| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Looking at the tie-up rules:
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). The ropes do not need to make a check
every round to maintain the pin. If you are grappling the
target, you can attempt to tie him up in ropes, but doing
so requires a combat maneuver check at a –10 penalty. 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.
Is the rule saying that tie up requires a "pin" and essentially always gets the -10 penalty (one option), OR is it saying that a tie up done from a "pin" doesn't get the modifier, but a tie up done from a normal "grapple" does (two options)?
I wanted to leave the initial post free from conjecture and keep it as concise as possible for FAQ purposes. Unlike a lot of the rules that I questioned in my "Coming to Grips with Grappling" thread, this rule is fundamental to any grapple based character. Here are some of my thoughts on the matter:
I've always read the rule as you have two options: grappling from a pin is easier, but jumping straight to tie-up from a basic grapple can also be done, albeit at a -10 penalty to represent the difficulty of the task. This seems to be the popular opinion and is supported by the flow-chart referenced on PFSRD in the grapple section. That being said, a fan made flow chart isn't a ruling, even if the community helped make it. I've also come across internet blogs and a few posts on here that were under the impression that the one option version was correct.
Here are some relevant special rules/feats that bring the rule into question:
From the feat "Greater Whip Mastery", this seems to support the two options version.
Tie Up: While adjacent to your opponent, you can attempt to use your whip to tie him up. If you do so to an opponent you have grappled rather than pinned, you take only a –5 penalty on the combat maneuver check rather than the normal –10.
From the "Bekyar Kidnapper" archetype, we see a special ability that supports the one option version because the the two option version doesn't have a penalty from a pin:
Clean Capture (Ex): At 1st level, a Bekyar kidnapper reduces the penalty to her combat maneuver check to tie up a pinned or otherwise restrained target by an amount equal to 1/2 her rogue level. In addition, she can take the feats Improved Grapple and Greater Grapple as rogue talents. She can ignore the Improved Unarmed Strike requirement when selecting these feats as rogue talents, but must meet all other prerequisites. This ability replaces trapfinding.
There is also the "Order of the Penitent" ability, which when scrutinized, could go either way, but I'd say the wording supports the two option version:
Tie Up: While adjacent to your opponent, you can attempt to use your whip to tie him up. If you do so to an opponent you have grappled rather than pinned, you take only a –5 penalty on the combat maneuver check rather than the normal –10.
For completeness, there is also the Equipment Trick (rope): Hogtie
Hogtie (Improved Grapple): When you attempt to tie up an opponent you are grappling, your penalty is only –5 instead of the normal –10
It is saying you can do it using a pin with no penalty or you can do it from a grapple with a -10.
Also all of those options from the other books back this.
I do believe you're right wraithstrike, but after a recent game dispute I've read that rule over and over, and I'm starting to see the ambiguity that led to the disagreement. Of the abilities that I listed, the Bekyar Kidnapper concerns me the most. In the version you and I both support, going from a pin to a tie up incurs no penalty. The kidnapper ability reduces the penalty when going from a pin to a tie up. Something isn't adding up there.
|
Sometimes the authors can misunderstand the rules just like we can. It could also have been a typing error, in that they meant to say grappled in stead of pinned. In a home game I would assume they meant grappled instead of pinned to put it in line with similar abilities. In PFS I would interpret "otherwise restrained" to be grappling and provide the bonus, though by RAW i might be off.
Sometimes the authors can misunderstand the rules just like we can. It could also have been a typing error, in that they meant to say grappled in stead of pinned. In a home game I would assume they meant grappled instead of pinned to put it in line with similar abilities. In PFS I would interpret "otherwise restrained" to be grappling and provide the bonus, though by RAW i might be off.
I agree. In my other grapple thread there is an example of something getting an errata based on the rules writer writing with a 3.5 detail in mind.
That being said, the more I look at the rule here, the more the argument has some validity. In the two option version, it never says how the maneuver is done. It is assumed that the phrase "this works like a pin effect..." is referring to the maneuver check needed, but it may instead refer to the condition placed on the target once the tie up is in effect. If that is the case, then the "editors comment" on PFSRD is also incorrect, a tied up target does not get the helpless condition but instead has a more persistent type of pin condition.
The thing that makes the opposing view difficult to believe is the way it's phrased: "If you are grappling the target, you can attempt to tie him up in ropes, but doing so...". If the one option rule is right, the "grappling the target" part is either redundant (if the target is pinned of course he is grappled) or just wrong (if you view pinned as a separate condition than grappled).
I think the two option ruling makes more sense, but it would be great to get some of these nebulous rules cleared up. Grappling, along with politics, religion, stealth, and mounted combat, is still a surefire way to get into a rules debate in PFS. Rather than just shelf the rules for it I'd really like to nail them down.
FAQ'd. I always read that passage as basically always requiring the -10 unless the target was otherwise restrained, such as if the target was paralyzed or if another creature also had the target pinned. But I've never been really sure of either interpretation.
