Does a Grappling Character Provide Flanking?

[Fatespinner]

Thread title pretty much says it. Here's the description of the 'grappled' condition from the PRD:

PRD wrote:

Grappled: A grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity. A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple. In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform. A grappled character who attempts to cast a spell must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), or lose the spell. Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity.

A grappled creature cannot use Stealth to hide from the creature grappling it, even if a special ability, such as hide in plain sight, would normally allow it to do so. If a grappled creature becomes invisible, through a spell or other ability, it gains a +2 circumstance bonus on its CMD to avoid being grappled, but receives no other benefit.

Now, the fact that the creature takes a -2 penalty on all attack rolls and CM checks except those made to grapple or escape a grapple suggests to me that a grappled creature can still make attacks against creatures outside of the grapple (albeit at the aforementioned penalty). Since grappling no longer forces creatures to share a square in Pathfinder, can a character who is engaged in a grapple still provide a flanking bonus to allies? Of particular interest is whether or not the grappler counts as a flank against the target he is grappling. The combination of a grapple-specialist monk or fighter combined with a rogue could be especially devastating, as the DEX penalty reduces the grappled target's AC in addition to the flank bonuses.

In fact, the only thing that suggests a grappling character might not provide a flank is this line: "Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity." Is being able to make an AoO against a target a factor in determining whether or not you are "threatening" it? Or is the ability to make a normal attack against the target adequate enough to establish threat?

[IkeDoe]

Yes.
In 4E you can't threaten if you can't perfom AoOs.
In PF you just have to be able to perform a melee attack to flank, not being able to perform AoOs doesn't prevent you from threatening enemies, because you threaten someone if you can attack him.

A grappled creature does threaten (as long as he wields a one handed weapon, holds a melee touch spell charge, has Improved Unnarmed Fighting, etc..), and thus counts to flanking.
The grappling character can also attack the grappled creature whenever he wants, but must let the grappled creature go first (you decide if that counts as being able to attack or not). Unless he has Greater Grapple, in that case he can maintain the grapple and attack in the same round.

[Grick]

Fatespinner wrote:

can a character who is engaged in a grapple still provide a flanking bonus to allies?

If You Are Grappled: 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.

Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn.

Flanking: When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.

So, while you are being grappled (not the grappler), can you make a melee attack into a square? Grappled says yes. So that means you threaten. Since you threaten, someone opposite you can get the flanking bonus.

However, if you are the grappler, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold. Since you also cannot make AoOs, do you still threaten any squares besides the one your victim is in? Even though you're forced to spend your standard action on something, you might still threaten. You -could- make an attack, even though you're choosing to instead wrestle with a guy (and hit him or tie him up or whatever). I'm inclined to say yes, as the grappler, you still threaten. Otherwise it's just kind of weird. I could see argument both ways, though the more I think about it, the more I think you still threaten if you're able to take actions and are armed.

[Majuba]

Simply - Yes.

Grick has the logic down.

[Lost Ohioian]

Wouldn't it be that you could not make an attack unless you released the grapple, which is a free action. If you choose to maintain it though you couldn't so then you wouldn't provide the flank?

[jimibones83]

Lost Ohioian wrote:

Wouldn't it be that you could not make an attack unless you released the grapple, which is a free action. If you choose to maintain it though you couldn't so then you wouldn't provide the flank?

this is what I would think too

[Astor Pontifex]

As the lead grappler, you must spend a standard action to maintain the grapple, as the lead you also have a chance to auto attack with your successful CMB with any weapon that you may otherwise use in a grapple. Since you are grappled just like the defender, you still do threaten other squares, you are just not able to make very much use of it.