Aydin D'Ampfer's page

Archive of Nethys is a great thing.

Catch Off Guard would probably work, though you would need to clear it with your GM first, as you are using a manufactured weapon as an improvised weapon, which is a little odd.

Personally, I see no reason you could not use the javalin as an improvized spear in combat. Or improvised club. Etc.

Yes. Cornugon Smash lets you make an Intimidate check, Taunt changes how you do that.

Donning a shield is a move action. As a DM, I would say retrieving the ring would be either a move or a swift (depending on whether they had stated before where the ring was), then a move to put it on.

But I could not find specific rules for this. Maybe someone else has a reference?

Also note that Flurry of Maneuvers does not go away if the Monk wears armor. That is a restriction on Flurry of Blows, only.

Improved Unarmed Strike is part of the Archetype mostly to fit the Monk style, as well as to fill in Pre-reqs for other things (Improved Grapple, for instance).

Flurry of Maneuver only does what it says it does, and only has restrictions when it says it does. The only thing that would have changed that would have been the ability 'altering' Flurry of Blows, but it instead replaces it.

I feel like what we have decided here is that raging requires a lot of subjective analysis of different abilities, all at the GMs discretion. Thus, table variation.

Time for an FAQ. Not just for this question, but also for all the other things mentioned here that might have different GM opinions.

We need to also have a "request a blog post" button.

The issue is this line:

A bard is trained to use the Perform skill to create magical effects on those around him, including himself if desired.

This suggests that the Bard has to be able to use the Perform skill to perform the performance. Because Perform is a CHA skill, it cannot be done while raging.

However, maintaining and starting might have different requirements. That is the debate.

In case the contrast is useful, the Skald's performace ability has no skill based language in it, but the skald also is able to use CHA skills while Raging song.

Excellent! Thank you all!

One last question, regarding DC. I know some high level archetypes (or a magus arcana) can let you use your own stats for the DC, rather than the casting minimum. Off hand, are there any traits /lower level class features that could boost the DC?

There is a Magus Arcana that you can get as a 3rd level Magus. There is a level 11 Wizard discovery. Beyond that, there is not really anything that I know of.

Not to meta this too hard, but have you looked into the Card Caster Magus? It is basically Gambit from Xmen, throwing cards with spells on them. I don't know exactly if it would work with the Grenadier mechanics (loading the ranged weapon with a bomb, etc), but thematically, it is still all about throwing explosive things. Once you hit level 3 Card Caster (or retrain the 3 levels of Investigator) you can pick up Extra Arcana feat to get the Wand Arcana.

I did not realize you were talking about the Unchained rules. My bad.

The simple ruling there is that there are no rules. Or at least, the Misfortune ability was created before the Unchained rules, so it was not worded to allow for what AlaskaRPGer is saying.

That said, I would rule with him on this. Your GM will be the final arbiter of these rules, because RAW really only matters for PFS.

Drawing Wands: Spring Loaded Wrist Shealth puts the wand in your hand as a swift action. Handy Haversack will be the next best thing, allowing you to draw it as a move. If 2k gold is too much, an adventurers sash/bandoleer (10 silver I think) also lets you retrieve as a move, but has more limited space.

For scent, there are a few +10k gold items that will do it, but you could also take the feats Racial Heritage (Orc) and Keen Scent. There are also a few ways to get Scent vs specific things (coins and gems, dogs, etc) and for limited times per day, but those are a little less useful.

Misfortune does not effect those that target the enemy afflicted with the curse. It only effects rolls that that enemy makes.

So if you were to try and punch a Misfortuned enemy, you roll normally. If they try and punch you, they roll twice, take the lowest.

As someone with a high level ninja, I agree that the retraining rules in this case are very punitive.

I also agree that the VC should be the final judge, especially as there is rarely explicit documentation as to when people retrain what.

And yes, with that logic, the player could just retrain for free anyway, but honor system, rules, game, etc.