Well, since grappled and pinned are two separate conditions with different penalties (glossary here, but the word tags aren't working), and since the original Tie Up wording about the penalty only refers to grappled condition, I don't see how to read that section and get interpretation number 1.
My reading is that the Bedayar Kidnapper ability is the poorly worded one, especially since it's vague about the penalties and it's the one that's different from all the others.
(The tie up has other issues in the wording, such as not being clear what kind of action it takes, how you tie up a creature while your hands are busy holding the creature down, etc.)
Well, since grappled and pinned are two separate conditions with different penalties (glossary here, but the word tags aren't working), and since the original Tie Up wording about the penalty only refers to grappled condition, I don't see how to read that section and get interpretation number 1.
My reading is that the Bedayar Kidnapper ability is the poorly worded one, especially since it's vague about the penalties and it's the one that's different from all the others.
(The tie up has other issues in the wording, such as not being clear what kind of action it takes, how you tie up a creature while your hands are busy holding the creature down, etc.)
I agree Gwen, but there is the slight bit of ambiguity in the sense that grapple and pinned are separate conditions that don't stack, but at the same time "pinned is a more severe version of grappled", so it could be seen as "grappling the target" I suppose. Also, to get really nit-picky, the controlling grappler could be seen as "grappling" the target despite the grappled creatures condition (he is after all doing "grapple checks" to do any of this stuff).
As I've said before, I read it as the two option version, but there are enough people out there that don't that this is worth questioning.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The new CMB/CMD rules in PF were supposed to make grappling much easier than 3.5 which required a flowchart. I agree with Gwen that the wording for the various additional rules that build off of the grapple rules are most likely due to the author misunderstanding how grapple works.
My interpretation:
A. Grapple
1. Move
2. Damage
3. Pin
- 3a. Tie-up
I believe the problem lies in the wording found here:
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 you are grappling the target, you can attempt to tie him up in ropes, but doing so requires a combat maneuver check at a –10 penalty.
I interpret this to mean that if you are the one grappling with the target and attempt to use the tie-up subset of the grapple manuever you take the -10 penalty. Whereas, another player could make the attempt to tie up the target you are grappling without a penalty. I prefer this meaning due to the fact you have to successfully make the tie-up check while still maintaining the pinned condition due to holding and tying at same time.
Or does it mean you can attempt to tie up a creature that you have in the grappled condition? I shy away from this version due to the fact it does not state "grappled condition", but clearly lists the conditions at the beginning required to attempt and also not being penalized for trying to tie-up and grapple at the same time.
So it comes down to which interpretation you favor:
Option A 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). The ropes do not need to make a check every round to maintain the pin. If you are grappling pinning the target, you can attempt to tie him up in ropes, but doing so requires a combat maneuver check at a –10 penalty. Another creature may attempt to tie-up the target without the -10 penalty. 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.
Expert Captor (Ex): At 2nd level, as long as he has rope, the cavalier can tie up a grappled opponent, even if the opponent is not pinned, otherwise restrained, or unconscious, and he does not take the usual –10 penalty on his combat maneuver check to do so. When determining the DC to escape bonds secured by the cavalier, the cavalier’s Combat Maneuver Bonus increases by 1/2 his cavalier level.
Bolded by me. Supports Option A. Specifically rules out the need for a pin. And removes of the penalty for attempting as a separate clause. Where did you get the ability you listed?
Option B 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). The ropes do not need to make a check every round to maintain the pin. If you are grappling the target, you can attempt to tie him up in ropes,You may attempt to tie-up a target with rope, while the target is grappled and not pinned, but doing so requires a combat maneuver check at a –10 penalty. 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.
As for Gwen's uncertainty about the checks needed.
Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and also allows you to perform one of the following actions (as part of the standard action spent to maintain the grapple).
Proceeds to list: move, damage, pin, and tie-up. So you need to make a CMB check to tie-up the creature and the resulting DC to escape is 20 + CMB of creature who made the tie-up check. Not 20 + CMB check result.
And as for the question of how the grappled and pinned conditions work, look at these two FAQs. The first covers Dex and grapple, full attacks while grappled, and the pin effect and the second covers grapple/pin conditions stacking and the number of checks to escape grappled/pinned. They do not stack. And one success to escape the pin.
Thanks Tom. That's a well thought out response. In my hurry to get everything up I did make a few errors. I must have pasted the greater whip mastery description in for the knights of the penitent description with all of the references open. Additionally, the rope tricks are in the PFS Field Guide pg 49.
Hogtie (Improved Grapple): When you attempt to tie up an opponent you are grappling, your penalty is only –5 instead of the normal –10.
It uses the same language as the original rule "tie up an opponent you are grappling", so if you favor this meaning "tie up an opponent that has the grappled condition" then it supports option B. On the other hand, if grappling simply means something you are applying grapple checks to, then it doesn't mean anything for either option.
One thing is for sure: if option A is correct, then the Expert Captor ability goes from being a pretty good efficiency dip for a grappler to an absolute necessity for anyone focused on tie-ups.
Bump. I'm still hoping for some clarification on this.