The game makes no distinction between levels of tied up. By RAW manacles render you helpless till you can escape from them.
Did somebody say they wanted to be tied up?
|
You just quoted it in your last post.
Incapable of moving AND effectively immobile.
If you try to tell me "I don't need to be mobile/able to move to attack" I will internet slap you.
You can try to internet slap me if wish.
Characters don't need to move any distance or take a move action to attack by rule when last I checked.
If there is a rule I missed please link it for me.
There is a distinction between actual game terms and flavor text IMO.
You just quoted it in your last post.
Incapable of moving AND effectively immobile.
If you try to tell me "I don't need to be mobile/able to move to attack" I will internet slap you.
You can try to internet slap me if wish.
Characters don't need to move any distance or take a move action to attack by rule when last I checked.
If there is a rule I missed please link it for me.
There is a distinction between actual game terms and flavor text IMO.
Thankfully, "immobile" is not defined in game terms, so it defaults to the normal definition.
You can't move. Attacking requires movement. Therefore, you cannot attack.
The few times the word "immobilized" is used, that I can find, uses it in conjunction with conditions like "Unconscious" ("unconscious or otherwise immobilize" being the exact wording in the Combat section), which doesn't help your case much.
|
|
Exactly. Immobile is not defined in game terms. It's normal definition does not prevent a character from attacking by rule.
A character can't move any distance.
Fortunately attacking doesn't require a character to move if a target is in a adjacent square.
To illustrate the contrast- Condition: Dying and Condition: Paralyzed state that my character is unable to act.
Basically under the context of the OP's original question I am trying to sell Pinned/Tied Up = Helpless.
To help sell that I am trying to state that IMO Condition: Helpless is not that "helpless" using RAW.
Except its normal definition does, in fact, prevent you from attacking.
"Moving" is more than just movement. If it had meant "The character cannot move any distance" or "Cannot move from its square" or "Cannot take Move actions or 5 foot steps" it would have said so. It uses those and similar descriptions for other things.
But, no. It says "Immobilized". And does not define Immobilized. Just like the game doesn't define many other words because a passing grasp of English is required to play the game.
If the term is not defined, it defaults to the real definition.
"im·mo·bi·lize
transitive verb \i-ˈmō-bə-ˌlīz\
: to keep (something or someone) from moving or working : to make (something or someone) immobile
Full Definition of IMMOBILIZE
: to make immobile: as
a : to prevent freedom of movement or effective use of <the planes were immobilized by bad weather>
b : to reduce or eliminate motion of (the body or a part) by mechanical means or by strict bed rest "
Synonyms:
"cripple, disable, hamstring, paralyze, incapacitate, prostrate"
Enhance:
"paralyze"
Look, a term that IS defined in game.
"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, but can take purely mental actions. A winged creature flying in the air at the time that it becomes paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A paralyzed swimmer can't swim and may drown. A creature can move through a space occupied by a paralyzed creature—ally or not. Each square occupied by a paralyzed creature, however, counts as 2 squares to move through."
Case closed.
|
|
Case far from closed. Saying such indicates to me that you are frustrated. I don't wish to frustrate you.
You quoted many of your opinions. I have no interest in linking/debating dictionary terms.
I am only interested in definable game terms.
Being unable to move and being unable to act are two different things.
Game term Paralyzed in no way defines that a character must move to attack.
Please show me where "If the term is not defined, it defaults to the real definition." I have not seen that written anywhere. How would that be applied consistently in your opinion if that were the case?
Again, I am not trying to frustrate you or anyone else for that matter.
Please show me where "If the term is not defined, it defaults to the real definition." I have not seen that written anywhere.
The bolded part made me crack up in insane laughter. It so spectacularly sidesteps the point. It's pretty brilliant really.
No, it's not written anywhere. It's just literally the only way this game can function.
Show me where there's a dictionary attached to the back of every book that defines every word used in one of the books in game terms. Please.
No?
Well, that must mean that the ones not defined in some way different from the real words must function as the real words. Else the rulebooks would be meaningless gobbledegook with the occasional game term thrown in.
And not all words used are defined. Not by a long shot.
