be killed?

As a mindless combatant, I'd rule it's not capable of the kind of discernment needed to take the Coup de Grace action - which, remember, is a different kind of action to a standard or full attack.

[Luckmann]

If the golem is mindless, how does it know that you - as opposed to your moving, acting allies - are still alive to be killed?Same way anyone else is, presumably. In order for a relevant "kill!"-order to even be able to exist, it must be reasonably capable of determining if someone is alive or not, or you'd be able to fool it by throwing yourself on the ground and pretend to be dead, which would obviously be absurd.

This obviously begs the question as to whether mindless constructs have some kind of limited life sense or if they're just really good at "making sure" or whatever, but that's another discussion imo.

[Mr Adventurer]

Same way anyone else is, presumably. In order for a relevant "kill!"-order to even be able to exist, it must be reasonably capable of determining if someone is alive or not, or you'd be able to fool it by throwing yourself on the ground and pretend to be dead, which would obviously be absurd.

This obviously begs the question as to whether mindless constructs have some kind of limited life sense or if they're just really good at "making sure" or whatever, but that's another discussion imo.

Far from being 'absurd', IMO that's exactly the sort of ruse that should work against mindless opponents. Even creatures with minds sometimes have to make (e.g. Heal, Spot) checks to determine the health of their opponents or even allies - hence spells like Deathsight and Status.

I mean, you are literally creating special senses in order to justify your personal view.

[Luckmann]

I mean, you are literally creating special senses in order to justify your personal view.I'm not. It's a narrative question, not a rules-question, really, and I wouldn't need to "create special senses" to "justify" my "personal view": by RAW, constructs, even mindless ones, can make determinations like this - same as anyone else - and perform CdGs just fine. Nothing prevents it.

All I did was to extrapolate upon the facts of RAW and the implications this reasonably must have in order to make sense, and posited potential ideas or subsequent implications that could be discussed (but that ultimarely aren't immediately relevant.

It is akin to the common discussion as to how skeletons can see without eyes; "Do they have some kind of life sense?", "What are the limitations of that?", "Can you throw pocket sand to blind them?", etc. It's all mechanically irrelevant by RAW; by the rules, they see and work like everyone else, and all we can do is to theorize as to why this is, and try to make sense of it.

[Gnaeus]

A coup de grace doesn't need to be deliberately slitting the target's throat or whatever, a good old fashioned slam straight to center of mass without the target being able to defend themselves or try to soften the blow will do the same thing.

It really does need to be deliberately delivering a killing blow. A good old fashioned slam is just a slam attack with bonuses from enemy prone and helpless. A Coup is specifically lining up a kill shot in a way that provokes, but does extra damage.

I would rule that a construct could recognize a helpless opponent (assuming normal senses)
And could coup de grace

I would rule that a construct couldn’t make tactical decisions about when it is appropriate to CDG. Based on things like “would a normal slam work” or “how many AOOs will I take.” It could be given orders like “always CDG” or “only CDG if you aren’t aware of opponents threatening you”. But it will interpret those roboticly without tactical sense.

[Luckmann]

I would rule that a construct could recognize a helpless opponent (assuming normal senses) And could coup de grace

I would rule that a construct couldn’t make tactical decisions about when it is appropriate to CDG. Based on things like “would a normal slam work” or “how many AOOs will I take.” It could be given orders like “always CDG” or “only CDG if you aren’t aware of opponents threatening you”. But it will interpret those roboticly without tactical sense.This is how I'd play it too, given that the order given was simply "Kill All".

[Blackhawk748]

In the case of a Golem it's CDG would just be a curb stomp, so nothing overly complex and it is the fastest way to expedite it's 'Kill All' order.

Also I assume your character is laying on the ground screaming in pain, so the Golem can tell you're still alive

[Necroticplague]

If the golem is mindless, how does it know that you - as opposed to your moving, acting allies - are still alive to be killed?

Because helpless doesn’t mean motionless, just not able to move to defend himself. In particular, he’s probably visibly writhing in pain.

As to the rest: if a golem has the ability to distinguish dead and not, it has what it takes to distinguish helpless from not. It is then ultimately up to the golem to make the decision as to whether it’s orders are best followed by leaving you for last (since you can’t stop it from fulfilling its orders), or taking care of you first (since it would result in the most death quickest).

