|
We had a few odd situations come up that I was hoping someone could shed light upon in regards to grappling. This is based on PFS, so I want rules to be based on RAW if possible?
1) A creature is grappled, then pinned, then "roped up" (effectively pinned by rope). Said creature was holding a wand it pulled when the grapple starts, and starts using it every round. Is this allowed?
2) Similarly, a much larger and stronger monster is pinned and then "roped up" in a different grapple. I am still holding onto him when he is pinned. The GM ruled that A) As an alternative to trying the impossible DC to escape the ropes (20 + my CMB, with nat 20s not working); said creature could "burst" the ropes somehow. It makes sense to some degree (though somewhat detracts from my future dreams to rope up the Tarrasque). But is there anything in raw that supports that you can do this type of action while pinned?
3) Further in #2 above, he ruled that I couldn't be holding the creature while the ropes were pinning them; therefore the creature was totally free. I agree with this to some extent (the best I could do might be to assist the ropes), but that made the monster completely free just by "busting the ropes". So it legal for me to maintain the "pinned" condition, doing damage and holding in case a monster somehow breaks free; or would this be against the rules of RAW?
I just wanted to see whether any of these were right; I didn't have anything I could think of to site to say either of these moves were illegal (and don't like arguing rules at the table), but would like to know the ruling for the future in case it comes up again.
|
|
Add to this list:
#4) I am a Tengu Monk with the unarmed/unarmed/unarmed/unarmed/claw/claw/bite combo. I want to use one of my much-less-damaging (and likely to hit) Claw attacks to do a trip attack. He said that I cannot substitue a trip attack for a secondary natural attack. Is this true? I do this a fair bit against enemies I am confident have lower CMBs.
|
1) A creature is grappled, then pinned, then "roped up" (effectively pinned by rope). Said creature was holding a wand it pulled when the grapple starts, and starts using it every round. Is this allowed?
Yes. A pinned creature can take verbal and mental actions, but cannot cast any spells that require a somatic or material component. The caveat to this is that if the spell on the wand requires an attack, it will fail.
2) Similarly, a much larger and stronger monster is pinned and then "roped up" in a different grapple. I am still holding onto him when he is pinned. The GM ruled that A) As an alternative to trying the impossible DC to escape the ropes (20 + my CMB, with nat 20s not working); said creature could "burst" the ropes somehow. It makes sense to some degree (though somewhat detracts from my future dreams to rope up the Tarrasque). But is there anything in raw that supports that you can do this type of action while pinned?
I agree that this is within RAW. A pinned creature can always attempt to free itself, usually through a combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check.Bursting the rope is a way to free itself, so I see this being legal. The break DC for a rope is 23. Usually, it is easier to do a combat maneuver or escape artist check, but for higher level games, a strength check may be easier.
3) Further in #2 above, he ruled that I couldn't be holding the creature while the ropes were pinning them; therefore the creature was totally free. I agree with this to some extent (the best I could do might be to assist the ropes), but that made the monster completely free just by "busting the ropes". So it legal for me to maintain the "pinned" condition, doing damage and holding in case a monster somehow breaks free; or would this be against the rules of RAW?
I disagree with your GM on this one, but there are no RAW rules on how to handle it. Therefore, the RAW is that it is his call.
My call would have been to allow you to continue to grapple with the ropes giving you a +2 'assist' bonus. You could continue doing damage using normal grapple rules, but if the opponent bursts the ropes (DC 25 now), then the pin and grapple are negated.
4) I am a Tengu Monk with the unarmed/unarmed/unarmed/unarmed/claw/claw/bite combo. I want to use one of my much-less-damaging (and likely to hit) Claw attacks to do a trip attack. He said that I cannot substitute a trip attack for a secondary natural attack. Is this true? I do this a fair bit against on the part about using trip enemies I am confident have lower CMBs.
Your GM was incorrect on the part about using trip. You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack. I know of no rule that disallows a secondary attack to be a trip attack.
I could be wrong on this one, but I do not believe you can attack with more than one type of Primary and one type of Secondary in a single round. In other words, you can use unarmed & claw or unarmed & bite or claw & bite but not unarmed & claw & bite. Someone else may need to correct me on this.
I just wanted to see whether any of these were right; I didn't have anything I could think of to site to say either of these moves were illegal (and don't like arguing rules at the table), but would like to know the ruling for the future in case it comes up again.
Regardless of what anyone says here, your GM is always right at his table. Even the best GM gets rules wrong at times. The thing to do is state your case and if he disagrees, continue with the game. Perhaps after the game, he may be open to discuss the calls further so that you might come to similar conclusions.
