| 10 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi,
Ok i know this get's intense to put it mildly, but I just need to know how close I am to understanding this ability set that has vexed me since DnD 3.0.
Situation: PC falls into a underground lake wherein he is attacked by an anaconda (or a constrictor as per the Bestiary). The snake wishes to kill and eat the poor guy. It has grab and constrict. Assuming the dice go perfectly for the snake (and therefore badly for the poor PC), and the snake wants to do nothing but damage the PC as much as possible, no moving or pinning or anything, here is how the combat would go acording to my reading of the rules...
Round 1
Snake bites, gets to start a grapple as a free action (+4 bonus due to GRAB), no AoO, the Pc takes Bite damage, and constrict damage (he does NOT take the free damage from grab, nor can the snake choose the "damage" grapple action). Assume PC fails his escape attempt this round.
Round 2
Snake succesfully maintains the grapple as a STANDARD action, not free anymore (he gets a +9 on the roll to do this btw +5 from page 200 crb, and an additional +4 from GRAB ability bestiary 1 301). Therefore the PC takes: 1. Damage as a grapple action (bite natural attack, page 200 CRB), 2. Bite damage again (not from the bite per se, but from the Grab EX ability, page 301, Best 1), and 3. Constrict damage again since the snake made a successful grapple check (Best 1, 301). as a MOVE action the snake takes the PC under water and so the PC is subject to drowning rules (which I will not go into here).
Round 3
Same as round 2, this poor PC is screwed!
The rules on 300 say that you may choose to deal damage equal to a natural attack (a summary), so that would be the snakes bite attack in this case, as part of the standard action of maintaining the grapple.
The rules for grab and constrict say that the damage from these abilities is applied whenever a successful grapple is maintained (constrict adds the language of INITIATING a grapple, that's why it applies to round 1).
There is nothing that says these abilities are separate or that you have to choose one or the other. So to me it seems that in subsequent rounds, as a standard action you can apply bite damage (200 crb) apply grab damage (same as a bite)(best 1, 301), AND constrict damage (best 1, 301).
----------------------or----------------------
Does the word HOLD mean something different than maintain a grapple?
On 301 of the bestiary 1, it speaks of conducting the grapple normally or using the part of the body that intiated the grapple to HOLD the target. If you do this you get a -20 on the check to start and maintain the grapple.
If you succeed the target is held apparently. A held target is not subject to grab damage on the initial round but can still be constricted, on subsequent rounds the HELD target gets the grab damage AND constrict damage, but NOT the grapple action damage as per pg. 200 cause it is held, and not grappled.
Also if being held is NOT the same as being grappled, then my above reading is wrong, and a grappled target does not take the grab damage, because being grappled isn't the same as being held. So therefore a grappled target would take bite damage, and constrict damage on round 1, and on round two, it would take grapple action damage, and constrict damage, but NOT grab damage.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The sticky widget here is the 301 bestiary 1 entry about GRAB. About halfway down it says...
"The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply (ha thats a laugh) use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent."
Does everything after this sentence in this paragraph apply ONLY to the special situation where the monster is HOLDING a target in one hand (or tentacle, claw, mouth ect.), or does the sentece after the next one pick up talking about regular grappled creatures AND "held" creatures again...?
"A successful hold does not deal any extra damage..."(ect ect until the end of the paragraph)
---------------------------------------------------------------
TL:DR
Is Hold the same as grapple?
If yes...
Round 1. Snake bites and intiates grapple, does bite and constrict damage.
Round 2. Snake mantains grapple as standard action, does grapple action, grab, and constrict damage.
If no...
Round 1. Snake bites and intiates grapple, does bite and constrict damage.
Round 2. Snake maintains grapple as standard action, does grapple action and constrict damage only.
(BTW if no, then what possible reason is there to choose to grab instead of grapple? Either way you are spending a standard action to maintain, so you couldn't make other attacks, so why would you give yourself the -20? What am i missing here?)
