| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
"Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity."
Escape Artist:" Grapple: You can make an Escape Artist check in place of a combat maneuver check to escape a grapple (see Chapter 8) or to change from a pinned condition to merely grappled."
Escape Artist is obviously a Dex based skill. So is escape artist, used escape a grapple, effected by the -4 penalty?
In the above example, yes, the dexterity penalty is applied to Escape Artist rolls, you may use it in place of a CMB roll to escape a pinned or grappled condition but you do so at that -4. A character with a low base attack and average str and dex scores might prefer to use Escape Artist on their turn in place of a CMB roll though, even with that -4 penalty.
and note that it a -4 penalty to dexterity, not to dex based skills, that -4 to dex only nets a -2 to the skills.
and note that it a -4 penalty to dexterity, not to dex based skills, that -4 to dex only nets a -2 to the skills.
My problem with this situation is that a pinned character no longer has the grappled condition since pinned is a more severe one. So he doesn't take a -4 to dexterity but is instead flat-footed and has a -4 penalty to armor class. This means by RAW that a pinned character can use his Escape artist with a higher chance than a grappled one. Was this something intentional and if not how do we fix this?
|
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Yes, from what I have read it does indeed seem easier to use Escape Artist to escape a grapple when Pinned, and not just Grappled. And reading the Pinned condition it does seem that if you escape, you escape completely, you don't just go from Pinned to Grappled as you did in 3.5. Was this really the intent of Paizo? It is explicit that Pinned doesn't stack with Grappled.
Yes, from what I have read it does indeed seem easier to use Escape Artist to escape a grapple when Pinned, and not just Grappled. And reading the Pinned condition it does seem that if you escape, you escape completely, you don't just go from Pinned to Grappled as you did in 3.5. Was this really the intent of Paizo? It is explicit that Pinned doesn't stack with Grappled.
This is not true. In Escape artist skil it sais that :
"Grappler: You can make an Escape Artist check in place ofa combat maneuver check to escape a grapple (see Chapter 8)
or to change from a pinned condition to merely grappled."
So a pinned charachter that succeds an escape artist check becomes grappled. Except if you have read somewhere something else that contradicts this.
PFRPG pg 567
Grappled: "...a grappled creature takes a -2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple..."Emphasis added.
Hello Louis.
What do you mean by this phrase. We were talking here about the -4 dexterity penalty that a grappled chrarcter has comparing to a pinned one that has no penalty on Dex but is instead flat-footed and has a -4 to AC.So what do you mean with your phrase? Does this phrase help in any way to solve the problem? It is something I am aware of but it is something different.
|
|
The one time I don't frigging copy my post before submitting and the forums eat it AAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHH!
Ok here goes again
This is not true. In Escape artist skil it sais that :
"Grappler: You can make an Escape Artist check in place of
a combat maneuver check to escape a grapple (see Chapter 8)
or to change from a pinned condition to merely grappled."So a pinned charachter that succeds an escape artist check becomes grappled. Except if you have read somewhere something else that contradicts this.
You are indeed correct, my failure is do to another case of having to cross reference several sections of the book to get a full picture of grappling.
My interpretation was taken from the "If You Are Grappled" section of the Grapple rules and the write up of the Pinned condition.
If You Are Grappled
If you are grappled, you can attempt to break the grapple as a standard action by making a combat maneuver check (DC equal to your opponent's CMD; this does not provoke an attack of opportunity) or Escape Artist check (with a DC equal to your opponent's CMD). If you succeed, you break the grapple and can act normally.
Pinned
A pinned creature can always attempt to free itself, usually through a combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check.
I took the mention of "attempt to free itself" to be a reference to the CMB or Escape Artist check detailed in the "If you are Grappled" section of the grapple rules; which is meant to completely free yourself.
Of course, although we now know Escape Artist has an explcit statement to indicate you go from Pinned to Grappled, the CMB check while Pinned has no such explicit statement, and so it could be argued that if you make a successful CMB check whilst Pinned you break free completely.