[Quentinas]

Yes i'm screaming in pain on the ground on his reach 10 ft from him , the other character which killed the cleric and who hit one time the construct is 30 ft from him and the last one now is around 100 ft from us in air

So he can make a coup de grace , because he can recognize a living being , and so he would try to kill him in the best way he can if he is helpless with a coupe de grace? So i have a 52,5% (or around here depends on the damage) that my character doesn't die in the next round? (if i made a 20 on fortitude i should not die from the coupe de grace)

[Psyren]

If its orders are to kill, it will take the first opportunity presented to do so, even if doing so hurts its long-term success. For example, taking the full-round action to CdG you means that it's not able to reposition itself nearer to your allies or seek cover from them, increasing their own chances of beating or escaping from it.

It might suck for you personally, but at the level where you're fighting an evil cleric and his pet flesh golem, a character death shouldn't be insurmountable either.

[Quertus]

My 2¢ - the golem is mindless. It is capable of the coup de grace action. Its orders were "kill them all". It sees that you appear to be alive. It will attack you.It sees that you appear to be helpless. It is mindless. It cannot choose to take the coup de grace action.

If someone put an illusion of a wall in front of you, the golem would forget that you are there. This is classic golem fighting 101. Heck, if they covered you with a blanket, the golem would not know what was under the blanket. The golem lacks the capacity to reason beyond a) what it sees, and b) its orders.

Alternately, suppose the golem could reason to make coup de grace against helpless foes. Then would not standard golem fighting 201 include the tactic of holding still, pretending to be paralyzed, to make the golem a) provoke AoO from the party, and b) waste its full attack on a single attack?

Any way you slice it, the golem should attack, not coup de grace, you.

[Gnaeus]

Here’s a different line of thought.

If it were a PC controlled skeleton or construct, there’s a good chance it might have contingency commands built in before. Like: “unless ordered otherwise always kill active enemies first in combat” or “unless ordered otherwise, always CDG downed opponents”.

It’s probably too much to suggest that a DM build elaborate commands for all mindless. So.

Let the cleric make a know arcana or int roll. Determine how likely it is that he prepared for something like this.

On a success, the golem follows preset instructions and does what cleric would have wanted. On a fail he does the other thing. On a fail by more than 10 he had an inappropriate or badly worded command and stands motionless or runs across the battle to swing at a flying opponent he can’t hit.

[Crake]

If someone put an illusion of a wall in front of you, the golem would forget that you are there. This is classic golem fighting 101. Heck, if they covered you with a blanket, the golem would not know what was under the blanket. The golem lacks the capacity to reason beyond a) what it sees, and b) its orders.

By this logic, running around a corner to a golem, or turning invisible would also make the golem forget you were there? But they don't? Just because something is mindless doesn't mean it lacks the capability to understand object permanence.

[EisenKreutzer]

Wouldn’t a mindless creature automatically disbelieve an illusion?

[RatElemental]

By this logic, running around a corner to a golem, or turning invisible would also make the golem forget you were there? But they don't? Just because something is mindless doesn't mean it lacks the capability to understand object permanence.


Any creature that can think, learn, or remember has at least 1 point of Intelligence. A creature with no Intelligence score is mindless, an automaton operating on simple instincts or programmed instructions. It has immunity to mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects) and automatically fails Intelligence checks.

It's arguable that since the golem lacks an intelligence score, it is incapable of remembering why it was lumbering over to you if it can't see you anymore.

However, this interpretation also throws a spanner in the works of being able to give a golem any orders whatsoever unless you program them into the golem in some sort of permanent manner. That said, the following statement about working on "simple instincts or programmed instructions" implies that this may indeed be the case.

[Evil DM Mark3]

It seems to me the debate here boils down to which of the following is true:

A) Coup de grace is a specific action requiring specific planning and thought.
B) Coup de grace is a mechanic to simulate how, not matter how much hp you have, if you cannot defend yourself you die.

While I've always considered it to be A (and thus something a mindless creature could not do) this scenario actually changed my mind. You are there, screaming in agony, and the golem who has orders to kill raises its foot and stamps on your head (applying the closest part of itself to the most vulnerable and also it should be noted most clearly alive part of you) as hard as possible. That's a Coup de grace. If you were not helpless you might conceivably roll out of the way, partly block the attack with an arm (ie, take hp damage) and so on. But if you can't move? I think it is sillier that the golem might have to spend 30-40 seconds pogoing up and down on your head to kill you.

[Gnaeus]

It seems to me the debate here boils down to which of the following is true:

A) Coup de grace is a specific action requiring specific planning and thought.
B) Coup de grace is a mechanic to simulate how, not matter how much hp you have, if you cannot defend yourself you die.