Thanks a LOT for any help.
If yes...
Round 1. Snake bites and intiates grapple, does bite and constrict damage.
Round 2. Snake mantains grapple as standard action, does grapple action, grab, and constrict damage.
From my understanding (and I'm playing a Tetori monk in an upcoming game so I've had to learn the grapple rules inside and out) this is the correct case. If you have both grab AND constrict, anyone unlucky enough to be in this hapless PC's situation is in a bit of a pickle.
Don't have the time to cross-check everything right now, but as far as I know, this is how it works (and I agree that especially the gradb ability needs a re-write):
Round 1: Snake bites, inflicts bite damage, starts grapple, inflicts constrict damage on successful grapple.
Round 2: Snake sucessfully uses Standard action to maintain grapple. This has multiple effects:
- It inflicts bite damage automatically as per grab ability.
- It inflicts constrict damage automatically as per constrict ability.
- It can still perform the usual grapple actions like move, pin or damage. Note that the snake has only one attack and that is occupied, so it can't actually use the damage action. A tiger or other creature with multiple attacks, however, could take one additional attack as the damage action.
(- Speaking of Tigers: When maintaining the grapple, a creature can also use its rake attacks (if any). Rake specifically states that the grapple must already be active. I'm not sure, if those attacks are in addition to the normal "Damage" action or instead of it...)
Round 3 and all following rounds: See round 2.
Note that the snake has only one attack and that is occupied, so it can't actually use the damage action. A tiger or other creature with multiple attacks, however, could take one additional attack as the damage action.
I don't believe this is correct. The damage option for grappling states:
Damage
You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon. This damage can be either lethal or nonlethal.
You don't actually make an attack, you just deal damage equal to one of your natural attacks. The snake just bites down harder I suppose.
Unrelated to the above but it should be noted that the extra damage from grab doesn't happen unless the creature also has constrict.
Ok, now I don't know how it works at all...
Let's take a closer look at Grab:
Grab (Ex) If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. Unless otherwise noted, grab can only be used against targets of a size equal to or smaller than the creature with this ability. If the creature can use grab on creatures of other sizes, it is noted in the creature's Special Attacks line.
The first part is easy enough to understand. No questions here.
The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself.
This part is also easy, but I'm unsure if the next sentence applies to all grapple checks or only those made with the -20 pealty. The sentence says
A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has the constrict special attack.
So, is that only for the -20 option or a general rule? If it is general, how does it make any sense with the last part:
If the creature does not constrict, each successful grapple check it makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold. Otherwise, it deals constriction damage as well (the amount is given in the creature's descriptive text).
First it says you don't deal damage unless you constrict. Then it says you deal only the damage of the attack unless you have constrict. In that case, the constrict damage happens in addition to the normal damage? And right after saying you donÄt inlict additional damage unless you constrict?
-----------------------
OK, reading the whole ability again (for like the 10th time) I think I understand it. Grab basically means you inflict the damage of the grappling attack on each successful grapple check.
Part 3 applies only to the first attack, the one that initiates the grapple. It makes sense that this one doesn't deal the normal damage, as it already did damage before the grapple check even happened. You still get your constrict damage in that one, but not the automatic attack damage you get on all successive grapple checks.
So basically it's like this (in order, assuming all checks succeed):
Round 1
1. Roll attack
2. Roll damage
3. Roll grapple
4. Roll constrict
Round 2
1. Roll grapple*
2. Roll damage
3. Roll constrict
*At this point, you should be able to add any of the special grapple actions like move or pin. The_Scourge is right that you don't need to roll an attack for the damage action. The damage is infliced automatically. I missed that part.
If you add the damage action, the bite damage in inflicted one more time in addition to the one time on the successful grapple check due to grab, as Ezekiel said. I personally would probably rule that you need another form of attack besides the one that initiated the damage but RAW there's no part in grab saying hat you can't use the attack while the grapple is active.
