Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

Coup de Grace in a grapple


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Sabre toothed tiger surprises party and dashes in with a partial charge, gaining full attacks due to pounce. In the process, it grapples the party fighter.

Next round, it pins the party fighter.

For some reason it is still alive on its turn in the next round, and the party fighter is still pinned.

Can the tiger coup de grace the fighter? I ask because it is a full round action to do so, which means the tiger cannot maintain the pin in order to make the coup de grace.

As I understand it, this is in fact exactly what sabre toothed cats did IRL -- pin their prey and then use those huge fangs to slice into key areas of their throats.

But what do the rules say?


Pinning someone does not make them helpless. So no coup de grace.


Werebat wrote:
Can the tiger coup de grace the fighter?

Coup de Grace: "As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace (pronounced “coo day grahs”) to a helpless opponent."


Grick wrote:
Werebat wrote:
Can the tiger coup de grace the fighter?

Coup de Grace: "As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace (pronounced “coo day grahs”) to a helpless opponent."

Grick, are you asserting that it is impossible to make a coup de grace with a natural weapon?


hogarth wrote:
Pinning someone does not make them helpless. So no coup de grace.

OK Hogarth -- that is indeed the rule.

Damn, I thought I had found a situation where a big creature with animal intelligence and the grab ability might be scary again. Oh well.


Werebat wrote:
hogarth wrote:
Pinning someone does not make them helpless. So no coup de grace.

OK Hogarth -- that is indeed the rule.

Damn, I thought I had found a situation where a big creature with animal intelligence and the grab ability might be scary again. Oh well.

Don't forget that (dire) tigers also get two free rake attacks while grappling. So they're not that bad!


Thought bound qualified as helpless and a character that is Pinned is in effect bound. Hmmm?

Dedicated Voter 2013

hogarth wrote:
Werebat wrote:
hogarth wrote:
Pinning someone does not make them helpless. So no coup de grace.

OK Hogarth -- that is indeed the rule.

Damn, I thought I had found a situation where a big creature with animal intelligence and the grab ability might be scary again. Oh well.

Don't forget that (dire) tigers also get two free rake attacks while grappling. So they're not that bad!

RIP, dear bard of our campaign... when the DM rolled a dire tiger for a random encounter in grasslands.

Yeah, you don't need CdG for these things to be deadly.


Conundrum wrote:
Thought bound qualified as helpless and a character that is Pinned is in effect bound. Hmmm?

"Pinned" and "Helpless" are two different conditions with different effects. I suppose that RAW the dire tiger COULD tie his pinned victim up with a rope and THEN coup de grace him -- there are no rules specifically forbidding it.

One of the things I really dislike about PF grapple rules is that making effective use of the Grab special ability generally requires more intelligence than most of the creatures that have the Grab ability have.

Bears in particular end up with an ability that they will almost never use. Giving bears a Constrict attack (bear hug) would alleviate this somewhat, but would also be a house rule.


Conundrum wrote:
Thought bound qualified as helpless and a character that is Pinned is in effect bound. Hmmm?

"bound" is used in the descriptive text for both conditions, but the Pinned condition doesn't mention being Helpless. Just like a monster with Grab that uses it's limb to hold the opponent doesn't mean the opponent is "held" and thus helpless.


Oladon wrote:


RIP, dear bard of our campaign... when the DM rolled a dire tiger for a random encounter in grasslands.

Yeah, you don't need CdG for these things to be deadly.

Would the bard have lived if the tiger had lacked the Grab ability?

I guess I understand why they nerfed large grabbers with multiple natural attacks, because in theory they were very powerful. In reality, there were so many, many ways for PCs to finagle ways out of potentially deadly grapples that they became something of a joke even in 3.5.

A dire tiger grabs your PC -- dimension door, anklet of translocation, freedom of movement -- *YAWN*

Dedicated Voter 2013

Werebat wrote:
Oladon wrote:


RIP, dear bard of our campaign... when the DM rolled a dire tiger for a random encounter in grasslands.

Yeah, you don't need CdG for these things to be deadly.

Would the bard have lived if the tiger had lacked the Grab ability?