While I've always considered it to be A (and thus something a mindless creature could not do) this scenario actually changed my mind. You are there, screaming in agony, and the golem who has orders to kill raises its foot and stamps on your head (applying the closest part of itself to the most vulnerable and also it should be noted most clearly alive part of you) as hard as possible. That's a Coup de grace. If you were not helpless you might conceivably roll out of the way, partly block the attack with an arm (ie, take hp damage) and so on. But if you can't move? I think it is sillier that the golem might have to spend 30-40 seconds pogoing up and down on your head to kill you.

The problem is that it is clearly, mechanically, a distinct action. And one that there could be many reasons not to take. It provokes. It is a full round action, so in many cases it is actually a slower way to kill enemies than slam then move, or slam, see if slam kills enemy, then slam someone else with the other attack. It has to be more than just an attack on a helpless enemy or none of that would be true.

[Willie the Duck]

The problem is that it is clearly, mechanically, a distinct action. And one that there could be many reasons not to take. It provokes. It is a full round action, so in many cases it is actually a slower way to kill enemies than slam then move, or slam, see if slam kills enemy, then slam someone else with the other attack. It has to be more than just an attack on a helpless enemy or none of that would be true.

I think that's worth pointing out. Deliberately trying to kill something now (with this strike) is a distinct type of strike. Yes, as said above, it's not just throat slitting, and can be just concentrated strike to center mass. However, when you fight, you don't just take concentrated strikes to center mass, you take the next reasonable strike that is presented to you by circumstance.


However, this interpretation also throws a spanner in the works of being able to give a golem any orders whatsoever unless you program them into the golem in some sort of permanent manner. That said, the following statement about working on "simple instincts or programmed instructions" implies that this may indeed be the case.

Mindless automatons are an issue in that I don't think all DMs see them as the same level of mindless. I mean, I think everyone lets a golem-owner command it to 'open that door' rather than 'walk eight feet forward, raise your right arm at the elbow, extend said arm 6 inches forward at a 12-degree downward angle, close your fingers around the door handle, and move your arm backwards three feet without letting go of said door handle.' However, when you command it to 'kill these intruders!' what can it do? What breadth of options does it have? How complex a set of nested if-then statements can it keep loaded (such that you can pre-prepare some combat tactics into it ahead of time) at once? I think it's going to depend on how the DM interprets it/which classic era horror movie Frankenstein Monsters or B-movie robots are their golems based off of.


Even creatures with minds sometimes have to make (e.g. Heal, Spot) checks to determine the health of their opponents or even allies - hence spells like Deathsight and Status.
I think that's a valid point, but not specific to this individual scenario and fixing it would cause a lot of problems (the cow has left the barn, so to speak). I mean, we could insist that every players don't know if a downed opponent (or ally, in the case of clerics wanting to cure allies at -1 - -9 hp) is actually dead and have to act out that lack of knowledge in every situation, but I'm pretty sure no one does (and doing so would cause a lot of wasted actions, bogging down an already fairly lengthy combat system).

[Mr Adventurer]

I think that's a valid point, but not specific to this individual scenario and fixing it would cause a lot of problems (the cow has left the barn, so to speak). I mean, we could insist that every players don't know if a downed opponent (or ally, in the case of clerics wanting to cure allies at -1 - -9 hp) is actually dead and have to act out that lack of knowledge in every situation, but I'm pretty sure no one does (and doing so would cause a lot of wasted actions, bogging down an already fairly lengthy combat system).

Several games I've been in have run this way, though not all of them. It doesn't make much difference to combat length in my experience and can help immersion.

[Willie the Duck]

Several games I've been in have run this way, though not all of them. It doesn't make much difference to combat length in my experience and can help immersion.

Huh. Okay. Color me mildly surprised, but not overly so. This is a side tangent, so I don't want to belabor it too much, but what action-type do you slot 'determine if creature is dead or not' as? I looked up the Heal skill in the SRD and it doesn't seem to have it as an official thing. Did you find you had fighter-types spending an extra round per opponent 'making sure' and clerics wasting cures on dead allies, and such?

[Mr Adventurer]

Huh. Okay. Color me mildly surprised, but not overly so. This is a side tangent, so I don't want to belabor it too much, but what action-type do you slot 'determine if creature is dead or not' as? I looked up the Heal skill in the SRD and it doesn't seem to have it as an official thing. Did you find you had fighter-types spending an extra round per opponent 'making sure' and clerics wasting cures on dead allies, and such?

IME:

Spot and Listen have a default of a move action. Can't remember if Heal has proper rules but it's been either free or standard in different games.

No, once an enemy is downed it's rare for it to make any difference since enemies are usually monsters, rather than classed. EDIT: and class levels is where most external healing comes from

From the PC side, Status starts getting used when action economy starts to bite, after a few levels. There's also a Companion Spirit that gives that as a continuous effect that I've seen used a couple of times.

