Chain of Grapples

Yesterday, my group faced an unusual (but legitimate - at least I believe so) circumstance.

Basically, one of the characters (the Fighter) was hit and grabbed by an advanced Large Crab and subjected by his Constrict damage (on top of being grappled).
On the Monk’s turn, he decided to try to grapple the Large Crab – and succeeded.

Now I was facing a situation where the rules are silent about. It's true that the rules say that "Multiple creatures can also assist another creature in breaking free from a grapple, with each creature that assists (using the Aid Another action) granting a +2 bonus on the grappled creature’s combat maneuver check.", but this was not exactly the same case - the Monk didn't want to help the Fighter escaping the grapple, he was actively trying to grapple (and subsequently damaging or pinning) the Crab by himself, since he had a fair chance of succeeding (as effectively happened).
I decided that, since the Crab was not holding the Fighter only with the Claw attack (the rule that says ‘it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself’ rule) but was effectively conducting the grapple normally, the new condition of being grappled didn’t allow it to continue holding the Fighter, thus effectively allowing the Monk to free his comrade, while grappling the Crab himself.

Is this a legitimate interpretation of the rules? I figured this situation akin to that of ‘Mr. A is trying to strangle Mr. B , but suddenly Mr. C comes out and makes a full nelson to Mr. A, freeing Mr. B in the process.’ Would you have done the same?

What if the Crab was instead ‘holding’ the Fighter with his claw (effectively taking –20 to his Grapple check and not being considered Grappled himself) ? In that kind of situation I would have allowed the Crab to try continuing grappling the Fighter (albeit at –20 and with the –2 to his CMB for being grappled too). What do you think about this ?

I would also like to hear the answer to this. Any thoughts?

I don't see anything that would preclude the crab from maintaining the grapple with the fighter while suffering only from the grappled contidion.

If the monk pins the crab (this is more equivelent to the full nelson then simple the grappled condition) then the crab would not be able to maintain the fighter on his turn as that would not be an allowed action while pinned. The fighter would lose the grappled condition at the point in which the crab fails to maintain the grapple (presumably at the point in which the grab takes his standard action.)

An easier way to look at this might to be consider your monk A, the crab B, and the fighter C.

B grabs C on B's turn.
C fails to break free on C's turn.
A grabs B on A's turn.

What can B do on his turn?
He can 1) escape the grapple with A; 2) reverse the grapple with A; 3) take any action that requires only one hand.

If B decided to take action 3, to maintain grapple character C.
B gains +5 on a CMB check to maintain the grapple. If B is humanoid he takes a -4 to his grapple check for only have 1 hand free.
But he can still attempt to maintain the grapple with C.

If A were to pin B. Then B could only 1) escape the grapple with A; 2) take mentel or verbal actions. Neither option would allow B to maintain the grapple with C.

I agree with Maizer more or less.

It should be pointed out that the Grappled condition's -2 penalty to attacks/combat maneuvers explicitly DOESN'T apply to grapple attempts/ attempts to escape (which are the same Grapple CMB roll),
regardless of WHO those unpenalized grapples attempts are attempted against.

Re: the -20 penalty for not being able to use both hands (which essentially means TWO hands): I believe the issue isn't so much whether the creature is "Humanoid" or not, but the number of limbs it has to bear - I would not count certain extra attacks (like a Gore attack, or Slam) towards having "two hands free", but a creature with 4 arms, or even other attacks (ESPECIALLY if they include Grab Attacks, i.e. a Tail Grab) may well not suffer the -20 penalty even if one of their limbs is "busy" being Grappled by an opponent. The point of being "Grappled" yourself is that unless you choose to use a STANDARD Action vs. your "Grappler", you basically have one LESS "hand" to do things with.

What I'm not 100% sure about is how Grab and Grapple to Reverse/Escape work together.
The wording on Grab and Grapple itself (re: reversing/ escaping) don't directly suggest that Reversing/Escaping a Grapple is an option when using Grab, but assuming the Crab uses it's Grab Attack vs. it's Grappler (the Monk), it seems that NOT allowing this would be more problematic because the Monk would end up simultaneously Grappling/"controlling" the Crab while BEING Grappled/"controlled" BY the Crab.

Assuming Grab Attacks CAN be used to Reverse/Escape Grapples,
If we gave our Crab one more limb (meaning it has two "hands" free while being Grappled by the Monk) it could then Full/Multi-Attack with it's Claws + Grab against the Monk (to Escape/Reverse) AND the Fighter (to Pin, at +5).

