|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Am I reading this right? You are helpless when pinned in a grapple? It didn't work that way in 3.5. The descriptor of "bound" is found in the pinned condition and the helpless condition.
With this word in both conditions it seems a rogue would get sneak attack along with a critical hit to kill. A creature could grapple you, next turn pin you. Then on the following turn commit a coup de grace taking all the opportunity attacks.
If the creature tried to take a five foot step back it would have to beat your CMD as a standard action and that would be its turn. So, it would have to take the opportunity attacks to kill. Is all this correct?
Am I reading this right? You are helpless when pinned in a grapple? It didn't work that way in 3.5. The descriptor of "bound" is found in the pinned condition and the helpless condition.
With this word in both conditions it seems a rogue would get sneak attack along with a critical hit to kill. A creature could grapple you, next turn pin you. Then on the following turn commit a coup de grace taking all the opportunity attacks.
If the creature tried to take a five foot step back it would have to beat your CMD as a standard action and that would be its turn. So, it would have to take the opportunity attacks to kill. Is all this correct?
Nope. You aren't reading it right. Denied your dex /= helpless. Sneak dice would apply due to the dex denial however. It would not be a coup de grace.
Also this is a more general rules question and thus really not posted in the right area.
|
|
Nope. You aren't reading it right. Denied your dex /= helpless. Sneak dice would apply due to the dex denial however. It would not be a coup de grace.
The reason I said it was a Coup de Grace was because it describes you as bound in the pinned condition and the helpless condition says your helpless if you are bound. It shows reason on those rules that you can coup de grace once the character is helpless, ie, bound in the pinned condition.
I would like to know the reasoning behind your answer. What is the exact rules you go by that shows why you post what you have posted in the Core rule books.
Sorry I posted in the wrong place. I get the wrong area to post from time to time, not intentional.
Nope. You aren't reading it right. Denied your dex /= helpless. Sneak dice would apply due to the dex denial however. It would not be a coup de grace.
The reason I said it was a Coup de Grace was because it describes you as bound in the pinned condition and the helpless condition says your helpless if you are bound. It shows reason on those rules that you can coup de grace once the character is helpless, ie, bound in the pinned condition.
I would like to know the reasoning behind your answer. What is the exact rules you go by that shows why you post what you have posted in the Core rule books.
Sorry I posted in the wrong place. I get the wrong area to post from time to time, not intentional.
I retract my earlier statement.
However the scenario you present would almost work. Pinned would get the helpless condition, but the character maintaining the pin would have to use a standard action, or a move action with the greater grapple feat. In either case this would not leave enough actions to complete a full round action. His buddy on the other hand would probably get to shank him.|
|
However the scenario you present would almost work. Pinned would get the helpless condition, but the character maintaining the pin would have to use a standard action, or a move action with the greater grapple feat. In either case this would not leave enough actions to complete a full round action. His buddy on the other hand would probably get to shank him.
Ahh, very good, I like your statement, I overlooked the fact that you have to take a standard action in order to maintain the grapple, and the improved grapple feat. Most monsters don't have the intelligence to kill outright an ally's grappled morsel which is what I was worried about. Thank you for pointing this out, my eye's need new glasses which is why I believe I miss so many rules. I am worried about the enemies ally's killing a PC out right. That is a problem. Thanks for your post.
I would disagree. I think the comment about bound people being helpless is possibly an unintentional holdover from 3.5. If being pinned (or bound with ropes) was supposed to make you helpless, it would mention it in the description of the "Tie Up" grapple maneuver.
Note that there is one situation where being bound specifically does make you helpless (not pinned), namely if you're bound with manacles (see the equipment chapter).
Moved to the appropriate forum.
|
|
I like his answer. It seems to fit the words of the written rule. Bound means helpless which also means pinned and its reversal. You can't kill something outright yourself cause it takes to long to do both kill outright and maintain a grapple.
Just a minor note, the people that I play with go with what is written, not just the interpretation of what you think is the spirit of the rules. It is hard to argue against what is written in the book. After all, they changed hide in plain site by adding that you cannot run, attack, or charge and remain hidden, they can change grapple.
I go by the letter of the word and still though, the people I play with sometimes don't get what is written in a document or book. It is frustrating, I believe they ought to go back and demand their money from where they got their education. I don't know everything, I'm still learning how to play, but some things are just plain obvious.
Just a minor note, the people that I play with go with what is written, not just the interpretation of what you think is the spirit of the rules. It is hard to argue against what is written in the book.
So what happens when two conflicting things are written in the book?