I find it rather likely, yes. On watch, tiger had a +23 to Stealth, snuck up and pounced with his full attack, grappled with Grab, and then disemboweled the poor fellow with rake the next round.


Also, take a look at the game definition of "Pinned" -- a pinned creature is denied his dexterity bonus and takes a -4 penalty to AC, so the tiger's bite has a greater chance of hitting. No coup de grace, but an increased chance of finishing the pinned guy off via its natural attacks.

Sovereign Court

Also remember the rules for "Grab" in the Bestiary...it's more powerful then you think.

If Tiger grabs, in subsequent rounds, each grapple check it makes to sustain automatically deals the damage made to grab. In addition, it gets its rake...powerful...if it is already grabbing.

Saber tooth does damage, grabs, and establishes a hold. Next round, it just has to maintain the grab (usually CMD is easier to beat then plate mail heavy fighter especially with +4 (see below) and it automatically gets its damage + 2 rake attacks against a grappled foe whose AC is down.

Brutal.

Not to mention that creatures with the grab special ability get a + 4 to maintain and start a grapple...


while pinned YES you are helpless.
pinned: "A pinned creature is tightly bound and can take few actions"
helpless: "A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy"

this qualifies them for helpless. but no you cannot coup de grace while grappling or pinning because it requires a standard action to maintain the pin. a second tiger can coup de grace but if its only one, then no.

Werebat wrote:


"Pinned" and "Helpless" are two different conditions with different effects. I suppose that RAW the dire tiger COULD tie his pinned victim up with a rope and THEN coup de grace him -- there are no rules specifically forbidding it.

helpless isn't an actual condition you can apply to a target. helpless is a condition as a direct result of a different condition that qualifies the creature as helpless. for instance any ability that knocks a target unconscious doesn't say he is also helpless

example:

suffocation

as you can see it says for the first effect of the spell "On the target's next turn, he falls unconscious and is reduced to 0 hit points" it does not say "the target is considered helpless" but they are in fact helpless.


Jupp wrote:

while pinned YES you are helpless.

pinned: "A pinned creature is tightly bound and can take few actions"
helpless: "A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy"

The above quote seems to imply that, in order for a binding to render someone helpless, the binding must completely render the bound figure to the opponent's mercy. Being pinned by a grappler does not render someone completely at an opponent's mercy.

Dedicated Voter 2013

hogarth wrote:
Pinning someone does not make them helpless. So no coup de grace.
Helpless wrote:
: A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy. 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). Ranged attacks get no special bonus against helpless targets. Rogues can sneak attack helpless targets.

The operative word is 'held'; this seems to be a reference to the 'hold person/hold monster' spells and not to physically holding a character. The pinned condition gives a Dexterity penalty to AC of -4 suggesting it is not the same as being helpless. It is weird that they would mention both 'held' and 'paralyzed' however, as 'hold person/hold monster' references 'paralyzed'.


"A pinned creature is tightly bound and can take few actions. A pinned creature cannot move and is denied its Dexterity bonus. A pinned character also takes an additional –4 penalty to his Armor Class. A pinned creature is limited in the actions that it can take. A pinned creature can always attempt to free itself, usually through a combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check. A pinned creature can take verbal and mental actions, but cannot cast any spells that require a somatic or material component. A pinned character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level) or lose the spell. Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack."

if you cannot move and are bound, how would you be able to avoid the blow of the coupe de grace?

both RAI and RAW support coupe de gace from a pin.

as helpless requires the target to be bound, it is considered helpless until it escapes the grapple.

Dedicated Voter 2013

Jupp wrote:

"A pinned creature is tightly bound/[b] and can take few actions. [b]A pinned creature cannot move and is denied its Dexterity bonus. A pinned character also takes an additional –4 penalty to his Armor Class. A pinned creature is limited in the actions that it can take. A pinned creature can always attempt to free itself, usually through a combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check. A pinned creature can take verbal and mental actions, but cannot cast any spells that require a somatic or material component. A pinned character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level) or lose the spell. Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack."

if you cannot move and are held, how would you be able to avoid the blow of the coupe de grace?

both RAW and RAW support coupe de gace from a pin.

as helpless requires the target to be bound, it is considered helpless until it escapes the grapple.