For this thread, the point though is not that there's an action cost - but that it requires a level of discernment that mindless creatures can't exhibit.

[NNescio]

IME:

Spot and Listen have a default of a move action.

Only if you are repeating the check on something you've failed to see/hear previously. Otherwise it's free, "every time you have a chance to spot/hear something in a reactive manner ".

[Quentinas]

Well because the golem can hear (if not how should have he heard the order) it can heard my character scream so he knows that i'm alive , the point was if he could (and it appears of yes) should (and this involves tactics with the mindless creature) or would (and this involves the order) kill my character with a coupe de grace rather than trying to strike my character with a full attack for example

[Willie the Duck]

For this thread, the point though is not that there's an action cost - but that it requires a level of discernment that mindless creatures can't exhibit.

Agreed. And depending upon how one views constructs, one might suggest that they should have to spend some-to-many rounds pounding upon corpses until they are demonstrably well-beyond-dead or else be relatively susceptible to 'playing dead' scenarios.

Although the overall message I'm taking away is that the Mindless trait is insufficiently delineated.

[Psyren]

By this logic, running around a corner to a golem, or turning invisible would also make the golem forget you were there? But they don't? Just because something is mindless doesn't mean it lacks the capability to understand object permanence.

It's an interesting question. For me, once the golem sees you, it will begin to move towards you. Turning invisible and standing motionless would automatically defeat it. Running around a corner might not, if you aren't quiet enough, it will keep moving towards the stimulus until it either finds you or can no longer see+hear you.

[Quertus]

I think that's a valid point, but not specific to this individual scenario and fixing it would cause a lot of problems (the cow has left the barn, so to speak). I mean, we could insist that every players don't know if a downed opponent (or ally, in the case of clerics wanting to cure allies at -1 - -9 hp) is actually dead and have to act out that lack of knowledge in every situation, but I'm pretty sure no one does (and doing so would cause a lot of wasted actions, bogging down an already fairly lengthy combat system).


Several games I've been in have run this way, though not all of them. It doesn't make much difference to combat length in my experience and can help immersion.

I, too, have run things that way. And my tables aren't known for being slow. It does require an adjustment period, though.

[Evil DM Mark3]

The problem is that it is clearly, mechanically, a distinct action.It is, mechanically. But is that mechanic reflecting a specific action or on the other hand just a way of reflecting something?

A side thought. What if the creator programmed this behaviour (which is clearly beneficial) into the golem? I mean it has to have some sort of combat programming. Done and done.

[Ashtagon]

The problem is understanding what is meant by "Int —". It's not "really low intelligence". It's a programmed automaton. The question does it understand object permanence is irrelevant, because that's something that arises as a result of low intelligence, not of no intelligence.

Best way to handle it is to assume that anything specifically covered by pre-planned orders happens as programmed (and the GM should follow that program). If there is a situation that isn't specifically covered, the golem's master should make an off-scene Intelligence check to determine if this is something the GM can retro-actively create a preprogrammed order for. Otherwise, it either does nothing except defend itself, or takes a random action that fulfils its programmed goals to some extent.

In the above scenario, the GM should have made an Intelligence check for the golem's master, and if successful, add to the golem's "program" a relevant line, which then gets followed along with everything else in its program. If the Int check fails, the golem might do a normal attack, CDG, or go after another character it can reach in that round.

However, I would say that unless specifically programmed otherwise, a golem won't consider a CDG unless it can do so without provoking an aoo, as that would require an override on its self-preservation program that requires it to defend itself in combat.

[Mr Adventurer]

A side thought. What if the creator programmed this behaviour (which is clearly beneficial) into the golem? I mean it has to have some sort of combat programming. Done and done.

I don't think it is "clearly beneficial". It might be beneficial in some combat situations, but that kind of deep tactical programming I would say is beyond Int --.

[NNescio]

Even if we accept the premise that mindless creatures need explicit 'programming' to perform coups de grâce, the Cleric with Wrack is the owner of the golem so it's highly likely it has a 'programmed' command to take advantage of Wrack'd targets.

(Unless it's a one-off spell that the Cleric has never cast before.)

[Willie the Duck]

Depends on how much programming a golem can keep track of at once. I wonder if there's a wizard 'William of the Gate' who apocryphally stated '640 lines of commands ought to be enough for any golem-user.' :smalltongue:

Edit: All of this seems so off for flesh golems, which are thematically Frankenstein monsters, not robots. It should be, "monster, defend your master and defeat these infernal intruders!" not, "golem, recognize authorization 'master, zeta-three-epsilon,' and initiate tactical subroutine C1!"