They really need to do a faq on this.
Ahh, I see now. I was thinking constricting was a choice making the second statement qualify the first. Now I realize that This:
A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has the constrict special attack.Is a qualifying statement for this:
The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself.
So grab always deals damage when you make a successful grapple check unless you're using the -20 chunk of the ability.
And this is simplified grapple rules. How did anyone keep this straight in 3.5?
@The_Scourge: I don't think grab inflicts damage on _every_ successful grapple check as that would include the initial check that starts the grapple, which would result in double damage on the attack. I think it means that the initial check doesn't deal damage, regardless of whether you use the normal or the -20 version.
@Rathyr: If grab doesn't allow you to deal damage, then what is the point of the last part?
If the creature does not constrict, each successful grapple check it makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold. Otherwise, it deals constriction damage as well (the amount is given in the creature's descriptive text).
The way I see it, grab allows you to latch onto your target in some way. You bite and gnaw or you claw and don't let go (much like a fishing hook). That's why maintaining the grapple will automatically inflict the damage again. It's basically a continuation of the initial attack.
On a side note, this is also why I think the attack starting the grapple shouldn't be available for the damage action as you are already attacking with it anyway. But as I said, there's nothing saying so in RAW.
But yeah, I think we all agree that some kind of extensive FAQ is sorely needed.
Yes, maintaining the grapple is still a standard action. Though a creature with multiple attacks might actually be better of releasing the grapple as a free action, doing a full attack and start a new grapple as a free action - provided it hits with its grab attack.
@Rathyr: If grab doesn't allow you to deal damage, then what is the point of the last part?
If the creature does not constrict, each successful grapple check it makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold. Otherwise, it deals constriction damage as well (the amount is given in the creature's descriptive text).
If a creature without the Grab ability tries to damage an opponent, it uses its unarmed strike damage. For a Medium-sized constrictor snake, that would be 1d3+Str damage. But if a creature has the Grab ability, it uses its natural weapon damage instead. For the constrictor, that's 1d4+1.5*Str. And if it has Constrict, it does additional damage as well (1d4+1.5*Str, in the case of the constrictor snake).
So the point of the last part is just to clarify that a creature with Grab doesn't use its unarmed strike when it does grappling damage.
So is the only benefits of taking the -20 on the grab is to not get the grappled condition and do the extra grab damage?
I think it's just a vestigial rule from 3.5 (where you didn't need to spend a standard action maintaining a grapple) that doesn't make much sense in Pathfinder.
Okay, ya this is still confusing, let me show you guys what I propose after reading it all night. I think the intent of grab was to make an ability that does two things.
One, it gives you enhanced abilities to start and maintain a grapple (free action to start, +4 on the check, no AoO).
Two. It also gives you the option to initiate a special kind of grapple called a HOLD. (They really should have made a separate condition entry for held IMHO).
I think that what is throwing everyone including me off is the fact that being HELD and being GRAPPLED seem like the same thing, but are not.
It's really about how they organized the paragraph under Grab. Let me show you with the text from the entry...
1. If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. Unless otherwise noted, grab can only be used against targets of a size equal to or smaller than the creature with this ability. If the creature can use grab on creatures of other sizes, it is noted in the creature's Special Attacks line. The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply to use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent.
Ok lets stop here, I think that this section talks about how GRAB affects regular old grapple, and explains that it gives the creature the option to use grapple checks to perform a HOLD, the next section I believe talks about how to perform the hold...
2. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself.
Ok, and here's where we get all the confusion, I propose the idea that the next section applies ONLY to hold (grappling with a -20 penalty) and NOT to a full on grapple.
3. A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has the constrict special attack. If the creature does not constrict, each successful grapple check it makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold. Otherwise, it deals constriction damage as well (the amount is given in the creature’s descriptive text).
Then the entry begins a new paragraph, which I believe refers to both grappling and the hold action again.
