|
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I've been trying to figure out what a creature, like the giant octopus, should do in combat.
In the first round of combat, he moves to engage,
on the second round he makes his bite and eight tentacle attacks.
Lets say as a result of those 8 tentacles attacks he has the opportunity to grab 3 people, and succeeds, doing additional constrict damage.
On the next round (assuming no one escapes) he can (as far as I can tell by raw) choose to constrict 1 of those three foes, for constrict damage + grapple damage. Or he can as a free action drop all three victims and make 8 more tentacle attacks with the opportunity to regrapple all three foes, and do attack damage, and constrict damage, plus additional damage from just hitting (I'm assuming, and I could be wrong that multiple tentacles can't constrict the same foe.)
That just seems to undermine the whole grab ability, if every round you are more enticed to let go and regrab then to just squeeze?
It seems to me, that it would be reasonable, that the octopus would move to pin the 3 foes doing constrict damage, and then use his other 5 tentacles on other foes (or just to fwap the held foes taking advantage of their pinned state.)
Am I crazy here, or does RAW not support this?
|
Thing 1) It's possible, through use of the grab ability, to become grappled with more than one target via a full-attack action (or AoOs).
Thing 2) It's impossible to maintain multiple grapples, since maintaining a grapple requires a standard action.
Thing 3) Taking the -20 to grapple checks in order to avoid the grappled condition (an option in the grab ability) doesn't confer any bonus other than not gaining the grappled condition; it's still a standard action to maintain such a grapple.
It's my personal opinion that the grab ability was intended to allow what you describe (the ability to conduct multiple grapples), but sadly, it does not.
Taking the -20 to grapple checks in order to avoid the grappled condition (an option in the grab ability) doesn't confer any bonus other than not gaining the grappled condition; it's still a standard action to maintain such a grapple.
If that's true than so much of the following text doesn't make any sense. Why would it bother saying you lose one of your natural attacks if you couldn't even use your remaining attacks against other targets?
I think the RAI (not the RAW) was that the Giant Octopus would function similar to the evard's black tentacle spell.
Every creature within the area of the spell is the target of a combat maneuver check made to grapple each round at the beginning of your turn, including the round that black tentacles is cast. Creatures that enter the area of effect are also automatically attacked. The tentacles do not provoke attacks of opportunity. When determining the tentacles' CMB, the tentacles use your caster level as their base attack bonus and receive a +4 bonus due to their Strength and a +1 size bonus. Roll only once for the entire spell effect each round and apply the result to all creatures in the area of effect.
Thus with 1 standard action the Octopus can do a single CMD check that is applied to each grappled character. The Octopus can either maintain grapples with it's standard action or release it's grip and do a natural attack attack run.
This would allow Krakens and other tentacled beasties to grapple a whole host of PCs which I think is in keeping with the source material.
While I don't doubt that someone will counter this interpretation with a cogent argument I think it offers enough benefits that it probably can be applied without too much difficulty.
If that's true than so much of the following text doesn't make any sense. Why would it bother saying you lose one of your natural attacks if you couldn't even use your remaining attacks against other targets?I'm not sure which passage you're referring to; is it something from the grab ability?
Yes I was, though now that I've gone back and looked at it again, I must have been thinking of v3.5.
Creatures with the grab special attack receive a +4 bonus on combat maneuver checks made to start and maintain a grapple.
|
|
I tend to roll with the RAW rules where I can as I find RAI gets me in a lot of trouble with my players (yes I know "I'm the DM") but I can be all "I'm the DM" I want with no players, so I try to keep things collaborative. Where there is an RAI ruling it is usually in a case where both the players and the bad guys can benefit (or suffer) and once we agree, we move forward.
So in this case it saddens me that big tentacle monsters truely seem to suffer under RAW.
Grab does seem like something that never got fully updated to Pathfinder.
The grapple rules seem fairly logical for a PC race. It's difficult to see how a PC race could grapple multiple enemies at once, since you need a standard action to start the grapple and to maintain it; it might be possible with Greater Grapple, but then you would also be able to maintain both since you could use the move action for the second one.
With monster races, it's notably different since fairly common to have multiple attacks with grab. From a mechanical point of view, frequently the smart thing for such creatures to do is release everyone and then full attack to restart the grapple.
There should probably be an ability along these lines:
Improved Grab: If you begin your turn grappling multiple creatures with natural weapons that have the Grab ability, you may use a full round action to make a grapple check against each opponent to maintain the grapple.
