OK, suppose you trip some one, grapple him, then pin him.
if your ally walks up to this fight does the prone pinned person count as helpless for the purpouse of a coup de grace.
there is nothing I can find in the rules where it is spelled out that pinned = helpless
however...
helpless counts as prone (-4 ac), and 0 dex (-5 ac) total -9 ac
pinned also gives -4 ac and 0 dex for the same -9 ac.
also in game terms your pretty much unable to take any action other than attempting to break the pin.
with that in mind pinned seems to be effectively helpless and thus subject to a coup de grace.
any agreement, objections or points to address?
Helpless is an actual condition just like being stunned. Either you directly have the condition or you do not. Even if you have condition A that has similar results to condition B you still don't have condition A.
In short pinned is not helpless.
A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy.
Pinned = "held", no?
Where are the rules that you can act and react? You can make your grapple check on your turn to break from being pinned, but as far as being able to make AoO's etc you're unable to act/react.
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.
no, it's not the same. Most of the modifiers might be the same, but there is a huge difference when it comes to coup de graçe, it only works on helpless foes.
That's why hold person or sleep is so much more precious than a good grapple monk (if considered only for this limited scope of course).
Bound under the helpless entry would refer to being tied up with a rope.
The wording is not great for pinned, but it is not helpless
Example:
Unconscious: Unconscious creatures are knocked out and helpless. Unconsciousness can result from having negative hit points (but not more than the creature's Constitution score), or from nonlethal damage in excess of current hit points.
As you can see it is directly called out in this case so it would apply.
I went and did a quick search and this topic has come up a lot - they all end with the conclusion that being pinned does not make one helpless.
Now I have the moral dilemma on whether or not to tell my group...which has a monk...and we regularly coup de grace pinned foes... :P
Doo dee doo.
By the RAW wording, pinned should = helpless (there is a thread floating around about that statement :P) ... the helpless condition requires a few specific states to be considered so, and bound is one of them... the pinned condition, is characterized as being tightly bound. If they didn't intend it to be that way, it was a pretty big oversight.
The book has a lot of oversights that have yet to be fixed. Nobody9not a lot of people as whole) has made a big fuss about this one so it does not have priority.
DanQnA
don't fix something that isn't broken, if that group is not too strong, let them have their fun. If you've always felt that they shouldn't be that good, perhaps tell the monk how the rules are, but that you'll let it stay as is for monster whose hit die is lower than his. Just a suggestion.
im trying to figure out how a mob of low level things like say goblins could take out a mid level (example 7th or 8th level) single opponent.
by raw the only thing I can think of is if they gang up and grapple the single opponent. pin him then coup de grace him. but if pinned =/= helpless then its truely impossible by raw for the weak creatures to win.
a leveled character can literally walk into a mob of goblins and totally slaughter them because there is no mechanic for overwhelming an opponent.
I think pinned SHOULD = helpless specifically for the purpose of coup de grace but that's probably something I will have to house rule because piazo does not seem interested in eratta on that... although I wonder what their reason for it is.
By the time you are 7th level you can take on a platoon of soldiers. I know it is not realistic, but the that is how the game is. If it were a caster they would just cast black tentacles and walk away or fireball them.
Making low level monster able to gang up on higher level ones and win is not part of the design plan.
There was a mob rule in 3.5 which makes a mass of people use swarm tactics, but I can't seem to find it in PF.
Pinned does not mean helpless.
You're only helpless from a pin (tie up) if there is no chance you can escape the binding/situation.
I do admit better wording could be used.
Of course barring a solo game this never(very low chance) really happens so in practice it is not a real issue.
yep.
but we are not talking about scenario. just mechanics.
as noted in the other thread.
I looks like a pinned opponent can be tied up at which point it is considered helpless and can be coup de graced
I guess that works but seems as if a person pinned by an opponent using its full round action to maintain the pin should be considered helpless for the purpose of a coup de grace from a 3rd opponent.
im trying to figure out how a mob of low level things like say goblins could take out a mid level (example 7th or 8th level) single opponent.
by raw the only thing I can think of is if they gang up and grapple the single opponent. pin him then coup de grace him. but if pinned =/= helpless then its truely impossible by raw for the weak creatures to win.
a leveled character can literally walk into a mob of goblins and totally slaughter them because there is no mechanic for overwhelming an opponent.
I think pinned SHOULD = helpless specifically for the purpose of coup de grace but that's probably something I will have to house rule because piazo does not seem interested in eratta on that... although I wonder what their reason for it is.
If a mob of goblins successfully grapple someone, then pin him, they can tie him up the next round with another successful grapple check. A hogtied character is helpless, so they could then coup de grace him.
By the RAW wording, pinned should = helpless (there is a thread floating around about that statement :P) ... the helpless condition requires a few specific states to be considered so, and bound is one of them... the pinned condition, is characterized as being tightly bound. If they didn't intend it to be that way, it was a pretty big oversight.
This is true and it's the problem with the "if it doesn't say it, it doesn't mean it" line of analysis which argues that because pinned doesn't say 'helpless', that's the end of it.
Since, by that reasoning, being hogtied doesn't make you helpless either, since no place in the rules does it say that, either. Same thing with the people adding in a qualification that if the bound person can't make the check to escape, they're helpless - rules don't say that.
All of that is from extrapolation of the meaning of descriptive language in the definition of 'helpless', no different than the argument that helpless = bound, pinned = tightly bound, therefore pinned = helpless.