[Remuko]

Even if we accept the premise that mindless creatures need explicit 'programming' to perform coups de grâce, the Cleric with Wrack is the owner of the golem so it's highly likely it has a 'programmed' command to take advantage of Wrack'd targets.

(Unless it's a one-off spell that the Cleric has never cast before.)

This is definitely an important bit of info, imo.

[Mr Adventurer]

Even if we accept the premise that mindless creatures need explicit 'programming' to perform coups de grâce, the Cleric with Wrack is the owner of the golem so it's highly likely it has a 'programmed' command to take advantage of Wrack'd targets.

(Unless it's a one-off spell that the Cleric has never cast before.)

I mean, I think the limits of the programming that can be done excludes this kind of thing, so, I don't accept it.


Depends on how much programming a golem can keep track of at once. I wonder if there's a wizard 'William of the Gate' who apocryphally stated '640 lines of commands ought to be enough for any golem-user.' :smalltongue:

Edit: All of this seems so off for flesh golems, which are thematically Frankenstein monsters, not robots. It should be, "monster, defend your master and defeat these infernal intruders!" not, "golem, recognize authorization 'master, zeta-three-epsilon,' and initiate tactical subroutine C1!"

Golems aren't robots either.

[Blackhawk748]

Although the overall message I'm taking away is that the Mindless trait is insufficiently delineated.

This is the primary issue. The Mindless trait is a bit of a mess as it needs to encompass Vermin, Mindless undead, and Golems. All of whom operate very differently

[NNescio]

I mean, I think the limits of the programming that can be done excludes this kind of thing, so, I don't accept it.

A Wrack'd target is writhing on the ground in pain. With obvious physical symptoms like leaking blisters on the face and arms, plus bleeding eyes.

It's not lying-on-the-ground-'peacefully'-and-might-be-dead-or-sleeping-or-pretending-to-be-dead-or-sleeping-or-a-Norwegian-Blue. It's bleedingly (literally) obvious.

[Mr Adventurer]

A Wrack'd target is writhing on the ground in pain. With obvious physical symptoms like leaking blisters on the face and arms and bleeding eyes.

It's not lying-on-the-ground-'peacefully'-and-might-be-dead-or-sleeping-or-pretending-to-be-dead-or-sleeping. It's bleedingly (literally) obvious.

Is your unstated point "...and so the Cleric can describe the effects of their spell and instruct the golem to perform a coup de grace on a creature exhibiting those symptoms"? Because I don't think a mindless creature can make that determination.

Edit: meant to say, and specifically performing a coup de grace is beyond them too

[Blackhawk748]

Is your unstated point "...and so the Cleric can describe the effects of their spell and instruct the golem to perform a coup de grace on a creature exhibiting those symptoms"? Because I don't think a mindless creature can make that determination.

No, but "Crush defenseless targets on the ground" is a viable command.

[Mr Adventurer]

No, but "Crush defenseless targets on the ground" is a viable command.

I don't think a mindless creature can determine when a creature is helpless.

Also, this would result in normal attacks, not a coup de Grace action.

[Blackhawk748]

I don't think a mindless creature can determine when a creature is helpless.

Also, this would result in normal attacks, not a coup de Grace action.

We have no idea what a mindless creature can determine, which is the entire Crux of the issue.

I specifically said Crush, not attack. People wouldn't say Coup de Grace in universe cuz I doubt French exists in your average fantasy setting

[Evil DM Mark3]

I don't think a mindless creature can determine when a creature is helpless.

Also, this would result in normal attacks, not a coup de Grace action.Taking this logic not even a full step further the command "Kill everyone but me" then the golem is going to keep kicking the first biological object they come to, after all how can they tell alive from dead? How can they tell anything?

A creature with no Intelligence score is mindless, an automaton operating on simple instincts or programmed instructions.

Clearly a golem does not have instincts (which is what covers vermin and part of what covers mindless undead), so it must be operating on programmed instructions. I would happyily say that a golem can be programed to anything that a non-neural net computer can be programed to do, so long as it is programmed to do it, just because we are in a medieval setting does not mean and/or statments stop working.

Or we can draw from the fantasy sources. When automatons go wrong in fantasy its often because they get partial instructions that don't include termination conditions like "fetch water" resulting them them flooding a person out. I that case it implies a lot of adapability including the ability to locate water sources, identify water vs other liquids, use buckets etc. Still more awareness than is needed to follow the instrction suggested.