But basically if you forsee being involved in multi-way grapples, you either need more than 2 "hands" for Grappling, or Greater Grapple to Maintain as a Move Action. In this case with Fighter/Monk/Giant Crab, it seems like a great tactic to either get the Crab to drop his friend, or have a minimal chance of pinning him the next round (and be one step away from being pinned itself if it chooses this route).

I agree with Maizer more or less.

Re: the -20 penalty for not being able to use both hands (which essentially means TWO hands): I believe the issue isn't so much whether the creature is "Humanoid" or not, but the number of limbs it has to bear - I would not count certain extra attacks (like a Gore attack, or Slam) towards having "two hands free", but a creature with 4 arms, or even other attacks (ESPECIALLY if they include Grab Attacks, i.e. a Tail Grab) may well not suffer the -20 penalty even if one of their limbs is "busy" being Grappled by an opponent. The point of being "Grappled" yourself is that unless you choose to use a STANDARD Action vs. your "Grappler", you basically have one LESS "hand" to do things with.

The -20 penalty and the -4 penalty are for not having both hands free are different objects. PFRPG p200

Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll.

I think the rules pretty clearly mean to limit this to humanoid only. But I wouldn't object too broadly either in applying to anything with hand like appendages. If a Xorn is trying to hold an object with one claw and fend off a grappler with the other two I could see applying the -4 penalty. I'd take this on an instance by instance basis.

The -20 penalty works only with the Grab extraordinary ability regardless of the creature type. I would be very hesitent to allow any creature to maintain multiple grapples without the -20 penalty applied to each and every one. It would make creatures with tentacles vastly more dangerous. And I fear the Grell and the new Froghemoth enough as it is.

An easier way to look at this might to be consider your monk A, the crab B, and the fighter C.

B grabs C on B's turn.
C fails to break free on C's turn.
A grabs B on A's turn.

What can B do on his turn?
He can 1) escape the grapple with A; 2) reverse the grapple with A; 3) take any action that requires only one hand.

If B decided to take action 3, to maintain grapple character C.
B gains +5 on a CMB check to maintain the grapple. If B is humanoid he takes a -4 to his grapple check for only have 1 hand free.
But he can still attempt to maintain the grapple with C.

If A were to pin B. Then B could only 1) escape the grapple with A; 2) take mentel or verbal actions. Neither option would allow B to maintain the grapple with C.

You know, this effectively makes sense. I forgot about the 'take any action that requires only one hand', which is different from 'standard attacks only'. I would have given to B the -4 penalty to the grapple check against C, however (since it was being grappled by A).

Thanks for your feedback, all of you !

I'm having a "similar" issue, if you'd like to take a look. You'll notice a reply that implies that only TWO people can be in a grapple at once. So your monk would not be allowed to grapple the crab. I'm not saying I agree with this, but I'd invite you to have a look at the situation I'm faced with: http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/grabAndMultipleGrapplers&page=1#0

...You'll notice a reply that implies that only TWO people can be in a grapple at once. So your monk would not be allowed to grapple the crab...

That is not quite true. This example is quite different than the ony discussed in the other thread. mainly since it involves the constrict ability.

As for The Wraiths situation, this is my interpretation:
The monk CAN in fact attempt to grapple the crab.
The monk can do this in two separate ways:
1 - The monk can assist the fighter. Making an aid another check against CMD 10. The fighter then gets a +2 bonus to his/her own grapple check to break free.
2 - The monk can initiate his/her own grapple.
a - If the attempt fails nothing else happens.
b - If the monk's grapple succeeds the crab is grappled.

When the crab is grappled it can due to its size and the grab ability attempt to maintain the grapple against the fighter with one pincer (at a -20 penalty), dealing constriction damage to the fighter if it succeeds.
Alternately it can release the fighter as a free action and try to reverse the monks grapple wit a normal grapple check, dealing constriction damage to the monk if it succeeds.

If the fighter on subsequent rounds wishes to grapple the crab with the monk he CAN aid the monk (gaining the grappled condition), but CANNOT initiate a new grapple against the crab.

My two cents: I'd allow the monk to grapple the crab normally, and then I'd allow the crab two options -- either continue to grapple the fighter with a -4 penalty for only having one "hand" free (since being grappled means you can only make "one-handed" actions), or give up on grappling the fighter and try to do a reversal on the monk.

Yesterday, my group faced an unusual (but legitimate - at least I believe so) circumstance.

Basically, one of the characters (the Fighter) was hit and grabbed by an advanced Large Crab and subjected by his Constrict damage (on top of being grappled).
On the Monk’s turn, he decided to try to grapple the Large Crab – and succeeded.

