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 Adventure Card Game


Pathfinder Society


Starfinder


Starfinder Society

Grappling -tie up


Rules Questions


Just a little clarification please. First round I grapple an enemy and succeed. Second round do I roll to maintain first and then can I go for a direct tie up at -10 to CMB? Or before the maintain do I go for the -10? If I maintain first and succeed on the tie up do I include the +5 maintenance bonus or is it just a straight -10 total penalty for the tie up? Sorry a little bit confusing I hope someone can understand this post.


Atalius wrote:
do I roll to maintain first and then can I go for a direct tie up at -10 to CMB? Or before the maintain do I go for the -10?

After a Grapple is Initiated, every successive Grapple Check made by the Grapplers is a roll to Maintain. Move, Damage, Pin, and Tie Up are effects you inflict on your victim that accompany the Maintain Roll.

Normally, you have to have your opponent Pinned before you can Tie him Up.

The way I think of it is that Initiate, Move, Damage, Pin, and Tie Up are all effects accompany a Grapple Check. You have to have Initiated your opponent to the Grapple before you can do anything else. You have to have your opponent Pinned before you Tie Up.

So, normally, if you are Grappling with the goal to Tie Up your opponent, and if all goes well, they way it goes is this.

Round 1: Initiate the Grapple. Your opponent somehow fails to escape.

Round 2: Maintain the Grapple. Since have successfully managed to keep control of your opponent for a full round, this check enjoys a +5 Circumstance Bonus. You elect to Pin your opponent. Your opponent somehow again fails to escape.

Round 3: Maintain the Grapple. Since have successfully managed to keep control of your opponent for a full round, this check enjoys a +5 Circumstance Bonus. In this case, you have actually kept control of yoru opponent for 2 rounds, but you don't get a +10. Even if you did successfully argue that you should get two +5 Circumstance Bonuses for Maintaining your Grapple for 2 Rounds, Circumstance Bonuses don't stack with each other, you have to settle for a +5.

Atalius wrote:
If I maintain first and succeed on the tie up do I include the +5 maintenance bonus or is it just a straight -10 total penalty for the tie up?

Good question. I'm pretty darn confident you get both the -10 Penalty for attempting to Tie Up your opponent and the +5 Circumstance Bonus for having Maintained the Grapple from the previous round.

This is the reason why. On your 3rd Round of the Grapple, after achieving a Pin, you have the option of inflicting any of the Grapple effects on your opponent: Move, Damage, Tie Up. The underlying Circumstance for which you get the Circumstance Bonus is the same, so regardless of what you want to do with your Roll, you get the +5 Circumstance bonus for it. Then you also get a -10 because you are going for the Tie Up.

There is another question I have, but I think I know the answer. When and how important is it that you declare your intent when you make the Grapple Check? What if you make a Roll that is greater than your victim's CMD, but not greater with the -10? Do you look up at your GM and say, "Okay, so I can't Tie him Up this Round, so I inflict Damage instead."?

If I were the GM, I wouldn't allow that: if you fail the Tie Up Roll, you fail to Maintain the Grapple. But the rules are not crystal clear. For instance, that would mean that the Player would have to declare before the roll that his intent was to Tie Up his opponent, and the rules don't say that. And if a GM didn't compel the player to declare intent, and the roll was surprisingly good, his might cock his head to 1 side and say, "This roll is good enough for a Tie Up: I'll do that!" But if it were always the intent of the player to Tie Up his victim, and if he forgot to declare what his Intent was before making the roll, that invites the GM to abuse the rules and say, "You failed to declare your intent before the roll: you must roll again. That's not good, either. There is definitely room for disambiguation.


First round: Grapple + succeed
Opponent fails to break grapple or does something else

Second round: Yes, you may tie them up at -10. [First question]

[second question]
Do not add +5. The +5 is specifically for maintaining the grapple; so it applies to your CMD when your opponent is trying to break it (I think?), or your CMB when you're trying to maintain it.

EDIT:
Website ate my edit.

@Scott, You don't get to choose after you roll. Just like you can't say "ah nice, my attack beat his ac by 5?! Power attack!"

You don't get the +5 with your -10. This is because the +5 is for maintaining the grapple, not for all grappling actions.

You can tie them up on the second round, this is what the -10 option is for. -10 gives you a significant chance of failure. Waiting a turn allows you to do it without the -10 (assuming you pass your other check)


Cattleman wrote:

First round: Grapple + succeed

Opponent fails to break grapple or does something else

Second round: Yes, you may tie them up at -10. [First question]

Unless you have some special ability that privileges you otherwise, you have to have your opponent Pinned before you can attempt to Tie Up.

Tie Up wrote:
If you have your target pinned, otherwise restrained, or unconscious, you can use rope to tie him up.