The problem is that retraining does not happen all at once. You have to resolve each retrain individually. Because you cannot be a Rogue X/Unchained Rogue Y, where X+Y=5, things get strange.

This means going from Rogue to Unchained Rogue requires a 'holder' class, so that you are never illegally multiclassing. So you have to go 5 levels into something, for 1250gp and 25 pp. Then you have to go from that holder class into Unchained Rogue, which is another 1250gp and 25pp.

The kicker is this: You cannot have enough PP, without boons or being on the slow track for EXP. Assuming max PP per senario and 3 senarios per level, you get 6 PP. At level 5, that means roughly 30 PP, barring spending any on wands and whatnot.

But to retrain from Rogue to [Holder Class] to Unchained Rogue, it would be 10 PP per level.

From the PRD, about Retraining:

You can retrain only one thing at a time; you must complete or abandon a particular training goal before starting another one.

This is why the free retrain was very important.

This math is also what Ninjas have to do to become Unchained Rogues.

Wait, you have Paladins that take 17 points into Knowledge Religion?

Normally I only see 1 point, and 0 Int. Meaning its a 75% drop.

But I'm also being mean to Pally's. And I need them. You know, to stay behind and die while I flee and collect my one prestige Point.

So Paladins watch out! If you anger your god, you forget everything about Religion that you know.

Because it is not Fast Movement. Just because they are similar does not mean they are the same. This is the actual text:

Add +1 to the monk’s base speed. In combat this option has no effect unless the monk has selected it five times (or another increment of five). This bonus stacks with the monk’s fast movement class feature and applies under the same conditions as that feature.

They have the same limitations, yes. They effect movement, yes. But that does not mean that the Favored Class bonus alters the Fast Movement Class Feature.

To act the way you are putting forth, the Favored Class bonus should read:

Add +1ft to the monk’s Fast Movement class feature.

But it instead calls out the Monk's base speed. This means that if the monk were to Archetype out of having Fast Movement, he would still get the Favored Class Bonus.

It could also be parsed that everything on the left of the 'or' is different from everything on the right, suggesting that the Sea-knife can be used 'in place of' the shield for TWF.

I agree that the Devs are probably not on the same page all the time with some of these niche cases.

Aydin D'Ampfer wrote:

It stacks with Fast Movement, but it does not change fast movement. Just like if you had Haste. The additional +30ft move speed stacks with other sources of increased move speed, but does not change the Class Ability that grants the speeds it stacks with.

The issue here is if the Favored Class ability modifies Fast Movement. It does not, but it does stack in terms of calculating the final movement distance.

All the abilities add to one thing (movement) but do not add to one another.

"applies under the same conditions as that feature". Since it comes out and says to use it whenever you'd use fast move, what rational do you have for NOT using it for the unchained monk feature?

"Flying Kick: Before the attack, the monk can move a distance equal to his fast movement bonus". + "applies under the same conditions as that feature", IE fast move, seems to add up to adding them together for flying kick.

If you disagree, please explain what "applies under the same conditions as that feature" means to you.

That is related to the Armor/Shield/Encomberance limits that the Fast Movement ability has. What it is saying is that if the Monk would not get Fast Movement, it also does not get the Favored Class movement bonus. They just wanted to save some words.

Also, in no way is Flying Kick a condition. It is a conditional use of Fast Movement, but that is not the same thing.

Not even palm-sized shuriken can be thrown as a Free action, but you're going to tell us with a straight-face that the game meant for a heavy shield to be strapped to your arm and then thrown as a Free action for a mere 50gp?

The comparison between the two is not a rules issue, it is a balance issue. To say "It shouldn't do that because it is too cheap" is a valid balance statement, but is a difficult thing to support in the rules, as it is subjective.

As I am reading it, yes, the Devs probably made a mistake, missed a comma or a word, and it has lead to an unbalanced ability (by this, I also mean it is not seen anywhere else).