In fact - the only place being tied-up is discussed defines it as a kind of pin - with the only difference being how the DC is determined.
There also is not FAQ clarification of this. There may have been some opinions from Paizo people on the boards, but it has not been FAQ'ed. That's not because it's obvious from the plain language of the text, because the plain language is ambiguous.
My take on all this is it comes down to this line in the definition of helpless:
"or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy"
Which is to say, it's a DM's call on a case-by-case basis, and there's no mechanical bright line test. If the DM judges that the target is "completely at the opponent's mercy" then coup de gras is an option.
By that, I'd judge that not having the ability to break pin (whether the pin is from being hog-tied by a rope *or* by being restrained to the same degree manually or magically) would be a good rule of thumb to determine helplessness.
"Pinned" is a condition. "Helpless" is another condition.
If Pinned=Helpless, then they would not have written up a separate "pinned" condition, now would they?
Note that "bound" is NOT a mechanical condition. It is a descriptor, one chosen poorly to be in the description of two different conditions.
Going for intent and wording, the part of "helpless"'s description that I would pay attention to is "completely at an opponent's mercy."
A pinned opponent is NOT "completely at an opponent's mercy" because a pinned character is still capable of breaking out of the pinned condition. A helpless character cannot remove the helpless condition from him or herself. A pinned character can act, if limitedly. A helpless character cannot act. There are other, obvious mechanical differences -- a pinned character gains no Dexterity modifier to Defense (but no penalty due to Dexterity either). A helpless character has an effective Dexterity of 0, which gives -5 penalty to Defense based on Dexterity. If while pinned, you are also helpless, why do you still have a Dexterity score?
The intent seems very clear, and the only wording which maybe contradicts it is a non-mechanical descriptor. Fixating on that word seems to be splitting hairs quite a bit, IMO.
A sleeping person in Pathfinder is completely at your mercy. In what way can they react to anything? They get a perception check, but that is not really them doing anything. It is definitely not a reaction.
I already mentioned those in my previous post, but that is not reacting. Reactionary just means it is an automatic check. I am sure you don't really believe that is reacting anyway.
Why even bother mentioning the -4 to AC if you are ripe for an autohit from coup de grace.
You are definitely not "completely at anyone's mercy" which is a symptom of helpless. Since you can still cast spells and possible kill the pinner I am sure the person pinning you would agree.
Taking a step back to talk RAI for a minute - seems the point of coup is more a mechanic to allow quickly finishing off a creature where death is already a forgone conclusion (while still giving some chance to survive, for example if used on a PC). It's not meant to be combined with combat manuvers to create a melee death effect spell substitute to allow taking out a capable standing opponent fast at no cost.
You making the check is the reaction. Whether or not you perceive the person is dependent upon the die roll. You can be always make perception checks. That does not mean you can perform an actual reaction which is a willful action.
The chance to react willfully if you make a check is not the same as your body functioning which leads to you hearing someone.
Just a little history - pinned was purposely changed for Pathfinder from 3.5 to make it a less lethal condition, allowing a pinned creature to escape the grapple on a successful check rather than just going back to a grappled status.
Considering that combined with the fact you could not coup de grace a pinned creature in 3.5, it goes against logic to think RAI when Pathfinder was developed was to make the condition easier to escape but more lethal.
The word "bound" is fluff text and not a defined game term. It has no description anywhere in the PRD. It's not a condition, it's not applied in a consistent manner when used in the beginning fluff part of descriptions, and it cannot be used to reverse-logic the helpless and pinned conditions together.
Pinned was never the same as helpless, but there is a workaround if you feel bad about nerfing your party's monk.
Book of Vile Darkness (stay with me here...) had rules for execution. One of the methods was beheading by an executioner's sword or axe, but the text said greatsword or great axe was suitable for the purpose. If the victim is bound, helpless, or pinned, you can make the DC 15 Profession (executioner) check. On success, victim dies. On a failure, you "only" perform a coup de grace. The text goes on to say that while failure often still results in death, it's a point of professional pride not to have such a "messy" execution.
So, contrary to the normal rules, that presented a path to CDG via pinning of questionable legitimacy (since it goes against the core rules). So...it's something.
And yeah, it's BoVD, but execution doesn't have to be evil, could just be lawful behavior if you're the appropriate authority to dispense justice, which in a dungeon or wilderness environment, you should be.
We really need to do that sometime...
Yeah,
A character with their arms and legs locked in a pin; Not Helpless
Slap a pair of manacles on them and they're helpless.
Yeah.
however...
helpless counts as prone (-4 ac), and 0 dex (-5 ac) total -9 acpinned also gives -4 ac and 0 dex for the same -9 ac.
also in game terms your pretty much unable to take any action other than attempting to break the pin.
Nope. Pinned does not reduce Dexterity to 0, it only denies Dexterity bonus to AC.
Helpless condition is effect of conditions that make character unable of taking physical actions (paralyzed, unconscious/sleeping, held).
Apparently there is an error in glossary as the pinned condition is described as "tightly bound" while it contradicts the way the pinned condition is acquired (i.e. more advanced stage of being grappled).
Yeah,
A character with their arms and legs locked in a pin; Not Helpless
Slap a pair of manacles on them and they're helpless.Yeah.
yea, that's why I think the operative text is actually the "or otherwise at their mercy" text, not a bright line test - so it's a GM's call on a case by case basis when it applies.