I don't think this was Paizo's intention, more likely an unintentional loophole introduced by splitting out the grapple rules to three sections of the book (Skills, Combat and the Glossary).
I woudl suggest the Pinned condition needs errata, something like the following:
A pinned creature can always attempt to free itself from the Pinned condition (leaving it merely Grappled), usually through a combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check.
I agree with you and I would also suggestto change the -4 penalty on dexterity on grappled condition to a -2 penalty to armor class and to to CMD. I think that the -4 penalty to Dex was never intented to affect the Escape artist skill. If we think of it more abtructive it is a skil disigned to be used when someones mobility is constrained. In that way it is a skill is affected by Dex and on the same time is mostly used during conditions that give you a penalty to Dex. This is something that doesn't feel right and I think that it wasn't intentional.
Hello today I received the DM screen of Pathfinder.
I was looking at the conditions section and I read the description of pinned condition. In that description it states that a pinned character is like a grappled except that is flatfooted and receives a -4 to AC ....
This means that a pinned character also has a -4 Dex penalty. So this solves the problem that a pinned character had a highest escape artist chance than a grappled one. I believe that this version of pinned was the intended one in the first place since it solves the escape artist problem and also the screen was created after the book so we can say that it implements a later version of the rules. If this is true there is no problem anymore with the -2 penalty at escape artist (from -4 Dex) since the grappler also has a -4 Dex penalty which leads to a -2 to its CMD.
One last question about this. A flat-footed PC with -4 Dex :
1)Looses all Dex bonus from AC
or
2)Looses all Dex bonus from AC and if after -4 Dex now has a negative bonus to AC from Dex also gets that penalty to AC?
|
|
I was looking at the conditions section and I read the description of pinned condition. In that description it states that a pinned character is like a grappled except that is flatfooted and receives a -4 to AC
Interesting, so is this official errata then for the corebook (or should it be)? Also I assume this has not made it into the PRD yet as that is what I have been referecing whilst looking stuff up for this thread.
One last question about this. A flat-footed PC with -4 Dex :
1)Looses all Dex bonus from AC
or
2)Looses all Dex bonus from AC and if after -4 Dex now has a negative bonus to AC from Dex also gets that penalty to AC?
I believe the latter, e.g. if you have a Dex of 12 and thus normally a Touch AC of 11 (10 + Dex modifier), and suffer a -4 Dex penalty and denied Dex bonus* you will have a Touch AC of 9 (10 - 1 Dex Modifier).
Basically work out if you still have a Dex Bonus to AC after the -4 dex, and if you have lose it, otherwise if you have a Dex Penalty to AC you stick with the reduced AC.
*I don't like using the term Flat Footed to refer to losing your Dex Bonus to AC as they are not the same thing in 3.5, although Paizo now seem to treat them like that. Flat Footed is a condition that results in you losing your Dex Bonus to AC, but it is not the only condition that can result in loss of Dex Bonus to AC, and also Flat Footed has effects other than just losing Dex Bonus to AC (i.e. not being able to make AoOs)
No. Pinned condition is very severe: it is like you are helpless.
Go to Pinned
When pinned, you have a Dex of 0 and -4 to AC against melee(which stacks)... so it is very difficult to escape artist the grapple.
And you can do a Coup-de-grâce to a pinned character.
Ex: a PJ with Dex 16 will lose if pinned (-8 dex + -4)= -12 AC and have -12 to CMD and -8 to Escape Artist
Pinned is in no way helpless. Even the link you used says immobilize not helpless. These are two completely different things. Immobilized means you cannot move. Nothing else.
Hello today I received the DM screen of Pathfinder.
I was looking at the conditions section and I read the description of pinned condition. In that description it states that a pinned character is like a grappled except that is flatfooted and receives a -4 to AC ....
