There are 3 questions here :
- when you are grappled, the DC to break it is equal to the CMD of the grappler. If you fail, the DC to break it, for the next round, is the same but the grappler has a +5 bonus on his DC check to maintain the grapple, hasn't it?
- Is this +5 bonus stacklable every round (if there is 2 round of failed tries)?
- If a creature can constrict, successed in grappling a PC, the DC to break the grapple is the same every round or does it change with the failed try of the PC?
Thanks!
That +5 bonus is only for maintaining the grapple. In other words, it's the person in control (wanting to stay in the grapple) that needs to maintain the grapple. If the person failed to break it, he gets to maintain the grapple easier.
The DC to break the grapple never changes, and would be the same every round.
Basically, there's two chances for the grapple to fail, once each turn (or twice a round). The person who initiated the grapple has to maintain it, and failing to maintain it means the grapple is over.
The person who is defending can try to break it. If he succeeds, the grapple is over.
Since the +5 bonus is only for maintaining, it's only making things easier on the initiator's turn, not when the defender is trying to break the grapple.
And yes, it's a one time bonus that makes it easier to maintain after the first round.
Basically, there's two chances for the grapple to fail, once each turn (or twice a round). The person who initiated the grapple has to maintain it
Do you have an official ruling of this? Because I don't interpret it that way - if you fail your maintenance check, you don't do any more nasty things to the enemy, but he doesn't break free, either.
Hmm.. well, it says:
"If you do not release the grapple, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold."
If you aren't holding him, what exactly are you doing? Why even put that in there if it doesn't mean that you lose the hold on the person.
Also consider that the defender winning the CMD check can decide to become the grappler, preventing the original person from just letting go.
It doesn't look like there's a state where neither person is the grappler... there's always one person in control, and one person who isn't allowed to get away as a free action (grapplee.. if that's a word).
You must make a check, yes, but does "make" mean that you have to roll or that you have to succeed?
Sure, you don't just let go, but a failed check will mean that you can't make headway. It's a stalemate, if you will.
If you have to make a check to maintain a hold, then failure would mean you fail to maintain the hold. I'm not sure how you get any other meaning out of this sentence.
Or are you saying that failure to maintain the hold doesn't mean the defender escapes? If you've stopped holding him, then what are you doing that makes him have the grappled state?
According the grappling flowcharts, which can be found here, if the initiator fails to maintain the grapple, neither party is grappled. If the defender beats the initiator's CMD, he breaks the grapple and neither party is grappled.
If you have to make a check to maintain a hold, then failure would mean you fail to maintain the hold. I'm not sure how you get any other meaning out of this sentence.
Let me explain: "Make the check" could mean "succeed in the check", but it could also mean "spend the action and make the check".
Making the check then means you actually use the "make grapple check" action instead of, say, us a full attack action against someone else.
Making the check and failing means you cannot inflict any of the extra conditions on your victim, like dealing damage or pinning it, but neither do you lose your hold - for that, the victim must make its own check to escape or turn the tables on you. As I said, it's a stalemate.
Or are you saying that failure to maintain the hold doesn't mean the defender escapes? If you've stopped holding him, then what are you doing that makes him have the grappled state?
As I said, you don't fail to maintain the hold - you just fail to exploit the situation any further. You tried to get an even better hold on your victim or hurt it, but that didn't work out, and you are where you started, meaning you still grapple it.
According the grappling flowcharts, which can be found here, if the initiator fails to maintain the grapple, neither party is grappled. If the defender beats the initiator's CMD, he breaks the grapple and neither party is grappled.
That flowchart is off-site. Not official. Just an interpretation.
So you're saying that if Guy A fails his roll to maintain the grapple, neither party is grappled?
The question then becomes, who gets to release the grapple as a free action? Typically that is reserved for the "grappler," i.e. the one controlling the grapple.
Perhaps an easier way to rule it would be that if Guy A fails the roll to maintain, Guy B automatically becomes the new "grappler." Guy A would then need to make the CMD+4 check to become the "grappler" again.
Or, that if nobody is actively controlling the grapple, then whoever's turn it was next would have to make the CMD roll.
However, the wording tends to favor the interpretation that if you fail to maintain, nobody is grappled.
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).
It seems that the actions that let you "exploit the situation" are tied to the act of grappling, and if you fail the check to continue grappling you....do not continue grappling.
The problem is that you are saying that failing to maintain the hold doesn't mean you lose the hold.
That wording makes no logical sense.
It's like you are saying "You failed to hang on to the ledge, but you are still hanging on to the ledge". Either you are hanging on, or you are not. Either you are still grappling, or you are not.
.
If you read the full paragraph and take the whole in context, you get this line of logic:
Although both creatures have the grappled condition, you can, as the creature that initiated the grapple, release the grapple as a free action, removing the condition from both you and the target.
If you do not release the grapple, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold.
It doesn't talk about being able to do things in the grapple until after it's done talking about how to resolve keeping people in, or escaping from, the grapple.
If it were talking about doing damage or other things, it would have different wording, and it would have been placed after the part that talks about doing damage and other things.
It's talking about maintaining the grappled condition, and that's it.
However, the wording tends to favor the interpretation that if you fail to maintain, nobody is grappled.
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).
It seems that the actions that let you "exploit the situation" are tied to the act of grappling, and if you fail the check to continue grappling you....do not continue grappling.
And there we go, it restates it afterwards too.
If a successful check allows you to "continue" grappling, then a non-successful check would mean you do not continue grappling.