It is denied its dexterity bonus but it doesn't treat its dexterity as 0. Helpless creatures have a dexterity of 0 (and thus have a -5 dexterity modifier).

Edit: The fact that these two conditions affect dexterity different suggest they are not the same.


but a helpless creature does not need a dex modifier of 0 in order for the helpless condition to be valid. it is an effect as the result of applying a condition that qualifies for helpless.

"Petrified

A petrified character has been turned to stone and is considered unconscious. If a petrified character cracks or breaks, but the broken pieces are joined with the body as he returns to flesh, he is unharmed. If the character's petrified body is incomplete when it returns to flesh, the body is likewise incomplete and there is some amount of permanent hit point loss and/or debilitation."

*edit* unconscious causes helpless, but this doesn't say the target is helpless. just like pinning causes helpless even thought it doesn't say its helpless

well we're going to go back and forth for ever not getting anywhere, im reading it as RAW that it does cause helpless, once im able to find a post from someone who has the authority to clarify something like this its just going to be a gm call in my games.

if anyone has a link they can provide i would greatly appreciate it.


Jupp wrote:

but a helpless creature does not need a dex modifier of 0 in order for the helpless condition to be valid. it is an effect as the result of applying a condition that qualifies for helpless.

Are you saying that a character that is pinned by a grappler has an effective dexterity score of 0?


Ganymede425 wrote:
Jupp wrote:

but a helpless creature does not need a dex modifier of 0 in order for the helpless condition to be valid. it is an effect as the result of applying a condition that qualifies for helpless.

Are you saying that a character that pinned by a grappler has an effective dexterity score of 0?

no that's not what i said at all.

Dedicated Voter 2013

Jupp wrote:

just like pinning causes helpless even thought it doesn't say its helpless

well we're going to go back and forth for ever not getting anywhere, im reading it as RAW that it does cause helpless,

But you haven't supported this properly. No where does it say this and there is evidence to the contrary. Why does the pinned condition give a penalty to dexterity if helpeless treats your dexterity as 0? If it were the case that pinned causes you to be helpless, I believe it would say so outright and not have different dex penalties for the different conditions.

As always, I could be wrong.

Jupp wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
Jupp wrote:

but a helpless creature does not need a dex modifier of 0 in order for the helpless condition to be valid. it is an effect as the result of applying a condition that qualifies for helpless.

Are you saying that a character that pinned by a grappler has an effective dexterity score of 0?
no that's not what i said at all.

Then you are not saying a pinned character is helpless.

"Helpless: A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy. A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (–5 modifier). "


Jupp wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
Jupp wrote:

but a helpless creature does not need a dex modifier of 0 in order for the helpless condition to be valid. it is an effect as the result of applying a condition that qualifies for helpless.

Are you saying that a character that pinned by a grappler has an effective dexterity score of 0?
no that's not what i said at all.

Ok, but the rules state that "A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (–5 modifier)."

If a character that is pinned by a grappler doesn't have an effective dexterity score of 0, it can't be helpless. The fact that a character pinned by a grappler is explicitly noted to have an effective dexterity of something other than 0 strongly indicates that they are not helpless.

On the other hand, if the pinning somehow reduced the model's dexterity to 0, I'd allow the finishing blow.


ok to counter that point let me throw a hypothetical situation at you.

im a dex based character who grapples, or is grappled. if grapple stated you have a -4 ac AND a -5 modifier to dex you would never be able to get out of that pin... ever.

escape artist? nope you have a -5 to dex for that skill, that means you have your character level -5 to your attempt to get out of that grapple.

opposed grapple check? nope you have a minus 5 AND what ever your bonus is. so if you had a +5 dex, you now have a cmb and cmd that is 10 lower then what it was, and an additional -4 for the prone effect. so a minus 10 on top of your normal check, which grapple is the hardest to raise, and a -14 to your cdm... you die, or good luck counting on that D20 to save you.

its my opinion that these rules are to the contrary of helpless dex manipulations for the sake of giving the target a fighting chance.

Ganymede425 wrote:


Ok, but the rules state that "A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (–5 modifier)."

If a character that is pinned by a grappler doesn't have an effective dexterity score of 0, it can't be helpless. The fact that a character pinned by a grappler is explicitly noted to have an effective dexterity of something other than 0 strongly indicates that they are not helpless.