[Psyren]

My perspective is that the golem will carry out orders to the best of its ability. If I tell it to kill intruders, and it has multiple attacks (which most do, 2 slams) then I don't have to explicitly tell it "make sure you full attack instead of attacking as a standard action if you don't have to move to reach an enemy." Rather, it will do that automatically, because that's the best way it has to kill an intruder that it starts its turn in reach of. And if it can do that, I don't think it's a big leap from there to saying it can coup de grace a helpless-but-alive target within reach either.

It's also worth noting that not all mindless creatures are reliant on external programming. Vermin and Plants are mindless too, yet they are cunning enough to hunt prey and lay traps. "Mindless" doesn't mean "must be explicitly instructed for every action it takes" - it means they lack the capacity to learn and adapt. It means they must be ins can't prioritize targets (e.g. going after the squishy mage instead of the beefy barbarian) unless told to do so, and they can't weigh short-term setbacks vs. long-term success, like waiting until a dangerous spell effect expires before trying to move through it.

Do we have any examples from published modules of enemy casters using constructs, and what those constructs do? For example, could a church that uses golem guards exempt anyone wearing their holy symbol from being attacked? If so, how does the golem know what a "holy symbol" even is, much less the right one? Personally I think that kind of context can be conveyed by the caster and the magic animating them, so long as the context is observable.

[Vaern]

It is, mechanically. But is that mechanic reflecting a specific action or on the other hand just a way of reflecting something?
It's a distinct action that effectively represents a carefully placed, calculated killing blow. Slitting the subject's throat, a blade through the subject's chest, snapping the subject's neck, putting an arrow through the subject's head, etc. The overarching description for golems in general states that "they follow instructions explicitly and are incapable of any strategy or tactics," and a coup de grace is a strategic decision that the golem would be unable to make on its own.
I think it's highly likely that, in a situation where the golem's target has become helpless, it would simply continue to attack normally rather than changing tactics against that subject to accommodate for the fact that his status has now changed to "helpless," unless the cleric has specifically instructed it to do so beforehand. I'd expect that a flesh golem given an order to "Kill all," being a broad and simple command on its own, would default to a simple combat tactic consisting of making normal slam attacks until the target is dead.

[Necroticplague]

It's arguable that since the golem lacks an intelligence score, it is incapable of remembering why it was lumbering over to you if it can't see you anymore.

However, this interpretation also throws a spanner in the works of being able to give a golem any orders whatsoever unless you program them into the golem in some sort of permanent manner. That said, the following statement about working on "simple instincts or programmed instructions" implies that this may indeed be the case.

I think part of the confusion is that a golem is not ‘mindless’ in a perfect sense. It still has Wisdom and Charisma, and thus has some form me of mental faculties. It is not like the computer on my desk. It can identify things as distinct objects, has intuition,and even has a sense of self (albeit, it’s poor CHA means it’s not very well developed).

That’s why golems and skeletons aren’t tricked by ‘suddenly illusory wall’ perfectly. It has a Wisdom it can use to intuit something’s up, even if a lack of Intelligence mean it can’t put forth hypothesis.

And while you could play dead against a golem, like you could with anything else, it’ll take as much to fool them as any other similarly perceptive being.

Remember, some living beings that do move of their own accord, like spiders and other Vermin, are mindless. There’s no need for a golem’s thought process to be less than a cockroaches’ when the system defines them as equal.

[Psyren]

I think part of the confusion is that a golem is not ‘mindless’ in a perfect sense. It still has Wisdom and Charisma, and thus has some form me of mental faculties. It is not like the computer on my desk. It can identify things as distinct objects, has intuition,and even has a sense of self (albeit, it’s poor CHA means it’s not very well developed).

That’s why golems and skeletons aren’t tricked by ‘suddenly illusory wall’ perfectly. It has a Wisdom it can use to intuit something’s up, even if a lack of Intelligence mean it can’t put forth hypothesis.

And while you could play dead against a golem, like you could with anything else, it’ll take as much to fool them as any other similarly perceptive being.

Remember, some living beings that do move of their own accord, like spiders and other Vermin, are mindless. There’s no need for a golem’s thought process to be less than a cockroaches’ when the system defines them as equal.

Agreed. In particular, golems can hear (since that's how you issue them your commands), so suddenly turning a corner still lets them keep chasing you because they can continue to perceive you with that sense. They are not objects.

[Quertus]

This is the primary issue. The Mindless trait is a bit of a mess as it needs to encompass Vermin, Mindless undead, and Golems. All of whom operate very differently

Maybe that's how they work in the real world, but in D&D, they're all mindless, so they all "think" in exactly the same way.

By all means, how do they operate differently?

