[3.5] Coup de Grace AoOs

[Frosty]

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]

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]

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. In fact, they don’t actually say anything about concentrating at all. It’s just like moving through a threatened square.

[Greenish]

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]

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]

But the CdG rules don’t state you are at risk of losing concentration. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[FelixG]

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

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/spe...cks.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 ]

[DragoonWraith]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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, focused, and 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".