On the other hand, if the pinning somehow reduced the model's dexterity to 0, I'd allow the finishing blow.

and yet you're forgetting the only actual qualifier for helpless is to have the listed condition(s) OR, at gms discretion , have the opponent at your mercy (an example of gm fiat is dominate monster "stay still and look that way, dont move at all" -coupe de grace.)

it does not say "in order to be helpless you must have a dex of 0"

Dedicated Voter 2013

Edit: I misunderstood what Jupp was arguing.

Ganymede425's response is along the lines of what I would say.


It appears that you're saying that the reason why a pin doesn't make someone have a dexterity of 0 is because it would make the pin virtually impossible to escape.

This line of reasoning openly assumes that a pin doesn't reduce a model's dexterity to 0. As this state doesn't reduce the dexterity to 0, and being helpless does, a pin can't be the same as making a model helpless.


Whale_Cancer wrote:
Jupp wrote:

ok to counter that point let me throw a hypothetical situation at you.

im a dex based character who grapples, or is grappled. if grapple stated you have a -4 ac AND a -5 modifier to dex you would never be able to get out of that pin... ever.

Grapple imposes a -4 penalty to Dex so an effective -2 penalty to escape artist checks. A pinned character loses any bonus granted by Dexterity. If you have a good escape artist check, you should still have a rather good chance to escape.

All of this has nothing to do with whether you are helpless or not in a pin.

Jupp wrote:

escape artist? nope you have a -5 to dex for that skill, that means you have your character level -5 to your attempt to get out of that grapple.

opposed grapple check? nope you have a minus 5 AND what ever your bonus is. so if you had a +5 dex, you now have a cmb and cmd that is 10 lower then what it was, and an additional -4 for the prone effect. so a minus 10 on top of your normal check, which grapple is the hardest to raise, and a -14 to your cdm... you die, or good luck counting on that D20 to save you.

" A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple."

"A pinned creature cannot move and is denied its Dexterity bonus. [...] A pinned creature can always attempt to free itself, usually through a combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check."

Your math is way off, as far as I can tell.

Jupp wrote:

its my opinion that these rules are to the contrary of helpless dex manipulations for the sake of giving the target a fighting chance.

Yes, these rules do give the target a rather good chance to escape. I believe this is deliberate as grapple could be and was abused quite a bit in 3.5.

my math isnt off at all... reread the post, i was assuming you gain a 0 dex mod for the sake of pinning in that post, you know how i prefaced the statement with "hypothetical situation". i was giving you my opinion about the question you asked in a previous post. let me grab the post to prevent confusion.

"But you haven't supported this properly. No where does it say this and there is evidence to the contrary. Why does the pinned condition give a penalty to dexterity if helpeless treats your dexterity as 0? If it were the case that pinned causes you to be helpless, I believe it would say so outright and not have different dex penalties for the different conditions."

Good night


Ganymede425 wrote:

It appears that you're saying that the reason why a pin doesn't make someone have a dexterity of 0 is because it would make the pin virtually impossible to escape.

This line of reasoning openly assumes that a pin doesn't reduce a model's dexterity to 0. As this state doesn't reduce the dexterity to 0, and being helpless does, a pin can't be the same as making a model helpless.

thats your opinion, i respect that.

my opinion is that "bound" qualifies it for helpless.

Dedicated Voter 2013

Jupp wrote:
my math isnt off at all... reread the post, i was assuming you gain a 0 dex mod for the sake of pinning in that post, you know how i prefaced the statement with "hypothetical...

Yup, caught that and edited my post before you posted that. To be honest, your grammar makes it difficult for me to understand your posts.

If you were responding to a specific part of my post you should have quoted it.

Dedicated Voter 2013

Jupp wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:

It appears that you're saying that the reason why a pin doesn't make someone have a dexterity of 0 is because it would make the pin virtually impossible to escape.

This line of reasoning openly assumes that a pin doesn't reduce a model's dexterity to 0. As this state doesn't reduce the dexterity to 0, and being helpless does, a pin can't be the same as making a model helpless.

thats your opinion, i respect that.

my opinion is that "bound" qualifies it for helpless.