I go by the letter of the word and still though, the people I play with sometimes don't get what is written in a document or book. It is frustrating, I believe they ought to go back and demand their money from where they got their education. I don't know everything, I'm still learning how to play, but some things are just plain obvious.
My response has nothing to do with this argument or discussion in particular and instead is simply a generic response to your obvious mental superiority over many others. I wish I was as smart as you so I could understand everything based on the letter of the rules! Unfortunately though I'm one of the unfortunate lesser beings who occasionally needs a little help. Public education and all.
And in response to Hogarth: That is impossible, as everything is always written correctly and clearly.
And in response to Hogarth: That is impossible, as everything is always written correctly and clearly.
Of course a bound character is helpless.
First of all, the rules say so. Second of all, how does a guy tied to a chair defend himself?
It's not like it's as easy as grapple > tie up > coup de grace.
Round one: move adjacent to enemy and attempt to grapple as a standard action.
Round two: if successful, use standard action to attempt to pin and use a move action to draw rope. An ally moves adjacent and readies an action or delays until after your initiative count.
Round three: if successful, use standard action to attempt to tie up. An ally uses a coup de grace (or multiple coup de grace actions requiring continued standard actions on your part should the target survive and save vs. death).
It works, but as it requires multiple action, multiple opposed checks, and multiple PCs, it's not exactly a cake-walk.
In the meantime, your victim's allies can interfere with or outright ruin the tactic by attacking you, attacking your ally, grabbing, sleight-of-handing, or sundering your rope, assisting in the grapple, or hitting you with forced-movement effects.
Of course a bound character is helpless.
First of all, the rules say so.
Right, but the rules also say that a character bound (with ropes) is pinned. Why would they they talk about being pinned when they meant helpless?
Second of all, how does a guy tied to a chair defend himself?
By wriggling out of the way, I guess. The problem for me is that, as far as I can tell, a helpless creature has an effective Dex of 0 and therefore cannot move at all. Meaning that a helpless creature can't even make a CMB check to break free. But that contradicts what it says about escaping from bonds elsewhere.
Right, but the rules also say that a character bound (with ropes) is pinned. Why would they they talk about being pinned when they meant helpless?
The 'tie up' action says that being tied up is like a pin, and furthermore...
...a helpless creature can't even make a CMB check to break free. But that contradicts what it says about escaping from bonds elsewhere.
...nothing in the description of 'helpless' suggests that a character couldn't make a CMB check to break free from his ropes. The helpless condition doesn't actually restrict a character's actions at all, it's up to the condition rendering the character helpless to do that. In this case, that condition is 'being tied up', which works much like a pin. And indeed, attempting to escape a pin with a CMB check is one of the few actions a pinned character can take.
Helpless describes a character as paralyzed, bound, asleep, held, unconcious, or otherwise at his opponent's mercy. Without being knocked out, I don't know how much more 'at youropponent's mercy' you can get. Bound and hogtied seems to fit the bill as well as any circumstance could.
...nothing in the description of 'helpless' suggests that a character couldn't make a CMB check to break free from his ropes.
On the contrary:
A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0.
...
A character with a Dexterity score of 0 is incapable of moving and is effectively immobile (but not unconscious).
...nothing in the description of 'helpless' suggests that a character couldn't make a CMB check to break free from his ropes. The helpless condition doesn't actually restrict a character's actions at all, it's up to the condition rendering the character helpless to do that.
My train of thought:
"A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (-5 modifier)."
"A character with a Dexterity score of 0 is incapable of moving and is effectively immobile (but not unconscious)." (emphasis mine)
Now maybe you think that's a bit of a stretch, but I don't think it's any more of a stretch than saying "If you're bound then you're helpless, and if you're bound then you're pinned, therefore if you're pinned then you're helpless". YMMV, of course!
EDIT: ninja'ed
On the contrary:
A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0.
...
A character with a Dexterity score of 0 is incapable of moving and is effectively immobile (but not unconscious).
A fairly good argument, but 'immobile' and 'can't take any actions' are not the same. Almost, but demonstratbly not.
For example: the hold person spell renders a character paralyzed, and therefore immobile via a Dexterity score of 0 due to the helpless condition that paralysis imposes.
Obviously an immobile character cannot move or attack. However, as hold person states, breaking free from the effect requires a full-round action. This is an action that does not require the character to move, attack, or use any free hands. All the same, if you rule that 'immobile' means 'can't take actions', a character can never take that full-round action to escape from hold person. Obviously then, by RAW and RAI, the action is one that the character is permitted to take.
