Does being pinned give you the -5 Dex score?

[Stalker0]

I think the -4 to AC for being pinned is similar to the prone condition. The -5 is caused from being immobilized.

 

[FEADIN]

I think you can keep quiet a pinned ennemy because you are strangling him, not because you put your hand on his mouth (beware the bite!!!), it's easier to catch the throat than keep a mouth closed.
In this case even a dragon cannot breath out.....
I'm a Judoka and I often strangle people during fights.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think you can keep quiet a pinned ennemy because you are strangling him, not because you put your hand on his mouth (beware the bite!!!), it's easier to catch the throat than keep a mouth closed.
In this case even a dragon cannot breath out.....
I'm a Judoka and I often strangle people during fights.

People yes.

Monsters like Dragons with high Natural Armor? It's like choking a rock.

 

[RigaMortus2]

People yes.

Monsters like Dragons with high Natural Armor? It's like choking a rock.

What if you can smell what the rock is cooking?

 

[Hypersmurf]

On the other hand, this is also a dichotomy in the rules. If you are pinned, your Dex goes to zero, but you are not helpless. If your Dex goes to zero, you are paralyzed and helpless (according to the DMG).

Well, it's a footnote to the table of AC modifiers. 'Treat the pinned character's Dexterity as 0 (-5 modifier)' could have an implicit 'for the purpose of AC modifiers' attached, given its location.

Thus no effect on Reflex saves, Escape Artist checks, or whether or not someone is paralyzed.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

Well, it's a footnote to the table of AC modifiers. 'Treat the pinned character's Dexterity as 0 (-5 modifier)' could have an implicit 'for the purpose of AC modifiers' attached, given its location.

Thus no effect on Reflex saves, Escape Artist checks, or whether or not someone is paralyzed.

Implicit rules? From Hyp?

 

[ruleslawyer]

So here's the question:

This means that you aren't denied your Dex bonus to AC when pinned? So no sneak attacks?

 

[Infiniti2000]

Implicit rules? From Hyp?

Actually, it's not implicit, it's explicit. It's on the Armor Class Modifiers table and says, "Treat the defender’s Dexterity as 0 (-5 modifier)." How is this not explicitly, and only, for the Armor Class modifier? I fail to see how this can even be extrapolated to reflex saves or anything else.

This means that you aren't denied your Dex bonus to AC when pinned? So no sneak attacks?

The rest of the footnote reads: "Rogues can sneak attack helpless or pinned defenders."

 

[baudbard]

Please pardon me replying to a side note in this thread, but I feel I have to comment. Steve Irwin (croc hunter) or any croc handler is able to hold a crocs mouth closed because the muscles that open those long jaws are much, much weaker than the muscles that close those jaws with crushing force. Also, the length of the jaw itself gives leverage to the individual attempting to hold those jaws closed. Try opening salad tongs when someone is holding the far end closed and you'll get a clear picture.

anywho.... carry on

 

[KarinsDad]

Actually, it's not implicit, it's explicit. It's on the Armor Class Modifiers table and says, "Treat the defender’s Dexterity as 0 (-5 modifier)." How is this not explicitly, and only, for the Armor Class modifier? I fail to see how this can even be extrapolated to reflex saves or anything else.

If someone is pinned, how exactly do they get their Dex for Reflex saves? How do they avoid anything if they cannot move?

One DM might think that "Treat the defender’s Dexterity as 0 (-5 modifier)." to mean that Reflex saves are lowered as well. Another might not.

The reason you gave for not thinking that way is because it is a note on the AC Modifiers Table. Another DM might not think treating a Dex as 0 is limited to that.


That's why it is implicit. Whether your "Dex of zero" is only for AC is not explicitly called out in a rule (i.e. within the text of Pinned for example). You interpret your way. Another DM interprets his way. That's implicit, not explicit. You are basing your interpretation solely on where you find the rule.


Another example: If you are pinned and immobile, what is your Speed? Is it zero? Or is it merely "treated as" zero? Are you prevented from taking a 5 foot step, even though you are pinned?


Another example: If you are pinned, what are you pinned against? A wall? The floor? Nothing? Are you held motionless in midair?


The rules here are FAR from explicit.

In fact, they are pretty vague.


Note: You stated that your reason is explicit. Hyp stated that the exact same reason was implicit. The rules here are so vague that people cannot even agree if a given rule is explicit or implicit.