Bound does; that is explicitly stated in the helpless condition. Bound isn't the same as pinned, however. As far as I can tell, bound means being wrapped in rope or similar material which you cannot break out of. I can't find the term 'bound' or 'bind' (in the appropriate context) after skimming the PRD, however.


Jupp wrote:

and yet you're forgetting the only actual qualifier for helpless is to have the listed condition(s) OR, at gms discretion , have the opponent at your mercy (an example of gm fiat is dominate monster "stay still and look that way, dont move at all" -coupe de grace.)

it does not say "in order to be helpless you must have a dex of 0"

You're misreading the rule. Note the rule's text, "A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy."

"Otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy" informs the interpretation of the sentence. It means that being helpless entails we are completely at the opponent's mercy, and the preceeding are examples of when this would happen. They are not two mutually exclusive groups. Also, note that "bound" is not a technical game term, it is merely an adjective evocative of someone being trussed up hand-and-foot. To argue otherwise is to argue that binding one's hands together makes one helpless.

The helpless rule does indeed say "A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (–5 modifier)," and this line informs the interpretation further; it explains the mechanics of being helpless. If a target is treated as having a dexterity of anything other than 0, then it, logically, can't be helpless.


Ganymede425 wrote:


You're misreading the rule. Note the rule's text, "A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy."

"Otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy" informs the interpretation of the sentence. It means that being helpless entails we are completely at the opponent's mercy, and the preceeding are examples of when this would happen. They are not two mutually exclusive groups. Also, note that "bound" is not a technical game term, it is merely an adjective evocative of someone being trussed up hand-and-foot. To argue otherwise is to argue that binding one's hands together makes one helpless.

The helpless rule does indeed say "A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (–5 modifier)," and this line informs the interpretation further; it explains the mechanics of being helpless. If a target is treated as having a dexterity of anything other than 0, then it, logically, can't be helpless.

you missed the "or" which means "used as a function word to indicate an alternative" so "you are bound or ..."

you have the alternative , which i gave an example of above, at gm discretion of other options.

im trying to go to bed stop making me continue this conversation.


You're forgetting the word "otherwise."

This means that those in the preceeding list are merely examples of when a character is completely at the mercy of his opponent.


Whale_Cancer wrote:


Bound does; that is explicitly stated in the helpless condition. Bound isn't the same as pinned, however. As far as I can tell, bound means being wrapped in rope or similar material which you cannot break out of. I can't find the term 'bound' or 'bind' (in the appropriate context) after skimming the PRD, however.

im sorry but this is absolutely wrong.

webster's dictionary:

a : a limiting line : boundary —usually used in plural
b : something that limits or restrains <beyond the bounds of decency>
2
usually plural
a : borderland
b : the land within certain bounds
3
: a number greater than or equal to every number in a set (as the range of a function); also : a number less than or equal to every number in a set

all i need to do to you is prevent your ability to move... which pinning does.

Dedicated Voter 2013

Jupp wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:


Bound does; that is explicitly stated in the helpless condition. Bound isn't the same as pinned, however. As far as I can tell, bound means being wrapped in rope or similar material which you cannot break out of. I can't find the term 'bound' or 'bind' (in the appropriate context) after skimming the PRD, however.

im sorry but this is absolutely wrong.

webster's dictionary:

a : a limiting line : boundary —usually used in plural
b : something that limits or restrains <beyond the bounds of decency>

2
usually plural
a : borderland
b : the land within certain bounds
3
: a number greater than or equal to every number in a set (as the range of a function); also : a number less than or equal to every number in a set

all i need to do to you is prevent your ability to move... which pinning does.

Bound as in the context of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. If they meant bound as in pinned they would have said so (or would have pinned give the helpless condition).

Edit: Wooo... read this:

"Tie Up: If you have your target pinned, otherwise restrained, or unconscious, you can use rope to tie him up. This works like a pin effect, but the DC to escape the bonds is equal to 20 + your Combat Maneuver Bonus (instead of your CMD). The ropes do not need to make a check every round to maintain the pin. If you are grappling the target, you can attempt to tie him up in ropes, but doing so requires a combat maneuver check at a –10 penalty. If the DC to escape from these bindings is higher than 20 + the target's CMB, the target cannot escape from the bonds, even with a natural 20 on the check."