Really, to sort all of these things out, they need to errata the ability to this:

..you may unclasp this shield to throw it, as a free action.

It stacks with Fast Movement, but it does not change fast movement. Just like if you had Haste. The additional +30ft move speed stacks with other sources of increased move speed, but does not change the Class Ability that grants the speeds it stacks with.

The issue here is if the Favored Class ability modifies Fast Movement. It does not, but it does stack in terms of calculating the final movement distance.

All the abilities add to one thing (movement) but do not add to one another.

It seems to me that a lot of this 'the rules are intended to say this..' comments are rooted not in rules but in balance. Meanwhile, the other side of the argument is reading the rules with no mind to balance. Neither of these arguments will progress, because they are reading from two different playbooks.

If there was an item that you could buy for, lets say, 2000gp, and it was a magical Quickdraw shield with the ability "Once per day, you may unclasp this shield and throw it as a free action."

Now, would this item work as Scott Wilhelm is saying? Would my 2000gp shield only allow me to throw it once a day, at the cost of both a free action and a standard/full action? Or would it let me throw it for free, once, per a normal thrown weapon attack?

Is this entire discussion fueled by multiple people reading the written rules differently, or by people who have different ideas of what the balance of the rules should be?

No, as it does not modify the Fast Movement ability. At level 5, the elf would have +10ft (Fast Movement) and +5ft (Favored Class), not +15 (Fast Movement).

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

Also, anything more than one attack still requires a full-round action.

Rubbish.

You removed my quote showing it isn't "rubbish", so here it is again:

Full Attack wrote:

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks.

This rule does not make sense related to other rules that grant attacks.

For example, Hurtful, which gives you a swift action attack. If you also have the Enforcer feat, you can Intimidate as a free action after dealing non-lethal damage.

By your reasoning, the only way I would ever get the swift action attack would be if I used a full-round attack?

What about feats like Greater Trip, which makes it so you can have situations where you take attacks of opportunities on your turn? Still need a full round action to attack?

What I am getting at is this: The text is probably meant to be descriptive, but is poorly worded. However, RAW/RAI is open to both sides being correct.

FLite wrote:

James, the problem occurs when something like this can affect the build of your character.

Don't use that option.

I'm intimately aware, as Overrun is an example of a rules set that nearly every GM operates differently. I no longer play my Overrun specialist as a result.

This problem isn't fixable until they do 30 FAQ question answers a week. Then maybe in a year we will clean up all the things people read differently.

If the answer to any potentially questionable rule or build is just 'don't do it', then there is never the chance to try out something people around you have not done.

I, for instance, built a grappler in PFS. I played 4-5 games with this grappler before finding out, on my own, that my entire game store had been making some assumptions that were completely wrong. Instead of dropping this character, I did the research, asked the questions, and found issues that I could address with the GMs before and during the games.

This is what needs to happen here. If you want to build the character, plan on bringing the issues that you know about to the GM before sitting down. If that means printing out the FAQ and circling a few, go for it. If that means having page numbers memorized, bring a book and use it. But also be ready for the GM to disagree. And if that is the case, either use a different character for that GM, or play differently. Don't, however, abandon the character just because it is unclear how you will get to play some of the time.

Fore-warned is fore-armed, and all that.

You are correct that enlarging does not change the +5 ft threaten range aspect of the feat. However, remember that natural threaten range changes with size. At large, Natural Reach is 10ft. At Colossal, it is 30ft. This means Improved Whip Mastery provides a Medium Creature 10ft of threatening, a Large creature with 15ft of threatening, and a Colossal with 35ft.

As for the weapon size/reach, I do believe you get reach and a half, meaning at Large, you reach out to 30ft with the whip, and at Colossal, it is 75ft. This is, however, conjecture, and not supported by specific rules.

Triune wrote:

The flurry can be made even with a weapon wielded in two hands, this is spelled out in the flurry description. It does not require tossing a weapon back and forth, that is not stated or implied anywhere. The flurry rules are an exception to the TWF rules, as those rules state you need a second weapon in your off hand, but the feature says you need only one weapon.