4. Creatures with grab receive a +4 bonus on combat maneuver checks made to start and maintain a grapple.
As a side note, constrict itself is very clear that anytime you make a grapple check, you can do constrict damage, the grab entry describes how constrict works with the HOLD special grapple. That's important for the following.
In this reading a creature with grab must decide upon starting a grapple whether or not to do a regular grapple, or a special HOLD grapple (-20 ect.ect.)
-------------------------so-------------------------
If the creature chooses to grapple normally...
Then it rolled and hit already, and gets to do its damage, (bite for the snake, or whatever gives the creature the grab ability). It can immediately begin a grapple, and if sucessful, the target takes constrict damage. On round two if it chooses to maintain the grapple, it can do the "damage" grapple action (200 CRB) AND the constrict damage, but NOT the "hold" damage from section 3 above, because it is not held, it is grappled normally.
If it chooses to take the -20 and HOLD the target...
It rolls an attack and hits, doing the damage (again depending on what attack lets it grab, bite in this case) and activating grab. It then rolls a CMB at a -20 (but with a +4 bonus for grab, usually already built in to the creature, thanks Ezikiel). If succesful it then imposes a HOLD on the target. The target gets the grappled condition but the creature does not, the target is subject to section 3 above. SO the grab does NOT do damage this round, but the target DOES get constrict damage.
On round two, the creature makes a grapple check to maintain the hold (-20, but with a +5 bonus per 200 of the CRB), but it is NOT grappling the target, it is HOLDing the target (even though it is a grapple check to maintain a hold). Therefore, the target takes damage from being held (section 3 above), AND from constrict (section 3 above), but is NOT subject to the grapple action damage on pg 200 of the CRB.
If the creature does this, it is not grappled, it can move normally takes no penalties, and can use other attacks if it has them. It can use the other attacks because maintaining a hold is a grapple check (free action) but NOT maintaining a grapple (standard action).
I know, I know crazy right? A grapple check is not the same as maintaing a grapple, and other checks (skill ect..) take no time to actually DO the check (well there are exceptions for SOME skills but you get the idea). So that's the payoff for taking a -20, the creature can use other abilities and attacks on the rest of the party while still holding and constricting the poor PC.
(Now, in the case of our snake, choosing the -20 would be pretty dumb, because he only has ONE attack anyway, so whether he chooses to grapple normally OR hold, that attack is used up, so he might as well just grapple normally to use his full bonus. But an Octopus with 8 arms would love to HOLD, so he can still attack with the other 7 tentacles, perhaps even intiate another grab)
The reasons I think my version is correct:
1. It "reads" easier if you think in terms of HOLD as a subset of grapple.
2. Creatures get two "damages" either way (constrict + "hold" or constrict + graaple action damage).
3. The -20 pays off bigger because the creature still has a standard action (not used up in maintaining, like regualar grapple). In the grapple is the same as held version, even if a creature takes the -20 to CMB, it STILL has to use a standard action to maintain because it is grappling, not "holding".
4. It seems far more balanced this way. Creatures getting to do basiclly 3x damage per round from ONE succesful check, thats not even against AC, AND it gets a +4 to the roll seems awfully powerful for one ability! Druids would never take anything BUT snakes for companions lol.
5. It doesnt really makes sense that a creature could do damage from grappling action, presumably with its mouth, and somehow do grabbing damage with its mouth as well, wouldn't they be kind of the same thing? Constrict still makes sense as a squeezing secondary damage.
Anyway, I hope that maybe a T-Rex will jump in and tell us all the way it is supposed to be... Until then this is probably what my group will go with. I still want to hear your thoughts though, interesting how we can all dechipher it so differently lol!
I also think the -20 to hold as part of the Grab rules is a holdover from 3.5 and made more sense in the context of that ruleset. In 3.5, taking that -20 to hold enabled a creature to continue to threaten an area and use its remaining attacks against other opponents. In subsequent rounds, it could hold the same opponent in a grapple, add more if it had more attacks with +Grab, and use its remaining attacks.