The main point is to have fun with the game, so don't sweat the small stuff.
|
|
Perfect; these were the exact answers I'm looking for. I guess I need to be more careful with roping off big creatures in the future, I just didn't want to risk failing to maintain pin and freeing said monster.
The only thing above: I have actually posted / verified that you can unarmed attack and natural attack in the same progression. Natural attacks don't actually take up hands, they can be with feet, nose, headbutts, etc. Any primaries (which the Tengu's attacks would be) turn into secondaries and suffer a -5 to hit (and half strength bonus to damage). It's the same as an orc with a Greatsword - bite. The wierd part is always "trip with the beak attack".
And for the record, we share a philosophy on this; heck, I was letting one GM attack the party with two claws after moving more than 5 feet because they were convinced it counted as 1 attack and couldn't be convinced otherwise this weekend :). In the end rules arguing is for off the table, not on the table... thus this thread.
|
1) When you are tied up you are helpless
A creature that is tied up is "bound" which means it has the Helpless condition. A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (–5 modifier). Melee attacks against a helpless target get a +4 bonus (equivalent to attacking a prone target). Ranged attacks get no special bonus against helpless targets. Rogues can sneak attack helpless targets.
to use a wand
To activate a wand, a character must hold it in hand (or whatever passes for a hand, for nonhumanoid creatures) and point it in the general direction of the target or area. A wand may be used while grappling or while swallowed whole.
so he could activate but couldn't point it in the general direction because he can't effectively move. So as a GM I probably wouldn't allow it depending on the effect.
2) Ropes can be burst with a strength check typically DC 22 - 25 depending on the quality of rope but the description of pinned limits the actions they can take and tied up calls out
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.
Which seems to indicate that you must use either some mental/verbal only means (like dimension door or teleport) or beat the DC of the check. I could be wrong on this but this may indicate you can't burst ropes if you are tied up. You can imagine being tied up in positions where you cannot effectively use your strength, though you might have to find some interesting sites for examples.
3)There is nothing in the rules saying you cannot continue to pin and do damage to the target and given the only condition he is given is helpless it makes it much easier to do so (Dex = 0). In effect they can't escape your pin until they escape the tied up, providing a more difficult ability to escape.
|
|
1) When you are tied up you are helpless
A creature that is tied up is "bound" which means it has the Helpless condition.
Hey Taenia.
Not all GMs will agree with you on this this. I certainly don't; and I believe my stance is correct per RAW.The pinned condition states what the effects are. Helpless is not included in those effects.
I am sure your proof will be that helpless states that a helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy. Some GMs, like myself, will say that a tied up/bound person is not completely at an opponent's mercy and therefore is not helpless.
There are degrees of being 'bound'. Hands, feet, hands and feet, being hog-tied, being wrapped up and suspended, etc). I would say that being completely immobile would then earn the target the helpless condition, but that is a GM call.
Also, note that the pinned condition states that a pinned target is denied its Dexterity bonus (ie Dexterity = 10) while the helpless condition states that a helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (–5 modifier). If a pinned creature was also helpless, these would have the same modifer (Dexterity of 0).
|
|
So, given that "bound" is one of the examples of helpless, what is your actual justification for bound creatures not being helpless. You say pinned creatures aren't helpless, but that really has nothing to do with whether or not bound creatures are helpless.
You read what you wanted to read. The justification is that target that is 'pinned' or 'tied up' is not completely at an opponent's mercy and therefore is not helpless.
Note the other examples: paralyzed, held, sleeping, and unconscious. All of these have an characteristic that the target cannot move or react to an attack. The target is completely at an opponent's mercy. Their Dexterity is 0 because they cannot react.
A 'tied up' target has a Dexterity of 10, the same as an average guy who is not 'tied up'. He is at a disadvantage since his AC is worse by 4, but he is not completely immobilized and can attempt to escape the bonds.
Also, your assertion that pinned creatures aren't helpless...really has nothing to do with whether or not bound creatures are helpless is untrue. Read the 'tie up' description in the combat section. The effect of being 'tied up' is the same as being 'pinned', except that the DC for escaping being 'tied up' is 20 + your Combat Maneuver Bonus instead of your CMD. If you assert that targets that are 'tied up' are helpless, then you would have to assert that targets that are 'pinned' are also helpless. That's just not correct.
Paizo obviously drew the line for being bound AND helpless to be something worse than simply being tied up. Otherwise, the effects of being tied up/pinned would have similar Dexterity effects. It would have been nice if instead of using the word 'bound' in the helpless description, Paizo would have given more detail as to what they meant.
|
|
First off I don't believe I said a creature that is pinned is helpless I said one that is tied up is.