This means that a pinned character also has a -4 Dex penalty. So this solves the problem that a pinned character had a highest escape artist chance than a grappled one. I believe that this version of pinned was the intended one in the first place since it solves the escape artist problem and also the screen was created after the book so we can say that it implements a later version of the rules. If this is true there is no problem anymore with the -2 penalty at escape artist (from -4 Dex) since the grappler also has a -4 Dex penalty which leads to a -2 to its CMD.
One last question about this. A flat-footed PC with -4 Dex :
1)Looses all Dex bonus from AC
or
2)Looses all Dex bonus from AC and if after -4 Dex now has a negative bonus to AC from Dex also gets that penalty to AC?
#2
|
Pinned is in no way helpless. Even the link you used says immobilize not helpless. These are two completely different things. Immobilized means you cannot move. Nothing else.p197 core rulebook Helpless defenders:
"...A helpless opponent is someone who is bound, sleeping, paralyzed, unconscious, or otherwise at your mercy..."Helpless regroup all this states: the difference when you are pinned is that you can:
- break the grapple with a CMB check (standard)
- escape the grapple with a Escape Artist check (with Dex 0)
- cast a spell which is only verbal or mental with concentration check 10+CMB+level of spellImmobilized character cannot move (lose all his dex => Dex 0), is flat-footed, has -4 AC (as an helpless character).
You could houserule if you find it is too severe...
Again you are incorrect. You are not helpless when pinned. Nothing in that post suggests you are. The rules for pinned are very specific in what penalties you receive in that condition and non of them suggest 0 Dex.
|
|
p195 core rulebook table 8-6: pinned and helpless have the same modifiers
p197 core rulebook Helpless defenders:
"...A helpless opponent is someone who is bound, sleeping, paralyzed, unconscious, or otherwise at your mercy..."p197 core rulebook Helpless defender/Regular attack
"...A helpless character takes a -4 penalty to AC against melee... is treated as having a dexterity of 0,..."Note: written precedes table
Immobilized means you are at the mercy of your grappler, as you were bound by him.
So, pinned follows the same rules than helpless about penalty. The differences with helpless is what can do the character?
- pinned: escape or do mental/verbal action
- bound: as pinned except no verbal if muzzled and no escape if the DC bindings > 20+target's CMB
- paralysed/inconscious: nothing
- sleeping: to awake with perception check...
- etc...
But all follows rules of "Helpless Defenders"
The table on p195 means nothing and does not in any way suggest that pinned is the same as helpless.
I don't believe that being pinned leaves you at the mercy of your attacker. The pinned condition lists things you can do to escape and so by that very nature you are not completely at the grappler's mercy.
|
|
table p195: they have the same modifiers and the same "little number 3"
That table however doesn't encapsulate everything that constitutes the Helpless condition. Yes melee attacks get a +4 bonus against both PInned and Helpless targets, yes characters who are PInned and / or Helpess lose their Dex Bonus to AC, but only Helpless foes have an effective Dex of 0, Pinned characters do not.
And I agree with the kingpin who believes that being Pinned doesn't leave you "at the mercy" of your opponent. Hell, a Pinned character can still cast some spells meaning he definately is not Helpless!
I thought it should be pointed out that the DEX penalty while Grappled
is equally as penalizing to DEX-based characters (with Dextrous Maneuvers Feat) who don`t try to Escape Artist, but want to make a Grapple check to escape, since their prime stat is being penalized in ways a STR based Grappler is not.
The thing about Escape Artist is that it lets you get +1 per level even without a Full BAB AND there is a possible +3 Class Skill bonus (besides the various options for bonuses to skill checks). The Class Skill Bonus MORE than cancels out the penalty to DEX.
THe Pinned Condition is pretty problematic if you try to read it literally. (it doesn`t say you can take NO actions EXCEPT those listed, it vaguely says you can take few actions and then says some actions you CAN take...)
THe Pinned Condition is pretty problematic if you try to read it literally. (it doesn`t say you can take NO actions EXCEPT those listed, it vaguely says you can take few actions and then says some actions you CAN take...)