And how does PC wield a tube with a blade, strapped on his hand, with two hands and succesfully fight?

And even if it works so, are the penalties -3/-3? I don't understand how does having one one-hand weapon and making extra attacks with it, in consideration with TWF rules, doesn't encrease penalties. There's no spelling in brawlers flurry that his extra attacks use only penalty from first attack.

'How' is not a rules question. Per the rules, you can use Brawler's Flurry with any of the listed weapons. Brawler's Flurry specifically states you can do so even when only weilding one weapon.

As for what penalties get applied, that is a little more up in the air. Based on the Monk Flurry of Blows, the penalty is as if you are wielding two light weapons.

Yes, a Brawler can Flurry with the Scizore.

Yes, they would get both attacks.

The penalties would be a -3 to both attacks, -2 for the Flurry/Two-Weapon Fighting, and -1 for the Scizore ability.

After 6 years and a complete overhaul, I just figure it is worth doublechecking if the slight varience from the UMR was intended.

Thank you very much for the link, though. Good to know this is not the first time this has come up. Just surprised it has not been FAQed.

Do the Unchained Eidolon Evolutions Grab, Trip, Pounce, and Rake constitute updates/errata/additional restrictions to the Universal Monster Rules of the same names?

References:

Additionally, if "most recent is most accurate" is true, UMR Rake, Grab, Trip, and Pounce all just got nerfed.

In fact, that all may be FAQ worthy on its own. If no one else has, I'll post something once I get onto something not my phone.

Aydin D'Ampfer wrote:

The Unchained Eidolon abilities are all over the place when it comes to similarly named abilities:

-Grab: Normal Monster Grab includes same size and smaller. Eidolon Grab is only smaller targets.

Actually, as of the last bestiary, grab is back to smaller from what I hear. (I don't own B4) Not sure if that is a copy paste error, or another stealth errata.

Unchained is the most recent publication, and has the smaller size text. So either it is a stealth errata, or it is a different ability entirely.

In terms of B4, there are issues with the whole 'most recent is most accurate' understanding, and it has been debated since the publications. There has still never been any clear clarification.

True, true. I should have gone a step farther in my quoting. I was specifically looking for the 'Smaller' restriction.

Either way, it is vastly different for Eidolons than from any other monster.

Aydin D'Ampfer wrote:

-Trip: Normal Monster Trip has no size limit. Eidolon Trip is same size or smaller.

I'm pretty sure UMR Trip is still limited by the inherent size restrictions of the actual maneuver (size +1). It is a free check that also does not provoke and cannot backfire, it removes no other restrictions.

This still means Eidolon Trip is slightly less powerful.

Trip (Ex) A creature with the trip special attack can attempt to trip its opponent as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity if it hits with the specified attack. If the attempt fails, the creature is not tripped in return.

Format: trip (bite); Location: individual attacks.

No size restriction for UMR Trip.

The Unchained Eidolon abilities are all over the place when it comes to similarly named abilities:

-Grab: Normal Monster Grab includes same size and smaller. Eidolon Grab is only smaller targets.

-Trip: Normal Monster Trip has no size limit. Eidolon Trip is same size or smaller.

-Rake: Normal Monster Rake is something that happens on a Pounce, or after maintaining a grapple. Eidolon Rake is more similar to Constrict, but has attack rolls.

-Pounce: Normal Monster Pounce includes Rake attacks in its rules. Eidolon Pounce does not include Rake attacks.

These all lead to serious confusion as to how these things work at different times. When a monster says "I do _____" and an Eidolon says the same thing, they do completely different things. And have different restrictions.

Relevence: A medium Eidolon can only do the Grab+Rake, Repeat tactic against a small creature. Meaning most of the time the Eidolon will require a minimum of the Large evolution to be useful.