Mind you, it's the paralyzed/held condition imposing the restriction on actions, not the helpless condition.
Now lets say the character is tied up, not held. He is again helpless, and the actions he can take are restricted by his immobility and his pinned condition. Escaping the bonds requires a CMB check. This action, just like the one we looked at earlier, is not a movement or an attack, nor does it require a free hand. It's the same situation.
RAW clearly states that a bound character is helpless, and RAW and RAI clearly agree that a helpless character can take certian actions (such as escaping a hold person).
The defense rests. Thoughts?
A fairly good argument, but 'immobile' and 'can't take any actions' are not the same.
...
The defense rests. Thoughts?
(snipping the intervening text for brevity's sake, not because I'm ignoring it)
Immobile is not defined as a game term in Pathfinder, which means it defaults to the standard English definition (Paizo staff have backed this up before):
1. incapable of moving or being moved.
2. not mobile or moving; motionless.
If you're incapable of moving, or motionless, how are you able to free yourself from ropes tying you up?
You can still take actions, of course, because you're not dead, unconscious, dazed, or stunned (which are, IIRC, the only conditions that completely prevent actions). However, you cannot take actions which require movement, because you cannot move. You could still cast a spell with no somatic, material, or focus requirements, for example. You can't make a CMB check, though, because those are attacks, which require movement.
The defense rests. Thoughts?
Plausible, but it has nothing to do with the original poster's interpretation that "pinned = helpless".
If you're incapable of moving, or motionless, how are you able to free yourself from ropes tying you up?
You can still take actions, of course, because you're not dead, unconscious, dazed, or stunned (which are, IIRC, the only conditions that completely prevent actions). However, you cannot take actions which require movement, because you cannot move. You could still cast a spell with no somatic, material, or focus requirements, for example. You can't make a CMB check, though, because those are attacks, which require movement.
Except that the technical dictionary definition isn't perfectly appropriate either. A sleeping character is not literally, technically immobile and indistinguishable from a paralyzed one. Nor does a sleeping character suffocate because he can't move to breathe.
Just as you were helpless in 3.5 if you got tied up, you're helpless in the same circumstances in Pathfinder.
And just as you could use Escape Artist while tied to a pillar Indiana Jones-style (even though you couldn't attack, move, or use your hands for anything), you can make a CMB check to do the same in Pathfinder.
With the exception of one of the literal definitions of the word 'immobile' (and there are more than one... if I described an immobile plant monster that was rooted to one spot but could still attack with vines, you wouldn't consider the statement contradictory), nothing suggests that a tied-up character can't escape his bonds.
Just as you were helpless in 3.5 if you got tied up
Source?
if I described an immobile plant monster that was rooted to one spot but could still attack with vines, you wouldn't consider the statement contradictory
You'd be using the wrong word. The word you're looking for in this instance is sessile.
Plausible, but it has nothing to do with the original poster's interpretation that "pinned = helpless".
Sure it does: it confirms it.
If 'helpless' and 'able to take actions' are not opposed ideas, then tied up does equal helpless per the 'helpless' rules.
Source?
Source? The d20 SRD:
"A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent’s mercy."
You'd be using the wrong word. The word you're looking for in this instance is sessile.
While sessile fits the bill, immobile is not necessarly wrong. Another definition:
im·mo·bile
adj.
Immovable; fixed.
A spear trap is fixed, it has no mobility, but it can still attack.
That's all I really care to nitpick with regards to technical dictionary definitions. For casual use, immobile works just fine, and assuming it does, the rules are clear. It's only if you try to look at the definition of the word from funny technical angles that any problem arises, hence common sense dictates that the rules are intended to indicate that bound characters are helpless, and that bound characters can escape with a CMB check.
Let's review what we DO know, and see what we can conclude from that.
We know that:
A helpless character effectively has a Dexterity of 0.
A character with a Dexterity of 0 is immmobile.
A grappler can attempt to tie up a pinned opponent with rope as a standard action.
A helpless or immobile character can still take certian actions.
A bound character is helpless, per the description of helpless (and per the description of manacles, in the Equipment chapter).
A bound character can use the Escape Artist skill to escape his bonds, despite being helpless and therefore immobile.
Therefore we can reasonably conclude that:
A grappler can render an opponent helpless by binding him with rope.
A bound and helpless character can make a CMB check as a standard action to escape from being tied up, just as a manacled and helpless character could make an Escape Artist check to escape his manacles, per the Escape Artist skill in the skills chapter.
Any objections?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Plausible, but it has nothing to do with the original poster's interpretation that "pinned = helpless".Sure it does: it confirms it.