This might want a penalty or a penalty/creature grappled to the checks, so that it's not as easy for an octopus to grapple eight enemies as it is for it to grapple a single enemy. It might also want a restriction that it only works against creatures whose net size is not larger than a creature you could grab. So if you can grab a large creature, this would work against 1 large creature, 2 medium creatures, 4 small creatures, 1 medium and 2 small, etc.
It also might make sense, if the creature takes -20, to allow the check to maintain the grapple in place of an attack instead of as a standard action. That at least has some real life sense: you are not putting everything you can into maintaining the grapple so that you can do other things at the same time.
I have not tested this at all, so it could change the power of creatures with grab noticeably.
Saying ¨That just seems to undermine the whole grab ability¨ is rather overstating the case.
Per RAW multi-attack Grab monsters don`t have any special ability to PIN multiple targets.
Their ability to GRAB them (i.e. Grapple them) is obviously very good, and their bonus to Grapple CMB indeed makes them very good at PINNING that one (or 2, if they have Greater Grapple) target per round.
Worrying about how bad it must look to the other monsters that the ´smart thing to do´ is `release all targets and re-attack/Grab them´ also somewhat overlooks the point. #1 if it is an intelligent monster, Pinning one specific target may very well be it`s priority for the round (vs. Grappling everybody and doing damage). #2 `release all targets and re-attack/Grab them´ is the mechanical description. If we don`t like that `style wise`, there`s no reason we can`t just say the Grab monster is continuing with it`s tentacular tendencies, just between dividing it`s attention between the targets AND damaging them all, it doesn`t actually make them FURTHER immobilized (Pinned), but just maintains an equivalent state against all of them (at least all whose CMD it beats a 2nd time, same as if it could somehow try to Pin all of them). As a GM, I see nothing wrong with describing it as `though you momentarilly think you`ve slipped the beast`s grasp, the barbed tentacles were simply adjusting their grip, and you find yourself still in the same situation. 31 damage and Fort Save vs. Poison please...` I don`t think most players will just laugh off that situation and sneer at the miserable Grab ability - MANY MANY players would in fact LOVE to have the Grab ability as written, IMHO.
The fact is that a monster that could simultaneously Pin all members of a standard party is quite a different beast than one that can (effectively) only keep (all of) them in a Grappled state. Existing Grab monsters would need a substantially increased CR if this ability was to change. I think the current system works fine in the context of the game.
That said, the way the Grapple rules (and interacting subsystems like Grab and Constrict) are organized and written IS very confusing. Even though it makes sense for the general Grapple rules to only cover normal Grappling, the Grab section could be much more clear rather than having to mentally juggle how each sub-section interacts with the other (incidentally, actually defining the sub-states of Grapple as explicit (sub-)conditions would have facilitated that, as Grab could re-iterate SOME of the dynamics of Grapple but not need to repeat EVERY word since CONDITIONS could be referred to with single words, while the dynamics/staging could be explictly stated rather than rely on an inter-polation between the standard dynamics and stated exceptions).
As well, the latter part of Grab is VERY confusing (there have been threads solely on the topic) how it interacts with Constrict - Essentially Grab has it`s own `mini Constrict` that applies on subsequent rounds, that doesn`t stack with any actual Constrict damage... Assuming the Constrict/Grab Attack damage is equal, the only difference is that Constrict applies the first round, i.e. on top of the initial Natural Attack->Grab while the mini-Constrict included in Grab doesn`t apply further damage the initial round (since the initial Natural Attack already did it`s damage). The design intent is pretty simple, but the way it`s worded is anything but clear.
If a DM is willing to take a chance at a -20 to grapple everyone then most likely it is because he knows it is possible, and pinning the entire party could lead to a TPK. Such an ability should have an increase in CR IMHO, so I think the point of the -20 is to allow the DM to neutralize a dangerous PC while still attacking the others.
|
|
If a DM is willing to take a chance at a -20 to grapple everyone then most likely it is because he knows it is possible, and pinning the entire party could lead to a TPK. Such an ability should have an increase in CR IMHO, so I think the point of the -20 is to allow the DM to neutralize a dangerous PC while still attacking the others.
So, in the original example, after the creature grapples the 3 party members, he may continue to hold them, and even attack them, but just doesn't so long as it is willing to take -20 on its grapple checks it never gains the grapple condition?
So, round 1 attacks, hits, grapples and constricts 3 people for physical damage plus constrict damage.
Round 2, he doesn't let them go, instead "holds them" he makes his full attack, doing damage with his natural attacks, and may attempt on the hits to make a CMB roll with a -20 to see if he does constrict damage but never actually lets them go.