4) You can use 2 handed weapons and get x1.5 power attack on every single hit (a combined x3 across both 'hands')

Flurry, when you aren't doing something like a pummeling build, is often best when you use a weapon 2 handed. Using weapons also lets you free up your neck slot for an amulet of natural armor.

You could sword and board without needing to use the shield as a weapon though (this is very appealing to the slayer/ranger with a dip mentioned above, who do not have the scaling AC bonus to lose)

Oh, other info
1a) you can buy a single agile weapon for dex builds. That allows you to cheaply get dex to damage without using up feats. Agile has previously been looked down upon because typical dex melee builds were TWF, which mean you needed to pay it twice over when your weapon budget was already strained. With a flurry, you only need to buy it once, it is more of a balanced speed weapon vs improved critical debate.

Note that you do not get 1.5x STR when Flurrying with a two handed weapon:

A brawler applies her full Strength modifier to her damage rolls for all attacks made with brawler's flurry, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand weapon or a weapon wielded in both hands.

Though you would still get the additional power attack damage, probably. I have seen a number of times when people miss this line in Flurry. Unchained Monks can Flurry and still get the 1.5x STR. Might be a better dip, in the long run.

Also, IIRC, extradimensional spaces are harder for enemies to do anything to, such as steal from. I know of a Shadowdancer whose primary tactic is to Stealth around and pickpocket anything not tied down to the enemies, including all their arrows. Leads to amusing situations, but is also something a DM could use against you.

The whole POINT of the Grab ability's "-20 and not considered grappled" line is that you can pick up and move the other person.

Creatures like Rocs use Flyby Attack to move, attack, Grab, and then keep flying!

Nothing in the Roc's stat block, or in its abilities or feats allows it to do this. Not having the Grappled condition allows the Roc to move, not to pick up and move the grappled target.

Now, I know DMs will do this, but the rules just are not there.

I would say to expect table variation on the 4th part. There are different inturpretations on how pounce interacts with charge abilities and with the +2 to hit.

The basis of this is normally a debate around what a 'charge attack' is, verses the FAQ related to Lance Charges and Pounce.

Aydin D'Ampfer wrote:

The grappled condition specifically confers a "Cannot move" clause on both parties. Even if the grappler uses the special Grab rules so they do not gain the grappled condition, the target does.

It says you cannot move, as per under your own power. Not that you cannot be moved. You do not suddenly become quantum entangled on that spot or defy all the forces of the universe ala Mjolnir.

I disagree. Per the rules, and barring GM rulings, there is no differentation between 'cannot move' and 'cannot be moved'. Any instance of being able to move a person in this situation is purely the GMs call, not based on rules.

But I guess that was implied.

The grappled condition specifically confers a "Cannot move" clause on both parties. Even if the grappler uses the special Grab rules so they do not gain the grappled condition, the target does. The target will not be able to move unless a rule specifically overrides the "Cannot move" clause of the grappled condition, such as the Maintain to Move action you can take as part of Maintaining a grapple.

In terms of Tripping and Grabbing, the order is never specifically set if the ability is on a single attack. So if you have Bite 1d6 (Trip, Grab) as an attack, you can do either or both in any sequence you want, so long as your DM allows you to take two or more free actions (not unreasonable). Now, if it was Bite 1d6(Grab), and Claw 1d4(Trip), you would have to say "I attack with my Claw, hit, Trip, then Bite, hit, Grab." But other than that there is no specific order.

Now, interestingly enough, Mark Seifer had this to say on the matter of maintaining a grapple (or not to say? He really only implied something.) Here is the Post

From the other thread:

Devilkiller wrote:

The only really explicit rule on this I've seen is on page 121 of Pathfinder Unchained, which states the following:

Pathfinder Unchained wrote:

Greater Grapple (Combat): After you take a move action to successfully maintain a grapple, you can spend 5 stamina points before the end of your turn to maintain that grapple as a swift action. This allows you to make up to three grapple checks to maintain a grapple during a round, but you still can’t maintain a grapple until the round after you initiate it.