[RatElemental]

Mindless automatons are an issue in that I don't think all DMs see them as the same level of mindless. I mean, I think everyone lets a golem-owner command it to 'open that door' rather than 'walk eight feet forward, raise your right arm at the elbow, extend said arm 6 inches forward at a 12-degree downward angle, close your fingers around the door handle, and move your arm backwards three feet without letting go of said door handle.' However, when you command it to 'kill these intruders!' what can it do? What breadth of options does it have? How complex a set of nested if-then statements can it keep loaded (such that you can pre-prepare some combat tactics into it ahead of time) at once? I think it's going to depend on how the DM interprets it/which classic era horror movie Frankenstein Monsters or B-movie robots are their golems based off of.


"Open that door" is at least an immediate action that can be largely based on things 'built' into the golem's memory. [MASTER] has told me to [OPEN] that thing I can see over there.

"Kill all intruders" is a standing order that would require the golem to remember it's supposed to be killing intruders even after it finishes killing any ones that might be around when the order is given.

This thread has given me the idea for a dungeon where there are strange symbols painted all over the walls, which serve as commands to the golems wandering them because they're programmed to carry out certain actions when they see certain symbols.

[Remuko]

This thread has given me the idea for a dungeon where there are strange symbols painted all over the walls, which serve as commands to the golems wandering them because they're programmed to carry out certain actions when they see certain symbols.

Thats cool, cuz then it opens up the options of the PCs realizing this and altering or erasing the symbols to mess with the golems.

[Necroticplague]

This thread has given me the idea for a dungeon where there are strange symbols painted all over the walls, which serve as commands to the golems wandering them because they're programmed to carry out certain actions when they see certain symbols.
I’ve seen people use similar tricks to try to get around Prying Eyes limit on size of command. “Do what this page says.” Is a pretty short order, even if the page is 3 feet long.

[Elkad]

"Smash the skull of any intruder not wearing the sacred necklace."

Now it'll pound your head to jelly. Doesn't matter if you are paralyzed, unconscious, or already dead.

eh, gitp doesn't respect timestamps.
3:39

https://youtu.be/3G3ZsDGgtWU?t=219

Yeah, Earth Elementals have a 4 int, but a golem can follow orders to do the same.

[Quentinas]

Well so there is no solution by RAW? Note that the golem without any other order would have killed the cleric (kill all is different from kill all except me)

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Yeah, Earth Elementals have a 4 int

Which makes them sentient. So an elemental operates like a particularly stupid orc barbarian, while the golem is closer to a robot. And a badly defined robot at that. Depending on how you read the rules the golem could be a lot dumber or even a lot smarter than the elemental, or it could even be situational which of those two he is. A sci-fi robot for instance might be a lot better at calculations, targeting and even diplomacy through the application of logic than a stupid klingon warrior, but worse at anything that resembles combat-sense, such as knowing how and where to attack an opponent. And at least there we have some sort of an expectations pattern. For a magical golem it might well be the other way around. Its mind was cooked up from pages of The Art Of War. The only thing it can do is make smart combat decisions. And that's the problem of this thread.

Granted, there is a case to be made for just treating the golem like it is a particularly stupid orc barbarian, given that the campaign in question isn't a philosophical journey of discovery into the realms of mindless beings. Use the rules you know, play the game, have fun. But it's not RAW.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Maybe that's how they work in the real world, but in D&D, they're all mindless, so they all "think" in exactly the same way.

By all means, how do they operate differently?


A creature with no Intelligence score is mindless, an automaton operating on simple instincts or programmed instructions.
That's how. Some operates on simile instincts others on programmed instructions. Living things are going to have instincts, animated slabs of stone are not. (Flesh golems are a bit more debatable as they have an actual, organic, brain, but if that has any role in their decision making process then it makes the case for Coup de grace stronger as it allows some human-like understanding.)

[RatElemental]

(Flesh golems are a bit more debatable as they have an actual, organic, brain, but if that has any role in their decision making process then it makes the case for Coup de grace stronger as it allows some human-like understanding.)

Flesh golems are weird beasts in general. They break from the original frankenstein's monster, which was an intellectual who was driven to destroy his creator because mankind treated him with contempt. The frankenstein's monster from movies is definitely not an automaton either, being driven to destroy due to mistreatment by his creator in particular. It also raises all kinds of questions involving necromancy and why it's different from creating a golem out of a corpse.

I tend to just pretend they don't exist.

[Quentinas]

We don't know what is but evaluating from the description it should be a flesh golem but maybe is another thing (a magic item that deal fire and sonic damage seems to did not have done nothing to him and it was around 30 of damage)

[Blackhawk748]

Maybe that's how they work in the real world, but in D&D, they're all mindless, so they all "think" in exactly the same way.

By all means, how do they operate differently?