Does he gain a +5 because he had them grappled at the start of the turn, and his foes should also be at -4 dex for the grappled condition, so his net penalty to the CMB roll is -13?
If he hits, and succeeds in the grapple roll in the second round can he then move to pin, since it is the second consecutive grapple?
| 7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Let's be honest: Paizo really needs to come out with a "Rules of the Game: All about Grab and Grapple" article to deal with this stuff. I've tried to wrap my brain about this four ways from Sunday and it just doesn't click.
|
|
So, in the original example, after the creature grapples the 3 party members, he may continue to hold them, and even attack them, but just doesn't so long as it is willing to take -20 on its grapple checks it never gains the grapple condition?
Nope, see my previous post. In order to "continue to hold them" it must maintain the grapple, which requires a standard action (for one target). It would have to release 2 party members in order to maintain a grapple on one party memeber.
So, round 1 attacks, hits, grapples and constricts 3 people for physical damage plus constrict damage.
Round 2, he doesn't let them go, instead "holds them" he makes his full attack, doing damage with his natural attacks, and may attempt on the hits to make a CMB roll with a -20 to see if he does constrict damage but never actually lets them go.
Well you're free (as a GM) to describe it this way, but mechanically speaking: at the start of 2nd-round turn it spends three free actions to release three grapples, so that it can make a full attack with all its tentacles. As with any full attack, any of its tentacles that hit it can attempt to grab, dealing constrict damage if successful. The -20 only comes into play if the octopus wants to avoid the grappled condition itself. The -20 does not allow it maintain multiple grapples.
Does he gain a +5 because he had them grappled at the start of the turn...
No, see previous comments. It's impossible to maintain more than one grapple at a time (thus, it is impossible to pin more than one creature at a time). The octopus would receive the +5 to maintain a grapple versus one target, however, as is normal.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
"Rules of the Game: All about Grab and Grapple"'
Not a bad idea for an article. Any specific questions you would want answered?
Not questions, examples.
Show us a squid grappling in combat, because it has one "tentacles" attack. Then describe a giant octopus, because it has 8 attacks with grab. Finally use the kraken, it has tenacious grappler and that seems useless if it can't grapple more than one foe per round.
Maybe some feats or options for larger grapplers so they can slam PC's into each other to round it out. Showing us round by round would be all the explanation needed IMHO.
Not questions, examples.
Show us a squid grappling in combat, because it has one "tentacles" attack. Then describe a giant octopus, because it has 8 attacks with grab. Finally use the kraken, it has tenacious grappler and that seems useless if it can't grapple more than one foe per round.
Maybe some feats or options for larger grapplers so they can slam PC's into each other to round it out. Showing us round by round would be all the explanation needed IMHO.
Exactly. I think working through some examples will show the developers "Oh, some things don't work exactly right, as written".
Finally use the kraken, it has tenacious grappler and that seems useless if it can't grapple more than one foe per round.
Tenacious Grappler just says it isn`t considered Grappled itself.
So besides avoiding some penalties (to-hit, AC) vs. other opponents, basically means the Kraken can move around freely, which is good for maximizing AoO opportunities against other combatants, as well as not leaving your target (who can still Full Attack) immediately adjacent to you (that also works when using Standard Action to Pin one target and then Move further away out of danger). It also makes it impossible to reverse the Grapple, of course.Non-humanoid Grapplers inherently have fewer restriction in Grapple because they don`t have to worry about 1/2 free hands. But essentially, Tenacious Grappler is the same thing as Grab`s -20 option, just without the huge penalty... Which seems `useful` to me... Otherwise that -20 penalty would also have to be insignifigant if avoiding it isn`t useful.
Tenacious Grappler means the Kraken is adept at Grappling multiple targets (maintaing Grappled condition... via `releasing` and re-establishing Grapple via Grab if most efficient) as `normal` melee Combat. It doesn`t change the action economy for Pinning, though allows the Kraken to Move while doing so (i.e. enabling the iconic Grab and then move below water combo). I think the Kraken is pretty well off, being able to do serious damage to multiple targets, Grappling them as well, meaning Casters and 2-Handed Weapon wielders are well f*~!ed (2-Handed Specialists, including Archers, more so).
--------------------------------------------------------------
But to the broader issue, I agree that having examples for cases like this (which requires combining several distributed rules sub-systems correctly, i.e. something minorly difficult) would be very helpful for the game.