The part about "you still can't maintain a grapple until the round after you initiate it" seems pretty clear to me. It could be argued whether or not that's a mistake, but I think the intent and expectations expressed by that sentence seem pretty clear.

Regarding the lack of FAQ for the James Jacobs post, "no reply needed" doesn't always mean that the opinion stated in the post is right. It also doesn't mean it is wrong, but I seem to remember another developer saying at some later time that you can't "maintain" a grapple on the turn when you establish it. All I can find on that is a quote from Bruno Breakbone which attributes the following statement to Mark Seifter:

Mark Seifter (allegedly) wrote:

Even if the enemy moved up to the tetori, you can't maintain during the same round you established. The only way I can think of to pull it off is with Snapping Turtle Clutch to establish off turn and then maintain on your own next turn for the pin and tie up.

To me it seems like we've had two Paizo developers saying two completely different things on the issue of maintaining a grapple in the same round when it was established. Now a new book has come out which seems to implicitly or even explicitly agree with the more restrictive interpretation. I don't have any problem with that. I'd just like to know the official intent since it might help me decide which feats are fun for my PC and avoid using a bunch of tactics which later are revealed to be illegal.

It does sound like Mark Seifter...

When I came to work at Paizo, I asked Jason and the others about grappling and discovered some things I hadn't known before. In any case, though, despite being a designer, messageboard posts are unofficial. The clause in Unchained actually came about because I told everyone that most people were not seeing that part of maintain at the moment when they read the CRB, so it was worth calling out specifically if that was how the combat trick was intended to work. I have a draft of a grappling FAQ blog out there to clear up everything that I found surprising (plus explain the parts that the expert players and GMs already know but are confusing to others), but FAQ blogs are hard to do, and it's behind the ones that have higher FAQ clicks like simulacrum and divinations.

Note that the -10 to tie up is only for tying up a grappled target, not a pinned target.

With Greater Grapple and Equipment Trick (Rope), you can tie up an enemy in one turn, with only a -5 on the second check.

Aydin D'Ampfer wrote:

So you are saying 'bound' =/= 'bound', even when used in similar context.

One guy writes the description of 'helpless' and uses the word bound to indicate that someone tightly tied up is helpless. Another guy writes the description of 'pinned' and uses the word 'bound' as an ill-chosen bit of flavor text. That seems the most likely explanation for the inconsistency.

Ok, I'll play: One guy writes the description of helpless, and uses the phrase 'bound' and 'Rogues can sneak attack helpless targets'. The next guy, seeing that he can save some word space, uses the word 'bound' instead of reiterating 'Helpless' text, and uses the phrase 'Denied their DEX bonus' as reminder text that rogues can take advantage.

Either way, we are arguing the Intention of the writers, as well as their command of the rules and infalibility. Making assumptions or claims of 'likely explainations' is a far cry from getting a ruling or FAQ.

That said, Mark has said he is working on a Grapple Blog post, and that there are a number of things he is going to clarify. Soon.

Faelyn wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

Tied up is treated as a pin, not as helpless. When pinned, you are not treated as having a Dex 0. Even if tied up, it's still possible to try to squirm away from an incoming blow, negating the CDG. You are still likely to die from a round of Full Attacks if you are tied up, as you have a -4 or more to AC.

Even still, you can still cast spells as while pinned, you can use SLAs, you can take actions.

I submit that you cannot. Have someone tie you up and then try to squirm out of the way while someone hits you with a bat... Doesn't work out well.

That is the denial of Dex to AC and an additional -4 on top of that. You can still move your body, even if that movement is restricted.

I have practiced self defense while handcuffed and while zip-stripped at the ankles. It's still possible to escape and to dodge an attack when your mobility is limited.