If 'helpless' and 'able to take actions' are not opposed ideas, then tied up does equal helpless per the 'helpless' rules.
Huh? You're still missing the (false) step from the original post where it says that "pinned in a grapple equals helpless".
Let A = "bound".
Let B = "pinned".
Let C = "helpless".
Suppose A implies B and A implies C. It does not follow that B implies C.
Huh? You're still missing the (false) step from the original post where it says that "pinned in a grapple equals helpless".Let A = "bound".
Let B = "pinned".
Let C = "helpless".Suppose A implies B and A implies C. It does not follow that B implies C.
Exactly.
Lemon Jell-O is yellow.
The Earth's sun is yellow.
Thus, the Earth's sun is made of Lemon Jell-O!
... not.
|
Can I point out that some of the logic here is happening in reverse when it should be happening "forward"?
You don't see the word "bound" and say "I will find all circumstances where the word bound is used and unilaterally apply all applications of "bound" to all defined terms under which "bound" is used."
You look at the rules forward.
Grapple? Yup
Move to:
Pin -see Pinned, apply rules.
Pinned? Yup
Move to:
Tie up:
Please select the following:
Are they pinned? Yes --> Proceed to Conditions of Escape (Escape Artist, CMB, etc)
Are they restrained? Yes ---> Manacles or something else? ---> Proceed to Conditions of Escape (Manacles say Escape Artist, Something else is unknown and adjudicated as necessary)
Are they unconscious? Yes---> Proceed to Helpless
Bound never shows up in the chains of text unless you look up a specific condition. It is a fluff word used to describe circumstances that may illustrate examples of the parent, clearly defined position.
A pinned creature may be bound, a helpless creature may be bound, but what made them pinned or helpless?
Edit:
Not all "bound" is created equal. A princess may be wrapped up against the Liberty Bell with a 1000 feet of rope and deemed "helpless" by virtue of being "bound". A high level rogue may be engaged in a grapple, tightly "bound" in the arms of his foe and may then continue to resist. You don't say they are both are in the same defined condition merely by virtue of the use of a non-defined adverb.
Similarly you do not look in a spell that indicates something "springs" from your hand and therefore claim that all spells that "spring" have all (or in this case) the most extreme effect. The spell is the master container of information,contains all relevant information and refers to specified universal, defined conditions, as such all other descriptors are fluff and set by the parent container. Hierarchy of meaning. Don't mix the crunch and fluff.
We have resolved that pinned does not equal helpless.
We have apparently not resolved that tied up does equal helpless.
At the end of the day, I can't imagine how or why a character who is tied hands-and-feet with rope (or tied to a pillar with 100 feet of rope) is any less bound than a character wearing manacles.
Being tied up renders you helpless. The only way you can argue otherwise is if you try to look at the definition of 'immobile' or 'bound' from funny angles.
Consider:
A bound character was helpless in 3.5. Nothing in Pathfinder suggests that that rule has changed. To the contrary, the rules state explicitly that bound characters are helpless.
In 3.5 and in Pathfinder, a bound character has a Dexterity score of 0, but can use Escape Artist to slip his bonds.
Therefore it stands to reason that a character could make a CMB check to escape from being bound via the 'tie up' grapple action. There is no difference in what Escape Artist and the aforementioned check require. Neither requires a movement. Neither requires an attack action. Neither requires a free hand.
The evidence (or in my opinion, proof) is overwhelming. A bound creature is helpless. This is stated clearly in at least two places in Core and is not contradicted anywhere.
Furthermore, a bound-and-helpless creature can use Escape Artist, and therefore it stands to reason that he or she can also escape with the CMB check described under 'tie up'.
There is no actual evidence suggesting otherwise that I can see.
We have resolved that pinned does not equal helpless.
We have apparently not resolved that tied up does equal helpless.
In that case, I'll repeat what I said before: it sounds plausible.
|
|
We have resolved that pinned does not equal helpless.
We have apparently not resolved that tied up does equal helpless.
At the end of the day, I can't imagine how or why a character who is tied hands-and-feet with rope (or tied to a pillar with 100 feet of rope) is any less bound than a character wearing manacles.
Have you ever been handcuffed? I have. I could still move. I sure as hell could try get out of the way of some jerk trying to stab me. Not well, I admit...but then again I cannot supernaturally dodge fireballs. So I am gonna say that there is a big difference to be tied to a pillar with a use rope of 87 and have a pair of manacles on.
You'll note that were I tied to a big pillar that the rules clearly state that I could still try to get out. Using my incredibly horrible escape artist skill but I still get to try.