Now I was facing a situation where the rules are silent about. It's true that the rules say that "Multiple creatures can also assist another creature in breaking free from a grapple, with each creature that assists (using the Aid Another action) granting a +2 bonus on the grappled creature’s combat maneuver check.", but this was not exactly the same case - the Monk didn't want to help the Fighter escaping the grapple, he was actively trying to grapple (and subsequently damaging or pinning) the Crab by himself, since he had a fair chance of succeeding (as effectively happened).
I decided that, since the Crab was not holding the Fighter only with the Claw attack (the rule that says ‘it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself’ rule) but was effectively conducting the grapple normally, the new condition of being grappled didn’t allow it to continue holding the Fighter, thus effectively allowing the Monk to free his comrade, while grappling the Crab himself.

Is this a legitimate interpretation of the rules? I figured this situation akin to that of ‘Mr. A is trying to strangle Mr. B , but suddenly Mr. C comes out and makes a full nelson to Mr. A, freeing Mr. B in the process.’ Would you have done the same?

What if the Crab was instead ‘holding’ the Fighter with his claw (effectively taking –20 to his Grapple check and not being considered Grappled himself) ? In that kind of situation I would have allowed the Crab to try continuing grappling the Fighter (albeit at –20 and with the –2 to his CMB for being grappled too). What do you think about this ?

my group ran into this same problem in kingmaker the other night. is there any way we can get an official ruling on this? the rules are a little murky.

also, in this same instance, could the crab use it's "any action you can take with one hand" while grappled to maintain the grapple on the fighter at the -4 without having 2 hands free?

My two cents: I'd allow the monk to grapple the crab normally, and then I'd allow the crab two options -- either continue to grapple the fighter with a -4 penalty for only having one "hand" free ...

Doesn't that only apply to humanoid creatures?

I'm not seeing any reason why the Crab (or any creature "B") would take a -4 penalty to continue grappling the fighter/"C".

Both Grappler and Grapplee gain the Grappled condition upon initiation of the grapple [This excludes the Grab quality option of taking -20 to use just that appendage of course.]. There is a difference in what they can do, but the hand limitation is on both, and shouldn't be included in checks for maintaining a grapple. The penalty only applies "when attempting to grapple."

To lay it out simply:
Grapple:
"Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll. "
"If successful, both you and the target gain the grappled condition (see the Appendices)."
Appendix:
"In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform."
Grapple:
"Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe..."

There's no -4.

To the OP, someone else had it right - the Monk can grapple the crab (or A grapple B), while the crab is grappling the Fighter. The crab's condition doesn't actually change (he's already considered grappled), and his options on the Fighter remain the same. Until the Monk does something else (like Pin) that prevents the crab from maintaining the grapple.

The Crab could also simply let the fighter go (as the grappler, it has that option), and attempt to reverse the grapple on the monk. If it fails, the monk can choose to continue the grapple, or simply let go (now that the fighter is free), as he is the grappler in that case.

Gammut was actually close to correct: there are only two participants in any single grapple action, the grappler and the grapplee. However, one creature/pc can be both, in different grapples, or be one against multiple creatures (crab as grappler using grab @ -20 grappling two creatures, or PC as grapplee with two crabs playing tug of war with him...)

let me clarify what i mean about the -4. i'll used the an extra monk in place of the crab.

monk A grapples fighter A
monk B grapples monk A

now it's monk A's turn again.

per page 201, the "If You Are Grappled" section. Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that requires only one hand to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you.

can monk A use 1 hand at a -4 to maintain the grapple instead of attempting to break free? i ask because there was contention among our group as to clarity of the wording. some think that either: breaking free, casting a spell, or attacking with a light or 1 handed weapon. the rest thing those are just examples of "any action that requires 1 hand to perform".

we can't seem to get the rules straight on that and if you can grapple someone that's already grappled.

bumping again to see if we can get official word.

bumping again to see if we can get official word.

Friday night's a rough time for it. ;)

Still, interested to see what their take on it is.

let me clarify what i mean about the -4. i'll used the an extra monk in place of the crab.

monk A grapples fighter A
monk B grapples monk A

now it's monk A's turn again.

per page 201, the "If You Are Grappled" section. Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that requires only one hand to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you.

can monk A use 1 hand at a -4 to maintain the grapple instead of attempting to break free?

Monk A can maintain the grapple on Fighter A without any penalty at all, the -4 applies only to initiating a grapple. *Anyone* in a grapple, whether the grappler or the grapplee, has the grappled condition and can only do other actions that require one hand. Nothing to do with maintaining the grapple.