The intended use of the -20 option on a Grab in PF is unclear to me. The grappled condition is much less severe than 3.5 (ie does not equal instant sneak attackable) and maintaining a grapple is now a standard action.
Take for example the Kraken in PF's Bestiary. It has an Ex ability to make grapples without gaining the grappled condition without needing to take a -20 penalty, but doesn't get much benefit from it. It could Grab and grapple a total of 10 opponents in one round. In the next round, if it wanted to maintain a grapple against one(=standard action), it would have to release nine opponents as a free action and wouldn't get attacks against additional opponents. Optionally, it could release all 10 as a free action and get its full attack sequence back. This doesn't seem intended, but looks like current RAW.
Regarding how anyone kept grappling rules straight in 3.5, my group relied heavily on Skip Williams four part 'All About Grappling' series written as part of his Rules of the Game column. Rather than just an FAQ, I think grappling/grab rules could benefit from a detailed Blog post(s). I know the design team is usually getting hammered with work that needs to get done to pay the bills. I wish there were a method to compensate them for the time they put towards rules FAQs and Blogs.
I submit that maintaining a grapple is a standard action yes, BUT making a grapple CHECK to maintain a HOLD is not a standard action, merely a check. This is not stated verbatim in the rules, but seems to make the most sense. If the creature is taking -20 to CMB to hold, then it can do so without having to pay a lot of attention to it (ie a standard action). A creature must have GRAB to do this, and maybe it helps to think of grab and grapple as two related but seperate things.
Therefore the Kraken being able to use grab (not grapple) with out the -20 gets a HUGE advantage, it doesn't have to release a target to attack another one, and can use its standard action to fight with it's other tentacles while making only a cursory check to hold the target it already has.
|
I also think the -20 to hold as part of the Grab rules is a holdover from 3.5 and made more sense in the context of that ruleset. In 3.5, taking that -20 to hold enabled a creature to continue to threaten an area and use its remaining attacks against other opponents. In subsequent rounds, it could hold the same opponent in a grapple, add more if it had more attacks with +Grab, and use its remaining attacks.
The intended use of the -20 option on a Grab in PF is unclear to me. The grappled condition is much less severe than 3.5 (ie does not equal instant sneak attackable) and maintaining a grapple is now a standard action.
Take for example the Kraken in PF's Bestiary. It has an Ex ability to make grapples without gaining the grappled condition without needing to take a -20 penalty, but doesn't get much benefit from it. It could Grab and grapple a total of 10 opponents in one round. In the next round, if it wanted to maintain a grapple against one(=standard action), it would have to release nine opponents as a free action and wouldn't get attacks against additional opponents. Optionally, it could release all 10 as a free action and get its full attack sequence back. This doesn't seem intended, but looks like current RAW.
Regarding how anyone kept grappling rules straight in 3.5, my group relied heavily on Skip Williams four part 'All About Grappling' series written as part of his Rules of the Game column. Rather than just an FAQ, I think grappling/grab rules could benefit from a detailed Blog post(s). I know the design team is usually getting hammered with work that needs to get done to pay the bills. I wish there were a method to compensate them for the time they put towards rules FAQs and Blogs.
I have been curious for a while (because I have seen this rule before) why does everyone assume you have to maintain the grapple against each person separately? The rules just say it is a standard action to maintain the grapple and doesn't say how many creatures that maintain check holds. In fact the closest thing I could find is Black Tentacles which says to make one check for everyone being grappled.
lowew, for the reasons I stated above, the Grab (Ex) does not damage on a grapple check. I've seen a great many builds and rule debates on grappling before, but this is the first time I've seen someone put forth that argument. That is Paizo restating obvious grapple rules.