Additionally, were we to add leg chains, I can still move. Not well but they still have guys with shotguns following the dudes with all that metal on...probably because they are not helpless...
Being tied up renders you helpless. The only way you can argue otherwise is if you try to look at the definition of 'immobile' or 'bound' from funny angles
Actually I would counter quite the opposite. My hands can be bound in rope. My feet may be immobile. In neither circumstance am I helpless. Hindered? Yes. Impaired? Yes.
Helpless? I would counter that you would need to take a very broad consideration of the idea of being "helpless" or "otherwise completely at the mercy of your opponent" as the book states to claim that all variations of bound or immobile are as you say.
Now put my feet in concrete AND tie my hands? Then we are getting somewhere...lest you forget that I am currently conscious and may still attempt to escape, impaired at doing so, but I get to try. Knock men unconscious then I would say I am pretty much at your mercy. I have acquired the game state of helpless...kill away.
Consider:A bound character was helpless in 3.5. Nothing in Pathfinder suggests that that rule has changed. To the contrary, the rules state explicitly that bound characters are helpless.
In 3.5 and in Pathfinder, a bound character has a Dexterity score of 0, but can use Escape Artist to slip his bonds.
Therefore it stands to reason that a character could make a CMB check to escape from being bound via the 'tie up' grapple action. There is no difference in what Escape Artist and the aforementioned check require. Neither requires a movement. Neither requires an attack action. Neither requires a free hand.
The evidence (or in my opinion, proof) is overwhelming. A bound creature is helpless. This is stated clearly in at least two places in Core and is not contradicted anywhere.
Furthermore, a bound-and-helpless creature can use Escape Artist, and therefore it stands to reason that he or she can also escape with the CMB check described under 'tie up'.
There is no actual evidence suggesting otherwise that I can see.
No it never says:
"Bound" - A bound character has a dexterity of 0 and is therefore helpless.Bound is not defined. Bound is not a defined term. It is an adjective, a description. Bound is used to describe (fluff)a defined term that has specific game states and effects (crunch). Helpless and pinned use the word bound in their description but bound is never defined as having a game state interpretation.
Tie up doesn't say bound = helpless, the opposite in fact. The ability to do something is the opposite of helpless not only in theory but in
practice. If you can initiate a maneuver to escape, you are not helpless. Why? Because you are not "otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy". Were you completely at their mercy you could not resist.
The condition of "Helpless" gives you a Dexterity of 0, not the "condition" of bound because no such defined game state exists.
A helpless character may be bound. A pinned character may be bound. But that does not always mean that a pinned character is helpless or that a helpless character is always pinned though in both cases that character may be bound. The condition is granted by the circumstance not the concept, see above.
Don't mix the crunch and fluff.
Have you thought about the fact that having a Dexterity of 0 should have many impacts on the character apart from being supposedly immobile (which does not mean paralyzed)?
Such as... AC, lowered skill scores for Escape Artist, and your CMD and CMB (if you built your character with Finesse).
Imagine someone naturally clumsy (Dex 8) and a rogue (Dex 16), both with Escape Artist ranks. The rogue has Finesse, too. Bringing their Dex to 0 would mean -4 for the clumsy one, and -8 for the rogue. Why would the rogue be more penalized in his Escape Artist check to escape bonds?
Besides, at the game table, I haven't seem GM/players do that in the heat of the moment ("wait, I have to recalculate all my sheet because of my new condition, give me a minute or two while my character is being grappled to death"). If we were, grapplers would dominate the game (within the boundaries of succeeding the grapple checks, of course).
EDIT: I started writing this, and then read the in-depth previous post from PirateDevon, which I totally agree with.
You're right: bound is not defined.
But guess what? Neither is immobile. Neither are manacles.
By your logic, nothing happens to a manacled creature. No restricted actions or movement, no penalties, nothing.
The rules state that a bound character is helpless. Common-sense says a tied up character is bound. By ropes. The manacles entry states that they can be used to 'bind' a character.
RAW, RAI, and common sense agree that a manacled or tied up character is helpless.
You're right: bound is not defined.
But guess what? Neither is immobile. Neither are manacles.
Manacles are defined in the equipment chapter.
Manacles are defined in the equipment chapter.
Correct, and they have no effect according to the above poster's logic. 'Bound' isn't defined, so the fact that manacles say they bind a creature is meaningless.
By the above poster's logic, manacles exist... but have no defined effect.
|
|
Manacles are defined in the equipment chapter.