SKR himself has said it multiple times, but I'm not willing to put in the work to try and search for one of them to prove to someone that the word Immobilized really, truly does mean "Immobilized".
Just to clarify for people, manacles are essentially handcuffs.
How many people think that handcuffs render a person helpless? If so, I could probably find dozens of people with handcuffs on their wrists running away, attacking, etc. Doesn't look very helpless to me. Restricted certainly. Helpless, no way.
|
|
Let me try to put this a different way.
Show me where there's a dictionary attached to the back of every book that defines every word used in one of the books in game terms. Please.
We don't need to. The rules function just fine without throwing the dictionary at each other.
Well, that must mean that the ones not defined in some way different from the real words must function as the real words. Else the rulebooks would be meaningless gobbledegook with the occasional game term thrown in.
That is your opinion. All you and I need is a basic understanding of rules functionality. The rules system can't cover every situation.
The non-defined text can help, but when I am the GM, undefined game terms don't necessarily override defined game terms. This is what I am trying to stress with Manacles = Helpless. Defining "Immoblize" is GM fiat.SKR himself has said it multiple times, but I'm not willing to put in the work to try and search for one of them to prove to someone that the word Immobilized really, truly does mean "Immobilized".
SKR and the design team have said a bunch of things....here I'll do the work....
English is a very fluid language.In some ways that is helpful because it allows us to express a rule in a natural way in one sentence and in another natural way in another sentence. For example, we can say "if the creature fails its save, it gains the blinded condition," or "this spell blinds the target if it fails its save." Even though "blinds" isn't a condition, you know what that second statement means because you understand that "blindness" and "blind" mean the same thing in the real world and you know that "blindness" and "blind" aren't two different game terms.
However, not all game terms have equivalents in the real world, and it leads people to try to parse specific meaning out of game terms that are used one way in one sentence and another way in another sentence. Furthermore, given that we inherited the 3.5 game rules, have added or subtracted terminology from those rules, and have writers and editors who have worked on 3.5 and the Pathfinder RPG, sometimes natural writing means we end up with two phrases that seem very similar but could be interpreted as meaning the same thing or different things.
In the context of Manacles = Pinned = Helpless...
Manacles used the word bind, Pinned/Helpless uses the word bound. I have never understood the issue people have with this. I think you and I are on the same page about this please let me know if we are not.The problem with the topic on the thread is that people are not agreeing on bind, and bind is not defined in game terms.
For you and I specifically- I do not agree with your position on what immobile means in game terms.
Simply put, in a PFS game that I GM a Helpless creature can fight back more effectively than another GM's PFS game perhaps. This is a example of table variance I guess. If the design team defines a previously undefined term so be it. If my event organizer/Venture Captain overrules me so be it. As I previously stated it is and should be GM fiat. Some call it Rule Zero.
This is no way an attack on your thoughts I simply don't agree that Helpless is as "helpless" as people make it out to be.
|
|
Just to clarify for people, manacles are essentially handcuffs.
How many people think that handcuffs render a person helpless? If so, I could probably find dozens of people with handcuffs on their wrists running away, attacking, etc. Doesn't look very helpless to me. Restricted certainly. Helpless, no way.
*Raises hand*
I do. I do.So if they don't then simply answer the OP's question.
What do manacles do then?
Well a quick search I found this:
Fetters: Fetters are manacles fitted around the ankles rather than the wrists, and use the same rules for breaking, escape, and cost relative to size. A creature in fetters is entangled and can only move at half speed. In addition, a fettered creature must succeed at a DC 15 Acrobatics check to move more than its (reduced) speed in a round. If it fails the check by 5 or more, the creature falls prone.
So that takes care of foot manacles.
In regards to real life exmaples just youtube some stuff. You can find all sorts of handcuffed people doing plenty of things that don't look very helpless.
Then there is also this thread.
Which points out the existence of this item:
Manacle Barbs: Barbs added to these manacles wound a captive who does more than move slowly and with care. A creature secured in barbed manacles takes 1 point of piercing damage if it takes more than a single move action during a round. Rough movement of any kind, such as being struck in combat or falling prone, likewise causes 1 point of damage. Attempting to break out of barbed manacles with a Strength check deals 1d4 points of piercing damage to the captive regardless of the success of the attempt.