Vermin need to eat unlike the other two and being unable to remember would seriously inhibit spiders and wasps ability to properly launch ambushes. Also there are type of wasps who have their offspring located in a small hole who they feed. You need to be able to remember in order to do that.

Basically, if you're saying that Constructs can't CDG because they can't discern when that can happen, then neither can Spiders.

[Willie the Duck]

Well so there is no solution by RAW? Note that the golem without any other order would have killed the cleric (kill all is different from kill all except me)

There is no one inarguable answer to the question of what the golem would do. It would either attack the cleric (treating him as prone and without Dex to AC) twice as a normal full attack, or attempt a CDG, and which it would do depends on your interpretation of how a mindless creatures 'mind' working (the description of which, in the RAW, being insufficiently well explained to come to one single possible interpretation).

[Psyren]

Well so there is no solution by RAW? Note that the golem without any other order would have killed the cleric (kill all is different from kill all except me)

RAW does not solve everything in this game, we're dealing with imperfect designers communicating using an imperfect language. Your GM will have to interpret some things, and this is one of them.

[EisenKreutzer]

I think it might be helpful to remember that the system isn’t simulating reality, but instead giving tools for resolving situations within the fiction.
A coup de gras is a set of rules that describes a finishing blow. It can represent any kind of finishing blow, from an elaborate slice of the throat to a simple curb stomp to the head.

The golem is perfectly capable of stomping on someones head, and this stomp can be modeled using the coup de gras rules. This means that a coup de gras isn’t a special action the golem doesn’t know how to do. It’s a simple head stomp, and this is reflected in the rules as a coup de gras.

The golems controller doesn’t have to specify in his orders that the golem performs a coup de gras when able. The controller doesn’t know what a coup de gras is, in terms of rules. Only we, the players, know about the rules.

[Luckmann]

Well so there is no solution by RAW?In regards to the question in the OP - "Can a construct deliver a Coup de Grace?" - the RAW answer is very clear.

Yes.

A construct or golem or what-have-you can absolutely deliver a CdG. Nothing specifically prevents it, and a mindless creature is still free to take that action, in a mechanical sense.

Now, the question as to it should or would take such an action, or how such an action would be interpreted in the narrative and why the construct would take such an action, that's open to a fairly wide interpretation by the GM. Personally, I'd apply the RAW, have the golem CdG unless there's some extenuating circumstance, and then rationalize it post-hoc in a narrative sense as the Golem just stomping your defenseless face in.

But that's just me.

[Psyren]

I think it might be helpful to remember that the system isn’t simulating reality, but instead giving tools for resolving situations within the fiction.
A coup de gras is a set of rules that describes a finishing blow. It can represent any kind of finishing blow, from an elaborate slice of the throat to a simple curb stomp to the head.

The golem is perfectly capable of stomping on someones head, and this stomp can be modeled using the coup de gras rules. This means that a coup de gras isn’t a special action the golem doesn’t know how to do. It’s a simple head stomp, and this is reflected in the rules as a coup de gras.

The golems controller doesn’t have to specify in his orders that the golem performs a coup de gras when able. The controller doesn’t know what a coup de gras is, in terms of rules. Only we, the players, know about the rules.

This. Repeating my earlier analogy, I don't have to specifically order my golem to full-attack either - if I tell it to kill X target(s), it will naturally hit the target(s) as hard and fast as it can, because golems follow instructions "to the best of their ability." Slamming the hell out of something in this way is represented in game mechanics by a full-attack. Similarly, hitting a downed target as hard as it can is represented by a CdG.

[ericgrau]

In the last session i fought a spellcaster (probably a cleric) and his flesh golem (i think) and the cleric used wrack against my character which failed the save with a 1 on the roll . The cleric then died killed by my companion but it remains the golem. One of the character retreated because he was near to die, and the other one tried to provoke the golem , going far from me , because we were fighting in a lake and he had some problem with the water .The DM had to interrupt the session for some problem , and because he had to control some rules, before making my character die (until now i had not taken a single hit ) So now is the turn of the golem , can he deliver a coupe de grace against my character even if it is not intelligent ? (The order that were given are Kill All) because neither me or my DM know that so if by some rules there is an answer thanks

I would say yes, just as "Attack" can include swinging limbs in different ways, aiming and dodging, it should include smashing a creature's head in or some such CDG to finish it off. Especially since he was told to kill. In fact I would say in the most literal sense of the command this is preferred to attacking another creature that will not immediately die from an attack.

I understand wanting to put limits on the tactics of a mindless creature, but I don't think this is one of them. If he can swing a fist at all and recognize enemies at all he should be able to accomplish and comprehend this.