Granted, you are in a bad situation, and are likely going to loose. You are going to get hurt, and maybe killed if you are in that situation. But that doesn't mean you need to just sit there and wait for the Coup de Grace.

Except what you are describing is not being Tied Up, as per the rules. You are describing being manacled and fettered (think chain gang). There are rules for that, including actions you can take while in this condition, including moving and some standards. Tied Up, and by extension Pinned, is meant to be something different than just having your hands tied behind your back.

Also, you have made the assumption that a Coup de Grace is just someone swinging their weapon. In reality, it is more like the criical finishes from Witcher, or Assassins Creed, where you take the time to line up the perfect use of your weapon to try and kill them. You can do this because they cannot effectively fight back. Note 'effectively'. Yes you can squirm, yes you can bend at the middle, but in the end of it, if the guy with the sword grabs you by the hair and sticks his sword through your neck, not much you can do about that.

"Bound" is not a condition. It is not listed under the list of recognizable conditions that can affect a character. The word is being used as a descriptive in the pinned condition, not reflecting a mechanic of the game.

According to the helpless description, a helpless creature has a Dexterity of 0.

According to the pinned condition, a pinned creature is denied its Dexterity bonus; it does not have a Dexterity of 0.

Therefore, a pinned creature is not helpless, it is pinned. It is vulnerable to sneak attack damage, but not a coup de grace.

So you are saying 'bound' =/= 'bound', even when used in similar context. That makes complete sense /sarcasm.

Also, whats to say that 'denied its Dexterity bonus' in the pinned condition wasn't meant as a descriptive for the pinned condition as well? Where the writer understood that the pinned creature's DEX goes to 0 and they lose all of their DEX bonuses.

This would not be the first case of grapple rules being poorly phrased/not fully understood even by the author of the rules.

1) So, the constrict damage is actually 'from' the grapple, not a specific weapon. So when you use Grab to perform a Grapple Check and succeed, you also get the constrict damage.

2) You have options here. If you keep the grapple, and attack with the claw, you just do damage. Grab specifies 'start a grapple', so you cannot use it to maintatin a grapple. so:
a) No free grapple check to maintain, but not for the reason you gave.
b) Yes, normal roll to hit. Normal damage, no constrict, as you have not succeeded a grapple check. No effect on the grapple.
c) No constrict damage with claw 2 just for hitting.

3) You have the option to maintain the grapple, or full attack. Or move and standard.
a) Doing damage in a grapple is defined in the grapple options. It is not the same as a full attack. You choose which one-handed or light weapon to attack with, and do so after a successful grapple check. You would get a free constrict off this successful grapple check.
b) If you fail to maintain a grapple as a standard action, you lose the grappled condition, as does PP, but you still have all other actions (move, swift, free, etc).

Now, a few tricks you can do to maximize your damage and abilities(I'm adding some numbers, just so it can be followed):

Full round attack, two claw attacks(1d6+STR each).
1st Claw hits, deals 1d6+STR, free action Grapple.
Grapple succeeds, gain grappled condition, deal Constrict 1d6+STR
Free Action, drop the grapple.
2nd Claw hits, deals 1d6+STR, free action Grapple.
Grapple succeeds, gain grappled condition, deal Constrict 1d6+STR

You have just dealt 4d6+STRx4 over a single full round, and ended the turn grappling them. If they do not succeed their escape check, or don't try, you can then pin them next turn, or rinse and repeat.

Hope that makes sense. Feel free to ask questions, though, as grapple rules are crazy complicated, and often misunderstood.

Getting Pinned is bad, but it's not Helpless.

Tied Up is Helpless.

True, but this is a frequently asked question, with some level of logic on both sides, despite RAW. Also, the idea of Tied Up being helpless is fairly well established, but the actual RAW is 'bound', which leaves at least a little bit of room for debate.

You need a free hand or free something to grapple. Some natural attacks, especially ones with the Grab Ability, would count as hands. I'm pretty confident that if a grappler were carrying a shield, had one hand free, and had an Alchemal Tentacle, then the grappler could grapple with no minus 4-not-2-hands-free penalty.