That's not trying to read it literally, that's deliberately trying to misread it for the soul purpose of snark.
@BigNorseWolf: Do you speak of yourself?
1) I was responding to the idea i've seen a few times around here that that "You are limited in the actions you can take" followed by "a list of actions" is somehow NOT supposed to be THE list of actions you're allowed to take.
2) As to your idea that you're helpless when pinned they are flatly different conditions. Yes, they share a large number of things in common. If i described a wolf and a coyote what would be the difference really? Just because its a canine that has four limbs, a furry tail, snout, triangular ears. You can name all the similarities you want, but as long as there's one difference they are different things.
Helpless: A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy
Pinned: A pinned creature is tightly bound and can take few actions.
A pinned creature is limited in the actions that it can take
A pinned character who attempts to cast a spell must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level) or lose the spell.
A pinned character also takes an additional –4 penalty to his Armor Class.
A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (–5 modifier)
... this is not completely at your mercy. He is merely stuck in the square and can't move in so far as movement is represented by lead figures sitting on a table. He is still wiggling about, thrashing, resisting attempts to further grapple him and if he has still spell he can still turn you into a newt (you probably won't get better)
If grapple was meant to make an opponent helpless 1) it would not be its own condition 2) You would not need to bring in rules from 18 places and amalgamate them in order to make your point 3) There would be NO point in having a separate listed pinned condition the person would just be called helpless.
No, pin doesn't specifically say you're not helpless. Neither do frightened, stunned, or nauseated or any other condition. If it was meant to cause helplessness it would say so.
.
@BigNorseWolf: Do you speak of yourself?1) I was responding to the idea i've seen a few times around here that that "You are limited in the actions you can take" followed by "a list of actions" is somehow NOT supposed to be THE list of actions you're allowed to take.
wow. And you accuse others of being snarky?
pot, meet kettle.
Look, we're all mature enough to discuss, debate and even argue points of black letter law and opinion without resorting to sideswipes.
Let's just respect that we have differing views and contend issues without all that.
After tiring of the other forums where an honest mistake or simple question quickly degenerates into snideness, i was glad to have found this site. So let's not let that creep in here please.
|
|
- p 200 core rulebook 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..."
If you also bold the "but" it is pretty explicit they are not the same, similar but not the same.
I do agree a Tied Up / Bound foe would be considered Helpless; I just don't agree that Pinned and Bound are the same thing.
As written, creatures with less than 16 Dex are better off Pinned than Grappled because at that point Flat-Footed is a far less damaging condition than Grappled. As far as escaping and Dex reduction goes.
And since there is no condition or definition of "immobilized" the link to Jason stating a pinned creature is immobilized means nothing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As written, creatures with less than 16 Dex are better off Pinned than Grappled because at that point Flat-Footed is a far less damaging condition than Grappled. As far as escaping and Dex reduction goes.
And since there is no condition or definition of "immobilized" the link to Jason stating a pinned creature is immobilized means nothing.
Cartigan If you look at my last post on this thread you will that probably pinned creatures continue to receive a -4 penalty to Dex class as grappled ones. I know that you will probably say that pinned condition is a more severe one than grappled and that the do not stuck. I have discussed these problems in many threads and I had even started one myself. But after taking into account all the sections regarding grapple and pinned and all the posts of other guys in the thread and finally the DM screen which describes pin as a grappled with the exception of being flat-footed and -4 AC and able only to try to break free or do mental tasks I have concluded that the -4 Dex penalty applies to a pinned one. I am not saying trust me I know the TRUTH. I am just saying that IMO this interpretation has the highest probability of being true.
Of course even if this is the answer to main problems lesser ones remain
1) First an average agile maneuver combatant is less effective in Grapple because of the -4 to Dex also affecting his CMB. It is debatable if this was intentional or not by the game designers and I do not have an answer in that, for now I play it by RAW.