That is why I think that. Why do you think you don't have to have your opponent Pinned before you can Tie him Up?

Cattleman wrote:

[second question]

Do not add +5. The +5 is specifically for maintaining the grapple; so it applies to your CMD when your opponent is trying to break it (I think?), or your CMB when you're trying to maintain it.

What makes you think you don't get the +5 Circumstance Bonus?

This is why I think you do.

Grapple wrote:
If your target does not break the grapple, you get a +5 circumstance bonus on grapple checks made against the same target in subsequent rounds.

If you have kept your opponent Grappled for a Round or more, then you get the Bonus on your next check. I haven't seen any language that says that that is different if you are Tying Up your opponent rather than Damaging or Moving him. Have you seen language specifying Tie Up as an exception to the +5 Circumstance Bonus?

Cattleman wrote:
so it applies to your CMD when your opponent is trying to break it (I think?),

I don't remember anything about a Circumstance bonus to your Combat Maneuver Defense in the general Grappling rules. What makes you think this?


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Cattleman wrote:

First round: Grapple + succeed

Opponent fails to break grapple or does something else

Second round: Yes, you may tie them up at -10. [First question]

Unless you have some special ability that privileges you otherwise, you have to have your opponent Pinned before you can attempt to Tie Up.

Tie Up wrote:
If you have your target pinned, otherwise restrained, or unconscious, you can use rope to tie him up.

That is why I think that. Why do you think you don't have to have your opponent Pinned before you can Tie him Up?

Because this is what the rulebook says, emphasis mine:

Rules wrote:


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.

Quoted directly after the rules quote you posted. Additionally, the flow chart referenced later in this post shows that you can do it.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Cattleman wrote:

[second question]

Do not add +5. The +5 is specifically for maintaining the grapple; so it applies to your CMD when your opponent is trying to break it (I think?), or your CMB when you're trying to maintain it.

What makes you think you don't get the +5 Circumstance Bonus?

This is why I think you do.

Grapple wrote:
If your target does not break the grapple, you get a +5 circumstance bonus on grapple checks made against the same target in subsequent rounds.

If you have kept your opponent Grappled for a Round or more, then you get the Bonus on your next check. I haven't seen any language that says that that is different if you are Tying Up your opponent rather than Damaging or Moving him. Have you seen language specifying Tie Up as an exception to the +5 Circumstance Bonus?

Now I'm unsure, but the flow chart shows that it bypasses the "maintain" check, and goes to a "tie check." link to flowchart

Scott Wilhelm wrote:


Cattleman wrote:
so it applies to your CMD when your opponent is trying to break it (I think?),
I don't remember anything about a Circumstance bonus to your Combat Maneuver Defense in the general Grappling rules. What makes you think this?

I think you're correct on this, the simplified wording of the flowchart ("maintain the grapple") made me consider that perhaps (as the defender) you'd be "maintaining the grapple" when your opponent is trying to break free.


Cattleman wrote:
the flow chart

IIrc, the flow chart is unofficial.

Tom Flock wrote:

d20pfsrd.com Custom Content

Grappling Got You All Tangled Up?

How about some new grapple flowcharts! Click the images below for larger versions. If you see something you believe to be incorrect please let us know!

The rules do say,

Rules wrote:

Tie Up

If you are grappling the target, you can attempt to tie him up in ropes,

But the rules do say

Rules wrote:

Tie Up

If you have your target pinned, otherwise restrained, or unconscious, you can use rope to tie him up.... If you are grappling the target, you can attempt to tie him up in ropes,

The rules say both things: you can be grappling your opponent, but you need to have your opponent Pinned, unconscious, or something. And that "or something" really doesn't seem to include simply having your opponent Grappled.

Also, remember the context of Tie Up:

Grappling wrote:
Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and also allows you to perform one of the following actions (as part of the standard action spent to maintain the grapple).... Move... Damage... Pin... Tie Up...

The Combat Maneuver Check alluded to in "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." is the Maintain-a-Grapple Check mentioned above because Tie Up itself is one of those actions you can take "as part of the standard action spent to maintain the grapple."


So under your interpretation of the "Tie Up" rules, you believe you always take a -10?

The paragraph doesn't make much sense if unless you think it's referring to two different ways of tying things up.

I'm going to insert a few newlines so that the paragraph makes sense.

Quote:


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.

I find it hard to believe that you read the paragraph the same way now as you did before. What's worse, if I change the order of the sentences, under my interpretation it doesn't change the meaning, but under yours, it does.

For instance:

Quote:


Tie Up
If you have your target pinned, otherwise restrained, or unconscious, you can use rope to tie him up.

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.

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 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.