Which would imply a manacled character can take at least two move actions in a round normally. Or possibly a move and a standard action. It's not particularly clear.
Just because the rules on something aren't very clear doesn't mean you should go to an extreme conclusion that manacles make you helpless. The information provided here allows us to know that they can at least take move actions, and if they can move they're not helpless.
|
|
In regards to real life exmaples just youtube some stuff. You can find all sorts of handcuffed people doing plenty of things that don't look very helpless.
Manacles don't specify the hands. So your handcuff analogy for manacles is your opinion. That is fine for you.
For me "real life" situations are about as useless as undefined game terms. There are any number of "real life" things that people can claim supporting both positions on this. As SKR commented, not all game terms have equivalents in the real world.The rules are a simulation, not a blow by blow specific situation account of what is happening. I feel you can satisfy the Helpless condition in a number of ways. I am saying Helpless creatures can still fight back better than what is commonly accepted using just RAW wording.
Just because the rules on something aren't very clear doesn't mean you should go to an extreme conclusion that manacles make you helpless. The information provided here allows us to know that they can at least take move actions, and if they can move they're not helpless.
I am saying the Helpless condition is not that extreme. So I don't see the problem.
You are making the distinction that move action and moving a distance with a character are the same thing. They are not.A character can use a move action to retrieve an item or make a Perception check without moving any distance on that turn. In fact if they do so, all the character can do is take a standard action to finish their turn.
Unless a character is Unconscious or Paralyzed I see no defined game term that states a creature cannot fight back while still satisfying the helpless condition provided it is armed or has an attack form that is not barred by defined game terms.
So again I am selling Manacles = Helpless.
Helpless in not that extreme. A character can still fight back with hefty penalties.
We don't need to. The rules function just fine without throwing the dictionary at each other.
They do not, however, function if you don't understand the majority of words in there.
Where does that understanding come from, when it is not defined in teh rulebooks?
That is your opinion... Defining "Immoblize" is GM fiat.
If the new definition of "GM Fiat" is "Using your head and knowing the meaning of a word", then sure.
SKR and the design team have said a bunch of things....here I'll do the work....
English is a very fluid language.In some ways that is helpful because it allows us to express a rule in a natural way in one sentence and in another natural way in another sentence. For example, we can say "if the creature fails its save, it gains the blinded condition," or "this spell blinds the target if it fails its save." Even though "blinds" isn't a condition, you know what that second statement means because you understand that "blindness" and "blind" mean the same thing in the real world and you know that "blindness" and "blind" aren't two different game terms.
However, not all game terms have equivalents in the real world, and it leads people to try to parse specific meaning out of game terms that are used one way in one sentence and another way in another sentence. Furthermore, given that we inherited the 3.5 game rules, have added or subtracted terminology from those rules, and have writers and editors who have worked on 3.5 and the Pathfinder RPG, sometimes natural writing means we end up with two phrases that seem very similar but could be interpreted as meaning the same thing or different things.
It's almost like he's saying exactly what I'm saying.
Imagine that.
For you and I specifically- I do not agree with your position on what immobile means in game terms.
Unless you have some alternative, somewhere, backed up by ANYTHING, your disagreement is noted, but not particularly relevant. Immobilized has a meaning. This meaning is not contradicted by a specific game term.
That leads us to believe that "Immobilized" carries the exact same meaning as it does in real life. To do otherwise is just being willfully obtuse.
|
|
@Rynjin
We are both using almost the exact same words to support our positions. I claim SKR's comments support my position. You are focusing on the first statement I am focusing on the second.
I don't need to accept homespun "knowing the meaning of word" comments because the defined terms are clear. No arguing undefined terms will make any difference.
I note your disagreement but it isn't particular relevant to my position either.
The meaning of immobilized couldn't matter less. It's dictionary meaning (of which it has many) does not necessarily override a characters ability to fight back. You can either see that or you cannot.
There is nothing obtuse about executing a characters rights.
I am selling a characters ability to fight back while still satisfying the actual condition. Helpless is a defined game term. It has defined affects. Immobilized does not.