2) Where bonuses to resist grapple apply. This is a major issue since half of the people believe that they apply always to CMD when the opponent makes a check during grapple. While others apply it only when you are the grappled one and you resist your grappler's checks. The first interpretation leads to powerful grapplers that when they manage to grapple someone they have a huge CMD which can only be beaten by a natural 20. So I play it using the second interpretation for now.
I hope this summary helps someone and I hope for official answers.
|
|
The character can take the same few actions but with different DC.
Nevertheless, a pinned character is not necessarily bound, therefore they are not the same.
What i say is bound and pinned belong to the same category named "helpless defender".
As Sleeping, paralyzed, inconscious,... belong to the same category, too.
If being Pinned meant you were helpless the Pinned condition in the Glossary would state this, and it does not.
On the otherhand, the glossary write up for Paralyzed and Unconscious explicitly state that the person is Helpless.
Paralyzed: A paralyzed character is frozen in place and unable to move or act. A paralyzed character has effective Dexterity and Strength scores of 0 and is helpless...
Unconscious: Unconscious creatures are knocked out and helpless...
This is also explicit in the glossary write up of Helpless....
Helpless: A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy....
I feel "at an opponent's mercy" is to vague to make a call on re Pinned and regard it as fluff text that a GM could use to justify an unusual situation that comes up in play.
.....um.....
.....er.....
Bugger!
The definition of Helpless actually says "held" as well. That feasibly not only covers Pinned, but also Grappled!!!!!!!!!!!
This is a carry over from 3.5 it seems.
I guess then you could argue it either way, so I guess I do agree that Pinned could mean the foe is helpless.
Personally I would say the description of the individual conditions (Paralysed, Pinned, Unconscious etc) override the write up of the Helpless condition and thus would rule that in my game Pinned does not mean Helpless.
Bound being helpless is nagging at me... While bounded you can pretty much do the same thing than whern you are pinned : cast only verbal/mental spell or try an escape artist to get rid of the rope...
I won't put bound as helpless neither pinned... ;)
|
|
The definition of helpless in the glossary is not exactly the same than these p 197...
The word "held" is just written in the glossary, not p 197... that's why i didn't use it.
Good spot! I was using the PRD, but I just checked my PDF and you are correct, so there is a discrepancy between the glossary and pahge 197.
I will have to check whether the 3.5.PHB has the same discrepancy or whether Paizo corrected the issue on page 197 but not the glossary.
Cartigan If you look at my last post on this thread you will that probably pinned creatures continue to receive a -4 penalty to Dex class as grappled ones. I know that you will probably say that pinned condition is a more severe one than grappled and that the do not stuck. I have discussed these problems in many threads and I had even started one myself. But after taking into account all the sections regarding grapple and pinned and all the posts of other guys in the thread and finally the DM screen which describes pin as a grappled with the exception of being flat-footed and -4 AC and able only to try to break free or do mental tasks I have concluded that the -4 Dex penalty applies to a pinned one. I am not saying trust me I know the TRUTH. I am just saying that IMO this interpretation has the highest probability of being true.
Unlikely. There is no reason to say "grapple and pin don't stack" doesn't change the penalty to Dex because the only part that could stack is the penalty to Dex. Pinned replaces Grappled.
I disagree with your probability of truth because it is opinion. You believe the designers screwed up one way and I believe they screwed up another.
wow. And you accuse others of being snarky? pot, meet kettle.
I might add snark TO the commentary but i don't use snark AS a rules justification. Part of rules interpretation is the normal rules for reading comprehension and underlying social conventions, assuming that the writer of the book is a sane rational human who is trying to convey something. When it says 'you are limited to certain actions' followed by a certain list of actions and someone points out the technicality that it never explicitly stated that that was the list of actions you were limited to, it strikes me as MUCH more likely that the person is trying to twist the rules just because they can be twisted than that they're TRYING to interpret the rules.
Look, we're all mature enough to discuss, debate and even argue points of black letter law and opinion without resorting to sideswipes.