So under my interpretation, the rules don't change just because you say them in a different order. Under your interpretation, the rules changed by switching the order of the sentences. For instance, take Overrun (right next to the rules we're speaking of):

Normal

Quote:


As a standard action, taken during your move or as part of a charge, you can attempt to overrun your target, moving through its square. You can only overrun an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you.

If you do not have the Improved Overrun feat, or a similar ability, initiating an overrun provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.

If your overrun attempt fails, you stop in the space directly in front of the opponent, or the nearest open space in front of the creature if there are other creatures occupying that space.

Swapped

Quote:


If you do not have the Improved Overrun feat, or a similar ability, initiating an overrun provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.

If your overrun attempt fails, you stop in the space directly in front of the opponent, or the nearest open space in front of the creature if there are other creatures occupying that space.

As a standard action, taken during your move or as part of a charge, you can attempt to overrun your target, moving through its square. You can only overrun an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you.

Notice how the rules *didn't* change when the order was swapped. This is because rules are a series of premises that result in a conclusion, and the order of premises in deduction logic doesn't shouldn't matter.

Side note:
If your argument is convincing/correct, then you should be able to get the flowchart changed. I would suggest getting it changed then, given that most people refer to it if they're having troubles.

Either way, while I'll read what you have to say, this is my last post on the subject as at this point we'll be talking passed each other. You're not going to convince me that adding Newline characters or swapping the order is somehow messing with the information contained in the paragraph. If I haven't convinced you at this point that your reading of multiple conditional statements mean that there are multiple conditions in which a thing can occur (and it is supported by the interpretation of the website you're probably getting the rules from), then I am unlikely to convince you.

I *do* agree on the CMD thing I was unsure about, but I'll continue using the flowchart as written. If you want to change my mind specifically, get the flowchart updated.


I was always under the impression you could directly attempt a tie up after the first round grapple initiation. That attempt would be at -10 unless you had something like Hogtie which would make the check -5, and that would be while grappling, not pinned.


Quote:

Order of the Penitent

Expert Captor (Ex)

At 2nd level, as long as he has rope, the cavalier can tie up a grappled opponent, even if the opponent is not pinned, otherwise restrained, or unconscious, and he does not take the usual –10 penalty on his combat maneuver check to do so. When determining the DC to escape bonds secured by the cavalier, the cavalier’s Combat Maneuver Bonus increases by 1/2 his cavalier level.

Without an ability like this you need to pin first. The -10 represents using a rope while trying to hold a person but remember they are pinned so there Dex is effectively 0 so they are taking heavy minuses to their cmd.


Cattleman wrote:
So under your interpretation of the "Tie Up" rules, you believe you always take a -10?

Pretty much, if you are using your Grapple Check to Tie Up someone. If your opponent is truly Helpless, and you aren't even in Combat, then I guess you can use some sort of Use Rope Skill.

I do know of a Class Ability that negates the -10 Penalty altogether.

Cavalier, Order of the Penitent, Expert Captor (Ex) wrote:

At 2nd level, as long as he has rope, the cavalier can tie up a grappled opponent, even if the opponent is not pinned, otherwise restrained, or unconscious, and he does not take the usual –10 penalty on his combat maneuver check to do so.

Grandlounge, you nina'd me!

I know of a Feat that reduces the penalty to -5: Equipment Trick, Rope

Combat Feat, Equipment Trick, Rope wrote:
Hogtie (Improved Grapple): When you attempt to tie up an opponent you are grappling, your penalty is only –5 instead of the normal –10.
Cattleman wrote:
I find it hard to believe that you read the paragraph the same way now as you did before. What's worse, if I change the order of the sentences, under my interpretation it doesn't change the meaning, but under yours, it does.

Actually, I'm having trouble following what you are trying to say here, and where you are going with it. Because you way of saying it makes sense if you rewrite it than mine does as you rewrite it, my interpretation is false? And you're drawing some kind of parallel between Grappling and Overrun?

I don't see how your rearranging the sentences changes the meaning in any material way. And I don't see how that makes your interpretation better than mine.

Cattleman wrote:
If your argument is convincing/correct, then you should be able to get the flowchart changed.

I suppose I could bring it their attention, the truth is that the Flowchart is 3rd Party and unofficial. That being said, I am fairly certain the OP is not asking for a Pathfinder Society character. It is not unreasonable to for him to use the flowchart to design his character build and bring it to his GM for approval.

I am unlikely to convince you.

Cattleman wrote:
I *do* agree on the CMD thing I was unsure about, but I'll continue using the flowchart as written. If you want to change my mind specifically, get the flowchart updated.

You won't convince me that the flowchart trumps the Core Rulebook.

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Grappling -tie up All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.