As for the -20 debate issue, I'm not seeing the need for an incredibly complicated explanation. You can take a -20 to avoid the penalties of grappling. You still have to maintain it as a standard, and everything else remains the same, you just don't have -4 Dex and -2 to attack rolls (I can't imagine you would be able to avoid the "you can't move" portion of grappled...). Is it a terrible trade off? Yes. But there is no need to invent a new subset of rules.
So you are saying that where grab says...
"A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has the constrict special attack. If the creature does not constrict, each successful grapple check it makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold. Otherwise, it deals constriction damage as well (the amount is given in the creature’s descriptive text)."
...it is actually referring to the grapple damage action mentioned on 200 of the CRB? Ok if thats true then what if the creature wants to do an action BESIDES damage as part of it's grapple. like pin or tie up? In your version if a creature decides to pin a grappled target then it doesn't get any damage from grab. But the description says that any time you succeed on a grapple check it AUTOMATICALLY deals damage.
So you are saying that if I choose not to do damage as part of maintaining a grapple, then I get only my constrict damage?
My real issue with this is the -20 thing. If maintaining a grapple and continuing to hold an opponent are the same thing, and it's a standard action to do it, then the benefits for taking a -20 to CMB are minute and never worth it.
A 64 legged land octopus with grab has to use a standard action to maintain a "hold" or a grapple making his other legs useless. He has to release his held target in order to attack others. To me that is stupid. The whole point of these monsters IMHO is that they can do lots of things at once with their arms, including hold one guy while whooping up on another.
I totally understand what you are saying and agree that is a solid interpretation, but the problem there are a LOT of interpretations, thats why we need help lol.
@ Rathyr
I just wanna stop for a second here. I want to apologize if my posts sound arguementative or like I disrespect you or think you are wrong or anything like that.
I have ADD badly, so focusing on complex rules like this for a long time is difficult for me (makes it hard to GM lol).
I realize my interpretation is probbably wrong and maybe even stupid lol.
So, would you please show a step by step breakdown of what the rounds would look like and why?
Thanks again for helping me!
Okay, so either way (mine or yours) it is still one set of bite damage and constrict damage per round (after the first). But your logic is more sound.
And we seem to both agree that the -20 thing is terrible and maybe even useless lol.
However let me say this..
I think you are off a tad on Round one Step four. I am almost positive that you get constrict damage on the first you round you establish the grapple. Here is the entry from the bestiary 1 FAQ to back up my assertion...
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fo#v5748eaic9nid
A creature with constrict deals this additional damage every time it makes a successful grapple check against a foe. This includes the first check to establish the grapple (such as when using the grab universal monster rule).
—Jason Bulmahn, 11/24/10
Ahh, okay you said bite not grapple, but I got ya then.
I still believe the sentence
A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has the constrict special attack.
Is talking about the initial check to initiate the grapple. It's written right after the first few sentences which talk about beginning the grapple (with the -20 penalty or not). After that, the rules state
If the creature does not constrict, each successful grapple check it makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold. Otherwise, it deals constriction damage as well (the amount is given in the creature's descriptive text).
So basically, everything BEFORE the part in my second quote is just about the first check, the one that initates the grapple. And after that, each successive check inflicts the damage of the grabbing attack (+ constrict).
@Rathyr: I don't think they are just referring to the normal damage option when they say the damage is inflicted automatically. I got two reasons:
1. The damage action does not happen "automatically". It is just an option. If you pin with a normal (non-grab) grapple, you don't automatically inflict any damage. With grab, you do. A tiger is still chewing your shoulder (inflicting its bite damage) even if it pins you to the ground.
2. The damage option allows you to choose how you damage your opponent, saying
You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon.
The way you read it would imply that this is not a choice with grab as you automatically inflict the damage of the grabbing attack. But why would a creature like a Xill use the damage of its grappling claw attack for the damage action, if it could just as well use a more effective attack like its more damaging short sword or its paralysing bite?