Apparently not "pot, meet kettle"
Let's just respect that we have differing views and contend issues without all that.
I have no problem with different honest views. I like to see them and the arguments for them because its the only way to make sure you understand the rules from the books. What I don't respect is deliberate pedantry for its own sake or to try to rules lawyer your way to an advantage in game.
After tiring of the other forums where an honest mistake or simple question quickly degenerates into snideness, i was glad to have found this site. So let's not let that creep in here please.
wow. And you accuse others of being snarky? pot, meet kettle.I might add snark TO the commentary but i don't use snark AS a rules justification. Part of rules interpretation is the normal rules for reading comprehension and underlying social conventions, assuming that the writer of the book is a sane rational human who is trying to convey something. When it says 'you are limited to certain actions' followed by a certain list of actions and someone points out the technicality that it never explicitly stated that that was the list of actions you were limited to, it strikes me as MUCH more likely that the person is trying to twist the rules just because they can be twisted than that they're TRYING to interpret the rules.
I agree on the point of interpretation. But that's beside the point. I was just saying that all the aggro was unnecessary.
Look, we're all mature enough to discuss, debate and even argue points of black letter law and opinion without resorting to sideswipes.
Apparently not "pot, meet kettle"
Fair enough. I was reacting to your comment (angrily, perhaps) and overstated the case. I apologise for that.
Let's just respect that we have differing views and contend issues without all that.
I have no problem with different honest views. I like to see them and the arguments for them because its the only way to make sure you understand the rules from the books. What I don't respect is deliberate pedantry for its own sake or to try to rules lawyer your way to an advantage in game.
Agreed. RAW is a double edged sword and shouldn't be used to bias the game.
I've never given a penalty to Escape Artist when escaping grapples/pins. What's the point? I thought the idea of Escape Artist was to be skillful at escaping? Sounds like some characters either need to always keep Escape Artist maxed or stick with their CMB.
What's the other use for Escape Artist? Squeezing through tight spaces? You know you get Dex. penalties in cramped spaces, too, right? So, in effect, you're always taking a penalty on Escape Artist now in the game? Doesn't sound right to me.
BigNorseWolf, I believe you`ve misunderstood the motivation of my posts... I`ve never tried to suggest that real players can really `twist the rules to their advantage` in real games by this literal reading, as when I`ve discussed the Pin wording issue in other threads I directly stated that the RAI was obvious. If I didn`t mention that in this thread was simply because I already have in other threads and didn`t feel like repeating myself. If you look at my first post in this thread, you might notice that the majority of it is dedicated to simply explaining the pros and cons of various builds within the non-controversial RAI of PRPG Grapple rules, and NOT to the controversial/unclear parts.
Bringing up faulty wording is simply noting the fact that the wording isn`t well edited - if this wording was all swell and wonderful, it is strange that the rest of the rules for the most part avoids phrasing like this. The rules as a whole in fact REQUIRE one to depend on small wording distinctions like this in order to run properly.. that is in fact the editing standard for PRPG, which is not the same thing as general English prose, but subject to stricter standards of a rules based game. Like I said, I have no problem discerning the RAI in the case of Pin`s `few actions`, but fixing the wording here is as much about re-enforcing that player CAN depend on specific wording in general (which they need to in other rules cases).
In any case, it was only mentioned IN PASSING as another example of the Grapple rules being somewhat obtuse / hard to comprehend. There are actually plenty of other ambiguous aspects of the Grapple rules that aren`t mentioned in this thread. Jason Buhlman, the author of the rules, himself stated that the wording in Pin is ambiguous and should be amended (which still hasn`t happened).
Q: If I am reading the grapple and flat-footed information correctly a Rogue (or other character with Uncanny Dodge) who is PINNED breaks the usual rule of Uncanny Dodge because they keep their DEX mod to AC while immobilized! (because PINNED states a person is FLATFOOTED - not "lose their DEX")?