As you have correctly quoted RAW the idea is that a bound target is helpless though you don't seem to agree with this.
Now for your assertion to be correct bound and tied up mean two different things.
This is possible, and I think the crux of our disagreement.
Pinned does not make you helpless but being bound does. As the description of helpess indicates.
I made the assumption that tied up = bound. I will check with some of the other PFS GMs in the area and see what they say. However, I think my reasoning is clear from the description of helpless, but I think you raise two good points, they should have used the word bound instead of tied up if that was their intention and that they should have listed helpless in that section if that was what they meant.
|
|
Taenia,
Let me ask you a few questions then.
The 'tie up' action is where an attacker uses a rope to give a target the 'pinned' condition...and a pinned target has an effective Dexterity of 10.
A target with the 'helpless' condition has a effective Dexterity of 0.
How do you think the Dexterity of 10 (pinned) and the Dexterity of 0 (helpless) are supposed to work together?
If the 'tie up' action should make the target helpless, why does it not mention 'helpless' or that the target's Dexterity should be 0?
|
|
As I have said the problem is whether tied up = bound. You have raised 2 good points that question whether that is accurate, first why it wasn't included in the Tie Up description and second why they used a different word.
However, as I mentioned before tie up and bound are synonymous so the question then become is tied up = bound, if so then I am right, if not you are.
Now I can see any number of situations where bound makes you helpless and since this is not in question I can see any number of real world situations where a person that is bound can have a equivalent Dex of 0.
Given that the game seems to regard keywords very carefully I plan on asking around about this because you have raised a very good question.
I also checked out the PFSRD and it says Tied up = bound. The PFSRD is not a legal source and did not provide one for this ruling. I think people maybe taking that source as legal when it may not be official, myself included.
Best way to get familiar with it is make a grappler.
Who grapples in a game with a 4 hour window? I hope you bring the flow charts...
I know I do!
1) The actions you can take while pinned are listed in the Pinned description and are inclusive. Activating a wand requires a verbal component, but you also must hold and point the wand, so it's not purely verbal.
2)as pointed out ropes have a burst DC of 23
3)I see no reason why you can't grapple or pin a bound creature.
4)There's no reason you can't make a trip attempt in place of a natural attack. Though, if you're a Monk, be aware of how natural attacks work with flurry.
The 'tie up' action is where an attacker uses a rope to give a target the 'pinned' condition...and a pinned target has an effective Dexterity of 10.
No, that's wrong on so many levels.
Losing your DEX bonus in no way changes your DEX to 10. What if a creature had a DEX lower than 10? Being pinned would actually help it!
Losing your DEX bonus does exactly that and no more.
It is entirely possible to have both the helpless condition and the pinned condition. In fact, one would think that a helpless creature should be easier to pin.
If the 'tie up' action should make the target helpless, why does it not mention 'helpless' or that the target's Dexterity should be 0?
A valid point, but if "tied up" != "bound", how does one go from "tied up" to "bound"? Another action to "bind" your opponent, perhaps? What's the DC to escape from "bound"?
Simpler to say "tied up" = "bound" and avoid those questions entirely.
|
|
Add to this list:
#4) I am a Tengu Monk with the unarmed/unarmed/unarmed/unarmed/claw/claw/bite combo. I want to use one of my much-less-damaging (and likely to hit) Claw attacks to do a trip attack. He said that I cannot substitue a trip attack for a secondary natural attack. Is this true? I do this a fair bit against enemies I am confident have lower CMBs.
This is not possible (at least as described).
You can't flurry and use natural attacks in the same attack sequence.
A monk with natural weapons cannot use such weapons as part of a flurry of blows, nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows attacks.
|
|
I'm not using "Flurry of Blows"; I'm actually using Two-weapon fighting (and improved) + Natural Attacks (my Monk Archtype gave up flurry of blows). For what it's worth I AM Flurry of Manuevering, but that doesn't have that restriction.
And yeah, I still get headaches on all of the CMB questions, and yes it is easier than 3.5. Add this one to the mix (not grapple, but trip related this time):
5 ) The character has Greater Trip and Vicious Stomp, and we are in pitch black. He successfully trips and rolls the 50-50 to hit. Does the creature who fell to the floor provoke two AOOs? The GM ruled that with total concealment NO AOOs are created, but the text of the feats does not seem to indicate.
I'm curious on this tied up vs bound rule; "helpless" is a big keyword (if you're helpless you certainly can't activate wands); I always assumed rope-pinned meant "pinned", meaning you're not helpless but denied your dex bonus (and -4 to your dex in case that actually makes your dex negative).