pinned creature cannot move and is denied its Dexterity bonus

[MrCharisma]

wraithstrike wrote:

I wasn't calling out death attacks specifically, but they should still work. You still skipped the dying condition. At no point were you every bleeding out.

Oh, it turns out I was misremembering the Dying condition. I though it just said "below zero hitpoints", but it actually says:

DYING (NEGATIVE HITPOINTS) wrote:

Source PRPG Core Rulebook pg. 189

If your hit point total is negative, but not equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you’re dying.
A dying character immediately falls unconscious and can take no actions.
A dying character loses 1 hit point every round. This continues until the character dies or becomes stable.

So I was totally wrong. My apologies.

[Scott Wilhelm]

wraithstrike wrote:

Scott, Pathfinder has specific definitions for things. Those overrule the normal usage. Nothing in the pathfinder version of having the dead condition says you can't act or take actions.

Sure, the specific definitions for things overrule normal usage, but that doesn't mean normal usage doesn't come into play. Would you cite for me the game-specific definition for the word "the"? If there isn't one, does that mean you disregard every use of the word "the?"

Well, the rules say when a character has the Dead Condition, the character is dead. And dead means dead. I concede that where Paizo specifically redefines the English Language word "dead," that definition trumps normal usage.

wraithstrike wrote:

If you have rules text that says dead people can't move or take actions then simply provide a quote from the book.

I have already cited abundant additional evidence within the rules as written where Paizo adequately defines "dead" to make it clear that per RAW, you can take no actions while Dead.

wraithstrike wrote:

IF you're going to say the rules for pinned didn't say "denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class" then you have to acknowledge the rules for dead didn't say "you are not allowed to move or take any actions"

This argument demonstrates a logical fallacy. The Dead example and the Pinned example are not equivalent nor parallel. The rules for Pinned say the Pinned Opponent is denied his Dex Bonus. That means something specific. Adding "to his Armor Class" changes the meaning.

wraithstrike wrote:

the burden of proof is on you to provide the reference.

Actually, the burden of proof is clearly on you to justify breaking the rules. The rules are clearly stated.

the rules for Pinned wrote:

A pinned creature cannot move and is denied its Dexterity bonus.

You are the ones who want to use suppositions about the intent of the rules to change the rules that are clearly stated. And I don't see how you have even begun to meet that burden of proof.

You brought up that the rules as written are the result of numerous errata updates, so clearly the rules as written represent comprehensive thinking and re-thinking.

Derklord found numerous--49 if I recall correctly--instances of creatures being denied Dex Mod to AC, and in each case, according to him, they specifically state "denied their dex mod to AC," and in this one case they didn't. That does not imply that they meant to and forgot more than it implies that this time they intended it to be not there.

People have tried to argue that there was a typesetting issue, which is an outrageously poor argument, but I weighed that argument anyway, demonstrating clearly that Paizo could have included the limitation "to AC" and take fewer characters--including spaces--to do so.

And even if you do demonstrate a RAW/RAI conflict, you have still not justified playing according to what they meant to say instead of what they did say. Paizo is staffed almost exclusively by professionals and grownups. We are not responsible for what they meant to say: they are responsible for what they did say. And what they did say was

the rules for Pinned wrote:

A pinned creature cannot move and is denied its Dexterity bonus.

[GM PDK]

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

And even if you do demonstrate a RAW/RAI conflict, you have still not justified playing according to what they meant to say instead of what they did say. Paizo is staffed almost exclusively by professionals and grownups. We are not responsible for what they meant to say: they are responsible for what they did say. And what they did say was

the rules for Pinned wrote:
A pinned creature cannot move and is denied its Dexterity bonus.

Bravo!

[MrCharisma]

MrCharisma wrote:

Honestly this question has been answered as thoroughly as it's going to be. 99% of people here seem to be in agreement, and those who aren't are not likely to be persuaded. I'm happy to call this thread done.

I know I'm replying to myself here, but this seems relevant again. I'm happy I was proven wrong, and that someone* DID change their mind, but it seems we've passed that point again and the argument has stagnated.

*Thanks bbangerter, regardless of which side you landed on it's nice to see someone actually listening to the other side of the argument for once. I try to be the voice of empathy in these discussions but even I have trouble with this more than I'd like to admit.