Its the free something that is the rub. Most times, fighters have their legs free, or elbows, etc, so could theoretically grapple. The issue is that the grapple rules never say 'you grapple with your hands.' All it says is 'you take a penalty if you don't have two free hands.' Therein lies the problem.

Ask your DM, but you should probably forget about the Dan Bong because of the way the rules are written. As I write, I just thought of a way to make good on the Dan Bong: grow another arm, and use your Dan Bong in your 3rd or 4th hand.

True. But even if you take the -4 penalty, other questions come up. Does masterwork help offset the -4? Does a weapon enhancment? Proficency? Weapon Focus? Weapon Finesse? Grapple is stated to be one of the combat maneuvers that does not use a weapon, but this over rules this? Or are you using the Dan Bong as a tool, and not a weapon?

Arrows and thrown weapons in a grapple, huh?

This is more for the Fighter Archer, which can at lvl 8? able to grapple at range. However, the grapple rules, which the archetype makes no extra mention of, clearly states you must place the grappled target adjacent to the grappler, and the fighter is clearly the grappler, as you use his CMB. Therefore magical teleporting grappled targets.

The grappling thrown weapons is related to a Sibat, which has the Grappling quality (grapple as a free action on a crit) and a range increment. Only, there is nothing that stops you from doing this when you throw it, meaning on a crit as you throw it, you grapple at range? And teleport the enemy, just like the arrow issue.

I think a dip into WHW can be awesome, but I haven't looked closely enough at witches to really get them.

The issue here is similar to the Fighter Archer. The WHW wants to grapple at range (10-20 ft), then sit back and cast spells and stuff. Only, the act of grappling pulls the target to right next to the witch, or fails, leaving her open to attack and AoOs for spells and ranged attacks. This is very much sub-optimal unless you plan on effectively forgoing spells entirely.

The Invisible-Threaten-Flanking thing is more 'can you provide flanking for you ally if neither they nor the enemy knows you are providing flanking.' Currently, by RAW, yes you can, which makes little to no real world sense.

But I see the comparison. As it stands, there are some very commonly asked questions about grappling, and I am very excited about any sort of blog/FAQ that could be put out about it. Just in the last few weeks, I have seen the following go though the boards more than once, it seems:

Does being pinned count as helpless? (No)
Can I maintain a grapple more than once a turn? (Yes/Maybe)
Does size matter? (No/Maybe)
Do I need a free hand to grapple? (unknown)
Can I maintain on the same turn I start grappling? (unknown)
Does a creature tied up by a grapple count as helpless? (probably)
How does the Dan Bong work, and is it as bad as it seems? (*Shrug*)
How does grappling with arrows work? Grappling thrown weapons? (*Shrug*)
Is the White-Haired Witch really supposed to be aweful? (That might be a personal one)

Anyway, you see the numerous issues that come up. And these are mostly non-class specific. Some classes make it even more strange.

I am going to go ahead and just hit Mark's post with an FAQ tag. Hopefully you all could do the same so we might see some movement on this, or at least make sure it is not forgotten.

Though, at this rate, my grappler is going to retire before the rules get clarified :P

@Scott Willhelm: I initally went down the Ki Throw/Binding Throw feat line with a Maneuver Master monk, so I can spend a swift to grapple after tripping/repositioning, then get a free grapple at the end. This means my grapple is normally at a +4 for them being prone. I initially built it as a 'utility melee' character, as the grappled enemy sits at something like -6 and DEX to AC vs melee. Now that Unchained has come out, I dropped the Maneuver Master to get early access to Ki, and picked up Greater Grapple as a replacement.

@Devilkiller: I was initally taught that grappling had a size restriction, but that seems to have been a 3.5 rule that never translated. I am ok with it, though, as I should be able to grapple Sea Monsters with a high enough check :P