Correct, and they have no effect according to the above poster's logic. 'Bound' isn't defined, so the fact that manacles say they bind a creature is meaningless.
By the above poster's logic, manacles exist... but have no defined effect.
No that isn't what I said. What I said was:
Bound is not defined. Bound is not a defined term. It is an adjective, a description. Bound is used to describe (fluff)a defined term that has specific game states and effects (crunch). Helpless and pinned use the word bound in their description but bound is never defined as having a game state interpretation.
I didn't say that bound has no effect I said that it is a describing word. It, by itself, is not a game state. It, as a descriptor is relevant to the state in question.
Manacles do not say: A character in manacles is helpless.
Clearly, as described, manacles impede in some way. The problem with manacles is they only indicate how hard they are to get out of, not what they "do". I believe this is this way to allow for context to alter the circumstance
The questions becomes, in what way is the character manacled? Are they manacled on the hands? Are they manacled on the feet? Are they manacled around the neck? All of those things?
The situation is then as thus:
Clearly manacles have an effect. Clearly the character is bound. Each stage of being manacled impedes in a different way. But the degree to which they are manacled may be the difference between helpless or not.
I am not saying that "bound" means nothing, I am saying that "bound" does not mean EVERYTHING. Bound is not a game state, it has no strict rules, that is not the same as saying that the word has no relevance what so ever.
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). [...] 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.
Pinned: A pinned creature is tightly bound and can take few actions. A pinned creature cannot move [...] 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.
As mentioned previously, a tied up character can act. One of his possible actions is to escape his bounds, provided he succeeds a check against the enemy's CMB+20.
Furthermore, if his own CMB(+20) is lower than his enemy's (+20), he can't escape. I sense something fishy, here... a mere +1 difference in CMB means my enemy can bind me with inescapable ropes? Even on a natural 20?
It doesn't explicitly say that I can't break the ropes, though. Isn't that considered "escaping"?
Manacles: Manacles can bind a Medium creature.
Personally, I'd add that manacles can be used in place of ropes for a set of limbs - and I'd add the "set of limbs" thing to the "Tie up" action. Manacles to the ankles would seriously limit the character's speed and agility, but not spellcasting. Manacles to the hands wouldn't do anything to his speed but restrict his fighting/casting prowess. An Acrobatics check would allow a bound creature to fight unarmed.
Helpless: A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy.
We definitely need an official ruling here, or a mere change in the sentence to make more sense. "Bound" doesn't equate to being "completely at one's opponent's mercy". What about "held"? If I hold to my enemy's ankle, he's helpless? Please...
In the logical sense, I agree that A=>B doesn't mean B=>A. But the verb "to be" is largely interpreted as "<=>". We are not speaking with logical predicates, here. We are speaking English, a human-borne tongue, and that's the soil paradoxes are grown from.
Clearly, as described, manacles impede in some way. The problem with manacles is they only indicate how hard they are to get out of, not what they "do". I believe this is this way to allow for context to alter the circumstance.
Ah, but the text does indicate what manacles do.
They bind. 'Bound' is not a condition, but as we can see in the description of 'helpless', a bound creature is helpless. Regardless of your feelings on the subject of what effect manacles should have, what effect they do have is clearly defined.
It is only if you disregard the 'helpless' text that the issue of what happens to a tied-up or manacled character becomes unclear.
What about "held"? If I hold to my enemy's ankle, he's helpless? Please...
At the risk of sounding like a broken record: common sense dictates that since there is an entire line of common 'hold' spells that render different creatures helpless, one can assume that 'held' in this case refers to the condition of being affected by a 'hold' spell.
|
|
Clearly, as described, manacles impede in some way. The problem with manacles is they only indicate how hard they are to get out of, not what they "do". I believe this is this way to allow for context to alter the circumstance.Ah, but the text does indicate what manacles do.
They bind. 'Bound' is not a condition, but as we can see in the description of 'helpless', a bound creature is helpless. Regardless of your feelings on the subject of what effect manacles should have, what effect they do have is clearly defined.
It is only if you disregard the 'helpless' text that the issue of what happens to a tied-up or manacled character becomes unclear.
Really?
So it is your belief then that in the Pathfinder game, a guy in handcuffs is helpless. Am I reading you right?
|
|
What about "held"? If I hold to my enemy's ankle, he's helpless? Please...At the risk of sounding like a broken record: common sense dictates that since there is an entire line of common 'hold' spells that render different creatures helpless, one can assume that 'held' in this case refers to the condition of being affected by a 'hold' spell.
Those hold spells specify paralysis, a game state.