Honestly, I think Paizo needs a dedicated staff member in charge of Editing Rules (Crunch) and Errata and the FAQ process. Jason Buhlman is clearly busy at work on other projects, and the fact is that this task is fundamentally different than Editing NON-Crunch material, like Companions and much of the AP material.
Having a `dedicated` staff member (possibly somebody who covers another area at Paizo part-time) who can structure their operating procedure especially for Crunch/Rules issues, as opposed to also Editing `Fluff`, just seems necessary at this point given the degree to which a huge amount of Errata has not been dealt with, much less the number of cases where a FAQ could clarify the RAW that don`t necessarily need to be changed. I don`t know how
I nominate... Jason Nelson?
Certainly not because he always writes error-free crunch, but because he seems like he has a good handle on the subject in general and understands the important of specific wording for Crunch in particular...
|
|
Exactly. I think working through some examples will show the developers "Oh, some things don't work exactly right, as written".
Please understand I'm not trying to be offensive or combative, but the rules do work, and I have yet to encounter a creature that didn't. It is from a lack of understanding that we say things like, "This doesn't work right." I know, because I've said that, before I understood.
I will say that figuring out *how* certain things work was a challenge at times, but by simply reading and understanding each sentence of each relevant ability (grapple action, grappled condition, grab, and constrict), I hashed it out.
So besides avoiding some penalties (to-hit, AC) vs. other opponents, basically means the Kraken can move around freely, which is good for maximizing AoO opportunities against other combatants, as well as not leaving your target (who can still Full Attack) immediately adjacent to you (that also works when using Standard Action to Pin one target and then Move further away out of danger).
This is false. The target is still adjacent to you, nothing in the grappled condition involves moving grapplers.
It also makes it impossible to reverse the Grapple, of course.
Again, untrue. It is still possible to reverse a grapple; nothing in the grappled condition prevents or enhances reversing grapples.
But to the broader issue, I agree that having examples for cases like this (which requires combining several distributed rules sub-systems correctly, i.e. something minorly difficult) would be very helpful for the game.
Honestly, I think Paizo needs a dedicated staff member in charge of Editing Rules (Crunch) and Errata and the FAQ process.
I disagree, but I do agree the rules surrounding grapple are difficult to fully grasp. Rather than put the onus on the already taxed Paizo staff, I fell it's up to us to contribute to our own understanding of the game. Do for yourself and read the rules, and once you understand them provide help for those who don't yet.
Exactly. I think working through some examples will show the developers "Oh, some things don't work exactly right, as written".Please understand I'm not trying to be offensive or combative, but the rules do work, and I have yet to encounter a creature that didn't. It is from a lack of understanding that we say things like, "This doesn't work right." I know, because I've said that, before I understood.
I don't know what to tell you. For example, in the Bestiary it says: "If a dire ape is stymied by a heavily armored foe, it attempts to grapple its foe, pin it to the ground, and rend it", even though it's impossible for a dire ape to grapple/pin and rend at the same time. Only through the most strenuous of mental gymnastics and casuistry would that sentence make any sense.
|
|
I don't know what to tell you. For example, in the Bestiary it says: "If a dire ape is stymied by a heavily armored foe, it attempts to grapple its foe, pin it to the ground, and rend it", even though it's impossible for a dire ape to grapple/pin and rend at the same time.
If a dire ape is stymied by a heavily armor foe, it can try all three of those tactics. It doesn't necessarily try all three of those tactics in the same round.
I don't know what to tell you. For example, in the Bestiary it says: "If a dire ape is stymied by a heavily armored foe, it attempts to grapple its foe, pin it to the ground, and rend it", even though it's impossible for a dire ape to grapple/pin and rend at the same time.If a dire ape is stymied by a heavily armor foe, it can try all three of those tactics. It doesn't necessarily try all three of those tactics in the same round.
So if a dire ape is not stymied by a heavily armored foe, it doesn't try to rend?
On second thought, don't answer that.
...basically means the Kraken can move around freely, which is good for maximizing AoO opportunities against other combatants, as well as not leaving your target (who can still Full Attack) immediately adjacent to you (that also works when using Standard Action to Pin one target and then Move further away out of danger).This is false. The target is still adjacent to you, nothing in the grappled condition involves moving grapplers.