This supports my argument that bound - as in the bonds mentioned in the last sentence - is meant to be in relation to rope (rope with a CMD check too high to escape from results in a binding condition; it should be noted that a natural 20 will always let you escape from a pin, so you are never as screwed in a pin as you are when bound by sufficient rope).


Jupp wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:


Bound does; that is explicitly stated in the helpless condition. Bound isn't the same as pinned, however. As far as I can tell, bound means being wrapped in rope or similar material which you cannot break out of. I can't find the term 'bound' or 'bind' (in the appropriate context) after skimming the PRD, however.

im sorry but this is absolutely wrong.

webster's dictionary:

a : a limiting line : boundary —usually used in plural
b : something that limits or restrains <beyond the bounds of decency>
2
usually plural
a : borderland
b : the land within certain bounds
3
: a number greater than or equal to every number in a set (as the range of a function); also : a number less than or equal to every number in a set

all i need to do to you is prevent your ability to move... which pinning does.

Ganymede425 wrote:

You're forgetting the word "otherwise."

This means that those in the preceeding list are merely examples of when a character is completely at the mercy of his opponent.

no or dictates an alternative. otherwise allows for a specific, but different, set of circumstances for the event to ocur.

so you can be bound or (in a different way or manner)completely at an opponent's mercy


Whale_Cancer wrote:


Bound as in the context of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. If they meant bound as in pinned they would have said so (or would have pinned give the helpless condition).

Edit: Wooo... read this:

"Tie Up: If you have your target pinned, otherwise restrained, or unconscious, you can use rope to tie him up. This works like a pin effect, but the DC to escape the bonds is equal to 20 + your Combat Maneuver Bonus (instead of your CMD). The ropes do not need to make a check every round to maintain the pin. If you are grappling the target, you can attempt to tie him up in ropes, but doing so requires a combat maneuver check at a –10 penalty. If the DC to escape from these bindings is higher than 20 + the target's CMB, the target cannot escape from the bonds, even with a natural 20 on the check."

This supports my argument that bound - as in the bonds mentioned in the last sentence - is meant to be in relation to rope (rope with a CMD check too high to escape from results in a binding condition; it should be noted that a natural 20 will always let you escape from a pin, so you are never as screwed in a pin as you are when bound by sufficient...

im thinking you guys are trying really hard to troll me now... it states specifically in the discription of "tie up" that it functions as PIN. so if tying someone up with rope allows a coupe de grace then so would the pinned condition!

Dedicated Voter 2013

Jupp wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:


Bound as in the context of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. If they meant bound as in pinned they would have said so (or would have pinned give the helpless condition).

Edit: Wooo... read this:

"Tie Up: If you have your target pinned, otherwise restrained, or unconscious, you can use rope to tie him up. This works like a pin effect, but the DC to escape the bonds is equal to 20 + your Combat Maneuver Bonus (instead of your CMD). The ropes do not need to make a check every round to maintain the pin. If you are grappling the target, you can attempt to tie him up in ropes, but doing so requires a combat maneuver check at a –10 penalty. If the DC to escape from these bindings is higher than 20 + the target's CMB, the target cannot escape from the bonds, even with a natural 20 on the check."

This supports my argument that bound - as in the bonds mentioned in the last sentence - is meant to be in relation to rope (rope with a CMD check too high to escape from results in a binding condition; it should be noted that a natural 20 will always let you escape from a pin, so you are never as screwed in a pin as you are when bound by sufficient...

im thinking you guys are trying really hard to troll me now... it states specifically in the discription of "tie up" that it functions as PIN. so if tying someone up with rope allows a coupe de grace then so would the pinned condition!

No, it says "This works like a pin effect, but..."

You can always escape from a pin on a natural 20. You can't escape from a situation where a rope has you sufficiently bound. Seems pretty clear how the rope situation would render one helpless and unable to move; a bound creature is actually helpless. They cannot move or perform any actions.

Not sure why you aren't seeing this.

Edit: It should also be noted that this state was explicitly called bound in 3.5 and that is probably where that word snuck in from (from the 3.5 'use rope' skill).