So your logic not only makes sense it is supported by fact. Hold Person say paralyzed. Paralyzed says helpless. No debate here.
Really?
So it is your belief then that in the Pathfinder game, a guy in handcuffs is helpless. Am I reading you right?
A guy in manacles is helpless, yes. I do assume, however, that manacles can restrain both the hands and feet. The entry refers to binding the creature, not the creature's hands.
|
|
A guy in manacles is helpless, yes. I do assume, however, that manacles can restrain both the hands and feet. The entry refers to binding the creature, not the creature's hands.Really?
So it is your belief then that in the Pathfinder game, a guy in handcuffs is helpless. Am I reading you right?
Yes well first of all not all creatures have hands but I understand where you are coming from.
Manacles are the granddaddy of handcuffs. They are traditionally wrist pairs, a google image search will confirm. That said, much like handcuffs, there were variations that included legs and also collar/neck manacles. There are also situations where manacles (or shackles) are tied or mounted to things like dungeon walls. Also note that the change to handcuffs versus traditional manacles was made as a move to make the restraint design more secure. But that means all manacles are not "the same" and the Pathfinder book, to my recollection, shows pairs not unlike handcuffs.
I am not against your idea: That a creature in a series of manacles might be helpless. My emphasis is on the *might*. I think the situation is dependent on a variety of factors and so I do not read that a character by virtue of being bound is helpless. I read that a character bound to the point that he is "at the mercy of his opponent" is helpless. I think it requires nuance and is not an expressly "on/off" situation like paralysis.
Nowhere in manacles does it say that it causes a person to be helpless. It says that they "can bind a Medium creature" (or other size if you get the right manacles) which refers to the same sort of action as binding a creature with rope.
In my opinion, any time a creature has the ability to move at all they cannot be considered helpless. As an example of what helpless means, specifically the ability to perform a coup de grace, if a person can move at all it throws off the ability to perform the action against them. For example, if you are trying to kill a creature by crushing its head with a warhammer (a la hammer/bell ring at a carnival) but they can shift their weight slightly at the last minute and move even a little bit... well, that throws off the kill attempt.
Even a person fully bound could still move slightly as long as they aren't tied to something (think a person wrapped up in something hopping around...). Yes, they should be seriously hindered, but that's what the grappled and pinned conditions do, and yes, tying up someone with rope works like the pinned condition, flat-footed but not helpless.
Now, someone tied to a chair, chained to a wall, etc. I would be completely comfortable saying they are bound and helpless, it's all about circumstances. But basic manacles, which only bind your hands, do not prevent a person from defending themselves or simply running away...
The choice of bound was meant to mean with ropes, not merely pined. If the condition pinned gave the helpless category then they woudl have listed it as a condition. It was poor choice of wording on pinned that lead to it. The conditions Paralzyed, and unconcious both specify that the opponent is helpless. There is not a "condition" of held (though I assume it would mean paralyzed as in a hold person), or sleeping. It shoud be noted thatin champter 8 udner Helpless defenders it does not mention "held".
I agree with Ugbash on both points:
Pinned does not equal helpless.
Bound with ropes does equal helpless.
|
|
The choice of bound was meant to mean with ropes, not merely pined. If the condition pinned gave the helpless category then they woudl have listed it as a condition. It was poor choice of wording on pinned that lead to it. The conditions Paralzyed, and unconcious both specify that the opponent is helpless. There is not a "condition" of held (though I assume it would mean paralyzed as in a hold person), or sleeping. It shoud be noted thatin champter 8 udner Helpless defenders it does not mention "held".I agree with Ugbash on both points:
Pinned does not equal helpless.
Bound with ropes does equal helpless.
The problem there is Ughbash says not "merely" pinned, which if you are tied up you are pinned....as per the description of tied up...how can you be "pinned" and then more than "merely" pinned, with rope? Follow me?
So, allow me to modify my last point slightly.
You are saying that a person whose hands are bound in rope is helpless, am I correct?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
We can argue all day, but one thing is certain: RAW aren't precise enough on the "bound" condition (does it mean "bound from head to toe"? or "bound by the hands"?).
Here is my proposal, trying to use logic
Tie up addendum: You can Bind a creature's limbs together. You can choose to Bind two of its limbs (or its mouth) as one grapple check, or all its limbs as a full-round action started by your successful grapple check. If you try to bind the creature's movement limbs (aka "legs") before the manipulation limbs (arms), suffer AoO from the grapplee - who can escape. Two grapplers can tie different pairs of limbs.