Again, this isn`t something 100% spelled out directly in the rules, but I`m not talking about moving THE TARGET, which is covered by the relevant Option under Maintaining a Grapple. I`m suggesting that after establising a Grapple via Grab, that the Kraken then uses a Move Action to Move THEMSELVES (the target remains in the square they were placed in with the successful grapple check, adjacent to the Kraken when it made the grapple check). The rules for Grapple state that WHEN YOU ESTABLISH THE GRAPPLE the Target is moved adjacent, not that this is a `sticky` condition whereby they REMAIN adjacent to you no matter what.
Obviously, NORMALLY the Grappler (Controller) also can`t move so this doesn`t come up, but when using the -20 option or (when a Kraken) the Grappler (Controller) DOESN`T have any restriction on their own movement, and I can`t see anything that says a Grapple is automatically broken if you move away (though I would house-rule that you cannot move outside of your Reach without breaking Grapple, that isn`t within the RAW AFAIK). The next round, either when you maintain the grapple or re-initiate one, the Kraken would again move the target adjacent to them, but if they take their Move Action AFTER this attack, they should be able to AGAIN move THEMSELVES away from the target. ...This doesn`t seem to conflict at all with the `flavor` for the Kraken, who is typically portrayed holding victims within it`s reach where they can`t return attack it`s core body...
(Any other clarification on the rules I cited is welcome...)
It also makes it impossible to reverse the Grapple, of course.Again, untrue. It is still possible to reverse a grapple; nothing in the grappled condition prevents or enhances reversing grapples.
I was just saying this from the perspective that the Grapple rules suppose ´sub-conditions´ i.e. Controller and Controllee, and that `reversing the Grapple` would seem to require the previous Controller to also be Grappled themselves (which the Kraken is not). You could always make the CMB check to ESCAPE the Grapple and then (somehow) make an independent Grapple check to Grapple the Kraken, but I believe that since the Kraken isn`t Grappled itself, there is no sub-condition relationship to be `Reversed` - the Kraken isn`t Grappled period, so you must ESTABLISH a Grapple against it, not REVERSE an existing Grapple.
Again, the rules aren`t 100% clear on this, but that`s my reading of things... AFAIK, I don`t think the intent is that you Grapple the Kraken BACK, but the focus is on ESCAPING it`s Grapples, so that seems in-line with the flavor to me...???
I disagree, but I do agree the rules surrounding grapple are difficult to fully grasp. Rather than put the onus on the already taxed Paizo staff, I fell it's up to us to contribute to our own understanding of the game...
Well, that`s why I was suggesting additional dedicated staff rather than the current hard-working folks with enough on their desks... The only problem is that in certain cases the RAW is indeed ambiguous, and answers aren`t always forthcoming when questions are asked. I run into this myself when I`m trying to make a clear and consise table outlining the actions needed for each Combat Maneuver, but don`t receive any answer on certain issues which SEEM liable to be possible Errata... I`d rather not emphasize things which may well be Errata, but if there`s isn`t word one way or the other, what can I do?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Dire Ape tactics...
Well, that`s probably sub-optimal wording, but IS IT POSSIBLE that it`s describing the Dire Ape`s tactics IN SEQUENCE, i.e. it first Pins a Heavily Armored foe so that it can take advantage of the bonuses to Hit, etc., THEN Rends the immobilized opponent with a Full Attack?
Well, that`s probably sub-optimal wording, but IS IT POSSIBLE that it`s describing the Dire Ape`s tactics IN SEQUENCE, i.e. it first Pins a Heavily Armored foe so that it can take advantage of the bonuses to Hit, etc., THEN Rends the immobilized opponent with a Full Attack?
Either it's using a standard action to pin, or it's ending the grapple (and the pin) in favor of full attacking. There's no way to do both in the same round.
That`s what I`m saying, it`s not in the same round, it`s in sequential rounds.
The text never says `in the same round`.
Saying `Rednecks mock their enemies, spit in their faces, kick them where it hurts, shoot them in the knee caps, and drag them to where Bubba can have at them` doesn`t suggest a flurry of activity that all occurs in 6 seconds.
Regarding this though, I have a question for Tom:
Once you`ve Pinned the opponent, do you need to maintain the Pin (i.e. just like maintaining a grapple?) The rules don`t seem 100% clear to me on that, though I assume you do need to maintain the Pin. If you don`t obviously, you can freely fully attack once they are Pinned while they remained Pinned until beating your CMD to escape. If you DO need to maintain the Pin, you thus need to drop it before full attacking, which doesn`t net much benefit for the Dire Ape when it DOES Full Attack and Rend, besides that you`re on the ground (according to it`s tactics, though that`s a separate Grapple Check and separate Round to accomplish) and possibly you dropped any 2-handed weapon you couln`t use while Grappled/Pinned (i.e. if you wanted to melee attack while Grappled, or didn`t want to take the penalty to your CMB to Escape/Reverse).