Since you are so fond of dictionary definitions-
If a character is helpless why does it still have defenses? It still has an Armor Class it still has Saving Throws and many other defensive special abilities that it may have.
The dictionary definition of helpless includes wording like unable to defend, unprotected and not able to control. That would lead us to believe it shouldn't have those benefits at all.
But wait! A character does have those benefits because it is defined by the game system and does not contain wording that is similar to the dictionary definition.
Shall we continue to dance?
Since you are so fond of dictionary definitions-
If a character is helpless why does it still have defenses? It still has an Armor Class it still has Saving Throws and many other defensive special abilities that it may have.
The dictionary definition of helpless includes wording like unable to defend, unprotected and not able to control. That would lead us to believe it shouldn't have those benefits at all.
But wait! A character does have those benefits because it is defined by the game system and does not contain wording that is similar to the dictionary definition.
You're so close to understanding...yet so far.
Helpless has an in-game definition. The definition of the Helpless condition contradicts the dictionary definition. If it did not, then it would do a whole lot more. But it doesn't, because it was defined differently.
Immobilized has not been. Because they did not change the meaning. If they did not change the meaning, then the meaning is the same. The meaning is what I have already posted.
This is as simple as it gets.
Shall we continue to dance?
Maybe when you get over your two left feet, mine are smarting from all your missteps.
|
|
You're so close to understanding...yet so far.
That is your opinion. You have a hang up on undefined game terms as RAW evidence I guess. It's pretty simple to see really IMO.
My hope is that through this your level of PF system mastery will be elevated near mine.But I can only hope.
Now moving on....I would like to continue with one of the OP's questions.
What do manacles do if they don't make a character helpless?
I say they satisfy Pinned/Helpless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This has come up a bunch... and the best way to look at the rules for helpless is to simply apply helpless when the condition tells you to.
Note that although Pinned says "Bound" it also has a specific adjustment to the target's dexterity. Helpless means that you have dexterity 0. There would be no reason to write the dexterity change into Pinned if it was just going to equal helpless.
Every other instance of a condition leading to an opponent being helpless is called out specifically within that condition or spell (sleep, paralysis, unconsciousness etc.). Nowhere under pinned does it say that the target is unable to defend themselves, helpless or completely at your mercy. The difference between grappled and pinned are laid out very clearly. Tie Up "works like a pin effect" so that option will only be equal to helpless if Pinned is equal to helpless.
I find it ABSURDLY suspect to interpret the rules in such a way that a character can make essentially any target in the game Helpless in a single round with two feats and two checks with no rolls by the defender possible.
Further, Pinned is described as a more severe version of grappled which also does not make a target helpless. It is more severe in that the dex/AC penalties are wrose and the targets actions are further restricted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd prefer to think of it as a start of a good night.
I just decided to ignore Mr. Dallas. He has stated a position and it appears no amount of argument will sway him. That's why I gave up and quit addressing him.
In any event, I wholly agree with your Lord Malkov and we seem to be saying the same thing, making several of the same sort of arguments. Really, the big problem is a helpless character can be coup-de-grace'd.
|
While being pinned makes you helpless is definitely the extreme, we started talking about being tied up, which is somewhat different. Though I would appreciate it if people's pride weren't a part of the conversation. It's not about who's right, but rather whats right (And forgive me if I seem prideful at any moment... I try not to).
People seem to be generally against the helpless condition when tied up. Is it just because of the coup de grah chance? Would this make grappling over powered?
While being pinned makes you helpless is definitely the extreme, we started talking about being tied up, which is somewhat different. Though I would appreciate it if people's pride weren't a part of the conversation. It's not about who's right, but rather whats right (And forgive me if I seem prideful at any moment... I try not to).
People seem to be generally against the helpless condition when tied up. Is it just because of the coup de grah chance? Would this make grappling over powered?
Well since tied up is equal to pinned, then pinned would also render helpless (if that was really the case) which would allow a grappler with the appropriate feats to pin someone in a single round and then their friend comes up next to you with a scythe (and it's 4x crit modifier) and a big strength score and coup-de-graces them and kills them in a single attack. So yes. It would be a big problem.
Helpless is a specific condition. So is pinned. They are not equivalent.