Bind/Bound: This is the state of a creature which has at least two limbs tied together, be it by ropes, manacles, or a spell effect. It can also apply to a gagged creature. See the following list for examples:
- A creature which has its movement limbs Bound can't move normally (has a 50% penalty to speed), must succeed Acrobatics checks to hop or cartwheel from one square to another (failing means falling prone), and has some penalty to its Dex and/or AC (to be determined). It can try to escape its bounds normally (if tied up with ropes by an opponent, the DC is 10+opponent's CMB, assuming the hands are free beforehand).
- A creature which has its manipulation limbs Bound can move normally except that it must succeed a DC 5 Acrobatics check for each move (as for why... try to run with your hands tied). In this state, few actions are possible: drawing a weapon takes twice the time, fighting incurs penalties (maybe except when using two-handed weapons and when proficient in unarmed strike), and casting with somatic/material components may fail. It can try to escape its bounds normally (ropes: DC 20+opponent's CMB).
- A creature having both its movement and manipulation limbs Bound can still turn its body around, try to break free, hop at 5ft (suffering AoOs), and stand up from prone as a full-round action (with a DC 15 Acrobatics check). It can still yell, cast Verbal-only spells (or with Still Spell and/or Eschew Materials)... and bite and/or strike with its head. It can try to escape its bounds by making two checks: hands then legs.
- A creature having all its limbs Bound together can still twitch around unless steadied (aka "held" aka "grappled") by another character (it has a CMD of +0 against the manoeuver) or some furniture, in which case it can be considered Helpless. It can try to break free, but can't move at all. It can try to escape its bounds by making three checks: hands, intermediate knots, legs.
- A creature having its mouth Bound is gagged. Can't speak and use Verbal abilities (spell, bardic abilities using voice, etc). If it has a bite attack, it can't use it to attack, but it can gnaw at ropes (not manacles... unless one has adamantine teeth :-]).
Manacles: These can bind two limbs together, and can also be used to secure one set of manacle to another set.
What do you think?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
We can argue all day, but one thing is certain: RAW aren't precise enough on the "bound" condition (does it mean "bound from head to toe"? or "bound by the hands"?).
Here is my proposal, trying to use logic
Tie up addendum: You can Bind a creature's limbs together. You can choose to Bind two of its limbs (or its mouth) as one grapple check, or all its limbs as a full-round action started by your successful grapple check. If you try to bind the creature's movement limbs (aka "legs") before the manipulation limbs (arms), suffer AoO from the grapplee - who can escape.
Bind/Bound: This is the state of a creature which has at least two limbs tied together, be it by ropes, manacles, or a spell effect. It can also apply to a gagged creature. See the following list for examples:
...
- A creature which has its movement limbs Bound can't move normally (has a 50% penalty to speed), must succeed Acrobatics checks to hop or cartwheel from one square to another (failing means falling prone), and has some penalty to its Dex and/or AC (to be determined). It can try to escape its bounds normally (with a DC of 10+opponent's CMB).
- A creature which has its manipulation limbs Bound can move normally except that it must succeed a DC 5 Acrobatics check for each move (as for why... try to run with your hands tied). In this state, few actions are possible: drawing a weapon takes twice the time, fighting incurs penalties (maybe except when using two-handed weapons and when proficient in unarmed strike), and casting with somatic/material components may fail. It can try to escape its bounds normally (with a DC of 15+opponent's CMB).
- A creature having both its movement and manipulation limbs Bound can still twitch around unless steadied (aka "held" aka "grappled") by another character or some furniture, in which case it can be considered Helpless. Otherwise, it can try to break free, and hop at 5ft (suffering AoOs) but can't get up if prone. It can still yell, cast Verbal-only spells (or with Still
Mhmm I like these. I will be taking them : - p
I assume I can since you posted them ; - )
I like some of your thoughts here. In the past I have always ruled these various situations independently with feedback from the player but you have some good thoughts here.
But I do agree completely. Bound as it stands is not defined so I think there are a variety of issue that might arise. Official clarification would smooth this out a lot.
Mhmm I like these. I will be taking them : - p
I assume I can since you posted them ; - )
I like some of your thoughts here. In the past I have always ruled these various situations independently with feedback from the player but you have some good thoughts here.
But I do agree completely. Bound as it stands is not defined so I think there are a variety of issue that might arise. Official clarification would smooth this out a lot.
Thanks, and go ahead if you want them. They are not houserules or anything, just a mental exercise about the different ways of resolving the Bound and Helpless conditions. As such, they can be refined a bit before becoming Rules (note that I edited the post slightly during your answer).