Assuming the target is released when you don`t maintain a Pin (???), I think the way to think of this is not that this needs to be the best move for the Dire Ape, who can only temporarily apply Grapple/Pin restrictions and penalties until they release to Full Attack, but that it`s a guide for GM`s who if the PCs are too well armored, that the Dire Ape`s can still affect them via Grappling and Pinning which IS a signfigant condition, especially when you might want the Party Tank to be in different location, i.e. killing the Dire Apes mobbing the Wizard, etc, and in this sense it`s a reasonable way to describe how Dire Apes can be a signifigant ROADBLOCK at the least even against heavy armored targets.
It may not be a very EFFECTIVE tactic, but clearly if the Dire Ape was INTELLIGENT (which it is not) it should probably think about retreating if it couldn`t harm it`s opponent but it`s opponent could harm it... (with a climb speed that would clearly be a good idea vs. well armored melee combatants)
Ultimately, well armored opponents are not something Dire Apes generally have any experience with fighting, so if they have bad tactics for dealing with, it`s not a surprise. Obviously, IF the Dire Ape had a special ability applying it`s Rend damage when it Pinned
it`s opponent, it would make it a more effective opponent... But if it`s fulfilling it`s CR, it doesn`t need to be changed, that`s just an amusing aspect of it`s behavior when it encounters heavily armored opponents.
...But I`m not opposed to including Dire Apes within the examples of how Grapple plays out.
Just my own two cents, but I suspect that barring some kind of compulsion the point is moot. An octopus would only grapple one person, then attempt to jet off somewhere to eat, deploying it's ink screen as necessary.
That`s what I`m saying, it`s not in the same round, it`s in sequential rounds.
You said "rend the immobilized opponent", which is not possible; once the creature decides not to continue the grapple, all penalties end instantly, as far as I know.
You said "rend the immobilized opponent", which is not possible; once the creature decides not to continue the grapple, all penalties end instantly, as far as I know.
The Dire Ape`s description doesn`t have that words, that was one possible interpretation of how Pin works.
(I`m not sure if you need to maintain the Pin, since the wording about needing to maintain the Grapple is talking about when the target is Grappled not Pinned...) In either case, the given tactics CAN be applied sequentially, only to varying effectiveness. (Though as I point out, taking them to the ground is ANOTHER step... making this probably a very crappy tactic... but anything besides Withdrawing preferably via Climb speed is probably going to be a crappy tactic for the Dire Ape).Some monsters, especially dumb ones like the Dire Ape can just have bad tactics, especially against creatures they don`t usually hunt. Even with that, hampering the party tank for 2+ rounds can seriously scare a party (at the least), which I feel is the intent behind that tactic. Even if the Dire Ape itself is a goner, the net effect by tying up the battle field can be very frustrating and dangerous for a party. I think since it`s seemingly describing normal territorial behavior, that it`s reasonable for a GM to decide that a Dire Ape get`s scared and DOES decide to withdraw, though...
I always kind of figured that if you weren't treated as grappled (such as when taking the -20 option) then you wouldn't have to spend the standard action to maintain, that it was basically done for you automatically without the need for the action.
I always kind of figured that if you weren't treated as grappled (such as when taking the -20 option) then you wouldn't have to spend the standard action to maintain, that it was basically done for you automatically without the need for the action.
That would make much more sense, I think. Either that, or allow maintaining the grapple as a free action (with a -20 penalty), say.
I kind of like the suggestion to maintain the grapple as an attack by taking a -20 on the roll (only if you have the Grab ability). The potential downside is that it would make grappling monsters with lots of natural attacks a bit more dangerous since they'd only have to hit your AC once up front instead of hitting it every round.
I agree with Quandary that it would be nice to know whether a pin in Pathfinder needs to be maintained round by round like it did in 3.5. Nothing I've seen in the PRD says that it does. Of course you'd still need to maintain the grapple from round to round, but maybe you could choose other effects like moving, damaging, or tying up the opponent. The option to pin and damage seems like what the dire ape might be looking for (though what he really needs are the grab and rake abilities)
Also unclear though is whether getting completely free from a pin still requires making two checks. It seems intuitive that breaking a pin would leave you grappled, but the rules just say "A pinned creature can always attempt to free itself, usually through a combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check." What is it freeing itself from, the pinned condition or the grapple?