A: (Jason Bulmahn) There appears to be a little bit of incongruity in the wordings here. A pinned character is immobilized (hence uncanny dodge will not help). I will see that this is clarified.
If the author of the book believes such measures are necessary, certainly it`s reasonable for average players to also think the current situation is not satisfactorally clear? Again, pointing out that the rules are deficient does not equal an attempt to `twist the rules to your advantage`. In some cases like Pin`s `few actions` it`s clear what the RAI are, but in many cases IT ISNT CLEAR and the various interpretations could be equally plausible.
I agree on the point of interpretation. But that's beside the point. I was just saying that all the aggro was unnecessary.
It wasn't aggro. I don't even know if Quandary agrees with the idea or if they're just throwing it out as an example of literal readings gone wild (i suspect the latter). But I don't see a solution to arguing with someone that isn't arguing honestly except to start with the fact that they're not arguing honestly. Showing facts, rules, examples, and reasoned arguments (the normal solution to a disagreement)will not "convince" someone that's TRYING to reach their preferred conclusion.
Fair enough. I was reacting to your comment (angrily, perhaps) and overstated the case. I apologize for that.
There's nothing to apologize for. It was a nice turn of phrase and its just how internet conversations go.
Agreed. RAW is a double edged sword and shouldn't be used to bias the game.
And context is part of writing. You can reduce anything to meaninglessness by zooming in and concentrating only on one word. I can see why Deafrator is legitimately confused by the rule. Affirming the consequent is a very appealing line of logic.
Bringing up faulty wording is simply noting the fact that the wording isn`t well edited
I was leaning towards the conclusion that you were merely using it as an example. I was scoffing at the idea, not at you.
if this wording was all swell and wonderful, it is strange that the rest of the rules for the most part avoids phrasing like this.
I don't think its possible to avoid somewhat loose phrasing and i think its its unrealistic to expect the writing to be impossible to misinterpret. I don't want to read 300 pages of "Dim pin as igrapple"
I agree that SOME parts of the grapple rules are confusing as hell (especially when you deal with non humanoids) but wording a rule book so that it both specifies there are limitations and then lists limitations should be sufficient.The rules don't want to say "these are the only actions you can take" Because at some point some new ability might come out that should reasonably be able to take place in a grapple (such as a dragons breath weapon) or a new prestige class ability might pop into being.
The rules as a whole in fact REQUIRE one to depend on small wording distinctions like this in order to run properly.. that is in fact the editing standard for PRPG, which is not the same thing as general English prose, but subject to stricter standards of a rules based game. Like I said, I have no problem discerning the RAI in the case of Pin`s `few actions`, but fixing the wording here is as much about re-enforcing that player CAN depend on specific wording in general (which they need to in other rules cases).
I think the writing should go to the level where nearly everyone SHOULD arrive at that conclusion if they're trying to read it honestly. Even law books rely on that somewhat and they can take half a page to say "clubs are illegal"
|
|
The definition of helpless in the glossary is not exactly the same than these p 197...
The word "held" is just written in the glossary, not p 197... that's why i didn't use it.Good spot! I was using the PRD, but I just checked my PDF and you are correct, so there is a discrepancy between the glossary and pahge 197.
I will have to check whether the 3.5.PHB has the same discrepancy or whether Paizo corrected the issue on page 197 but not the glossary.
I checked a PHB last night and its the same there too, the main text doesn't mention held but the glossary does.
INterestingly in 3.5 the table indicates that when Pinned you have an effective Dex of Zero and are susceptible to Sneak Attacks etc. However that doesn't tie up with the text and text is considered the primary source over a table.
So it seems like there is the same level of confusion in the 3.5 PHB as in PF RPG.
|
|
Second, the word "flatfooted" and immobilized for pinned means Dex 0 without any indecisions.
Flat footed doesn't mean you have an effective Dex of zero, it means you lose your Dex bonus to AC (and can't make AoOs). As for Immobilised, that isn't a condition or explicit game term as far as I am aware.