Jupp wrote:
Jupp wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:


Bound does; that is explicitly stated in the helpless condition. Bound isn't the same as pinned, however. As far as I can tell, bound means being wrapped in rope or similar material which you cannot break out of. I can't find the term 'bound' or 'bind' (in the appropriate context) after skimming the PRD, however.

im sorry but this is absolutely wrong.

webster's dictionary:

a : a limiting line : boundary —usually used in plural
b : something that limits or restrains <beyond the bounds of decency>
2
usually plural
a : borderland
b : the land within certain bounds
3
: a number greater than or equal to every number in a set (as the range of a function); also : a number less than or equal to every number in a set

all i need to do to you is prevent your ability to move... which pinning does.

Ganymede425 wrote:

You're forgetting the word "otherwise."

This means that those in the preceeding list are merely examples of when a character is completely at the mercy of his opponent.

no or dictates an alternative. otherwise allows for a specific, but different, set of circumstances for the event to ocur.

so you can be bound or (in a different way or manner)completely at an opponent's mercy

You're misusing the word "otherwise." The word refers to alternative ways to reach the same end result, and it is the end result that we care about: being completely at the mercy of an opponent. The phrasing is there to ensure that all ways to make someone helpless are included in the rule, not just those specifically listed.


i've come to the conclusion this is trolling. im washing my hands of this discussion. good night for real this time.


Note that "bound" is not a technical game term, it is merely an adjective evocative of someone being trussed up hand-and-foot. To argue otherwise is to argue that binding one's hands together makes one helpless.

Dedicated Voter 2013

Ganymede425 wrote:
Note that "bound" is not a technical game term, it is merely an adjective evocative of someone being trussed up hand-and-foot. To argue otherwise is to argue that binding one's hands together makes one helpless.

I think it was in 3.5 due to the description of "Use Rope" whereas one of the actions was to bind an opponent (the action was called 'tie up', but the text referenced binding a character).

I believe the line about being bound is an artifact from the way 3.5 did things.

Edit: While the skill uses the word 'bind' the spell animate rope explicitly used the term: "A creature capable of spellcasting that is bound by this spell"

Edit2: Whoops. It does say bound in the 3.5 description of use rope! So, I think it is safe to say that bound is a 3.5 artifact and thus means 'tied up with rope' in pathfinder.


though i tend to agree with Jupp (it says 'bound'), i flagged this as FAQ because it is neither crystal clear no diminishingly vague (it does not say 'helpless').

...also i read somewhere that sabretooth tigers couldn't have possibly bitten their prey effectively with their sabre teeth because they were too big and unwieldy for their mouth and jaw strength...


Hmm... I wonder if being bound to an obligation makes someone helpless. If so, I feel bad for those who have Geas/Quest cast on them.


Jupp wrote:


helpless isn't an actual condition you can apply to a target. helpless is a condition as a direct result of a different condition that qualifies the creature as helpless. for instance any ability that knocks a target unconscious doesn't say he is also helpless

example:

suffocation

as you can see it says for the first effect of the spell "On the target's next turn, he falls unconscious and is reduced to 0 hit points" it does not say "the target is considered helpless" but they are in fact helpless.

From the PFSRD:

Quote:


Unconscious creatures are knocked out and helpless. Unconsciousness can result from having negative hit points (but not more than the creature's Constitution score), or from nonlethal damage in excess of current hit points.

Unconscious says you are helpless and so does paralyzed. The sleep spell also says you are helpless(I can't find anything for a sleep condition) and the quick look I did for Bound all pointed to binding outsiders. Petrified people are considered Unconscious, so I would think that if they wanted Pinned to make you helpless, they would have stated so in the condition.

EDIT: I'm only pointing this out to say that suffocation doesn't need to say that they are helpless, as the unconscious condition already covers that.


My eyes started to glaze over there..

Pinned, is something the person controlling the pin actively has to do. Which means they aren't free to do the coupe de grace. A second character might be able to do the coupe de grace, but the person maintaining the pin is busy doing so and doesn't have the necessary fredom of action to do the Coup de Grace. Thus he does basic weapon damage for available weapon(s).

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Coup de Grace in a grapple All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.