Oh, I totally agree that the rules are less than clear - to say the least. I'm pretty much just guessing like everyone else.
And if your version is correct, what % of DMs have been using monsters correctly? I should be happy if they are getting it wrong, honestly, because your version ups how lethal Grab (Ex) creatures are CONSIDERABLY. A creature with grab and constrict would inflict damage no less than 5 bite attacks (R1: Initial Attack + Constrict + R2: Grapple + Grab + Constrict) in a 2 round period, while imposing significant control. For two standard actions. Rocket tag with a twist!
Actually, I don't think it's quite that bad. I really believe the RAI (which is totally not even hinted at by RAW, but bear with me) is that the grabing attack inflicts it damage on successful rounds but is considered "occupied" during the grapple. So it can't be used for the damage action. To inflict the additional damage with the damage action, the creature would need a second attack.
That means single attack grabber/constricter like constrictor snakes would still "only" inflict damage 4 times during those 2 rounds. Strong? Yes. Worse than a auroch trampling half the group? Hardly.
Monsters with multiple attacks and the grab ability (on one or multiple attacks) deal way less damage with each individual attack, so the additional damage from the damage action isn't all that bad. A Tiger could inflict it's bite damage on the successful maintaining plus the damage from one claw attack which is still less then the snake would do. The tiger does get its Rake attacks on top of that but those aren't auto-hits and can be foiled by AC, concelment or other means.
Creatures with even more attacks and a grab (like a Xill or Marilith) give up most of their offensive potential (full attack) if they maintain the grapple so there shouldn't be a big problem with them either.
That's the way I see it, anyway. I don't claim to be right but it does make the most sense to me. Maybe the developers will enlighten us some day.
Hmm... your trusty Otyugh still packs quite some punch this way.
Automatic tentacle damage (from the grab), auto-inflicting bite damage (plus disease), topping it all with constriction damage - not half bad for what is considered to be a tough bot not too hard opponent for a level 2 group.
But the Otyugh's grab comes from a secondary attack, somewhat limiting the damage and to-hit chance. And the disease with its d3 onset doesn't really affect the combat.
Yes, the fact that the damage happens pretty much automatic makes it a very strong ability. No argument there. But is an automatic damage of 1d8+2d6+8 (avg 19,5) really worse then the potential 7d6+14 (avg 38,5) damage from a Minotaur's full-attack (both CR 4 monsters)?
Atomatic damage also has a downside: If you don't roll, you can't crit. A minotaur can inflict 9d6+18 (avg 45) damage with one lucky roll. The Otyugh cannot.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are monsters out there that get pretty mean with grab. I'm just not convinced that they are worse than the rest of the monsters. At least not by much.
Especially considering if the monster is pouring all that effort into on grappled PC, the rest of the party has free reign to gather round and begin the curbstomping.
It would be really nice of Paizo to start posting some examples of the rules in action in some monster versus PC type formats. I would love to see an Otyugh or Shambling Mound versus 3-4 PC melee characters to demonstrate how they expect this to resolve. Also a definition of "conduct the grapple normally" would be nice. My interpretation of that is that once a creature smacks you with an attack and establishes a hold it brings in the other appendages and tries to establish a hold losing any additional attacks (normal grapple) or are all the other appendages flailing around smacking at things and trying to grab things if they hit (-20 to checks).
It makes a lot of difference if the -20 comes into play if the creatures also have constrict. I submit a definition of "conduct the grapple normally" as choosing to give up additional attacks and focusing on maintaining a hold on the target hit with the initiating grab attack.
I find it unbalanced when I see GMs running these multiple attack grab + constrict creatures and they are smacking the PCs over and over again with an un penalized CMB that auto inflicts constrict damage. It doesn't seem to be what was intended. If a creature wants to flail around with these independent appendages grabbing and constricting they need to take the penalty for it.
Paizo needs to finish the work they began and get these grappling rules "pinned down". Pardon the pun.