Scott Wilhelm wrote: But the rules do allow for multiple checks, ... Greater Grapple states specifically two checks per round.
You read Rapid Grapple as granting a third.
I do not.
Until we solve this disagreement, the rest of your discussion seems pointless since it depends on a third check which I don't think you get.
/cevah
Cevah wrote: there are a number of feats that let you use an AoO in new ways or at new times. They do not, however, grant additional AoOs. Let me give you another example.
How many weapons can you draw/round?
The answer is 1. Drawing a weapon is a Move Action. You get 1 Move Action per Round.
Well, what if you have the Quickdraw Feat?
Now, drawing a Weapon is a Free Action. Now, the answer is that you can draw as many weapons as you have hands to draw weapons with, more even. You can draw your longsword and your Quickdraw Shield in the same round as free actions. You can Full Attack with short spears, drawing each as Free Actions, and throwing them up to the limits of your Full Attack.
They don't actually say that you are only allowed 1 Maintain Check/round. They specify the kind of action it is to make the check. Likewise, they don't specify how many weapons you are allowed to draw: they say that drawing a weapon is a Move Action, and you only get 1. The Quickdraw Feat doesn't give you any more actions, it just changes the kind of action it takes to perform the Draw a Weapon Action, but it doesn't mean you still can only draw 1 weapon.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Let me give you another example.
How many weapons can you draw/round?
The answer is 1. Drawing a weapon is a Move Action. You get 1 Move Action per Round.
Well, what if you have the Quickdraw Feat?
Now, drawing a Weapon is a Free Action. Now, the answer is that you can draw as many weapons as you have hands to draw weapons with, more even. You can draw your longsword and your Quickdraw Shield in the same round as free actions. You can Full Attack with short spears, drawing each as Free Actions, and throwing them up to the limits of your Full Attack.
Bad choice for an example. :-)
You can draw a weapon with each hand in that move action, and since you can use a standard to do a move, that ups it to four. Then there are weapons like Shuriken that are drawn as ammo as a free action. So with no feats, you can draw as many as yu have attacks.
/cevah
Cevah wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: But the rules do allow for multiple checks, ... Greater Grapple states specifically two checks per round.
You read Rapid Grapple as granting a third.
I do not.
Until we solve this disagreement, the rest of your discussion seems pointless since it depends on a third check which I don't think you get.
/cevah Actually, Rapid Grappler is barely relevant to the OP or to my build.
Both make use of the Expert Captor Class Ability, which allows the Grappler to apply the Tie Up effect to your opponent when you have them only Grappled where you normally have to have them Pinned, first.
So, if you begin your Round adjacent to your opponent, you Initiate the Grapple with the Standard Action, and you Tie them Up with a Move Action.
I wouldn't even bother with Rapid Grappler unless I wanted to Grapple multiple opponents at a time.
Take a level in White Haired Witch.
Take Cleave.
Cleave is a Standard Action.
Every hit with your White Hair gives you a Free Action Grapple Check.
Tie Up one of your victims as a Move Action via Greater Grapple.
Tie Up the other as a Swift Action via Rapid Grappler.
The thing to do next would probably be to get the Snake Fang Feat and also Feral Combat Training. Now, whenever someone attacks you and misses, you get to make an Attack of Opportunity with your 'Hair and Grapple them if you hit. Remember that when you have people Grappled in your White Hair, you are not Grappled, only they are.
Now it becomes worthwhile to take Great Cleave. Making a Grapple Check to escape the Grapple is still an Attack, and if that Attack fails, you get your Attack of Opportunity. And since your Free Action Grapple From White Hair is not limited to starting a grapple the way Grab is, there is no reason you can't use the Tie Up ability then.
Next round, you Grapple all of them again via Great Cleave, and try to tie up 1 or 2 more.
Now your new nickname is the Spider Woman.
Jurassicka wrote: Hi.
I like to min max.
We are using all rule books, as in any material on D20PFSRD.
I've never tried to incorporate this into a build, but since your GM is allowing everything on d20pfsrd, you should take a look at Psychic Warrior.
Psychic Warriors have a version of Enlarge Person, and theirs is special. Expansion is augmentable: you can spend extra Psionic Strength Points to grow 2 sizes instead of 1, and that is rare in Pathfinder.
Also, Psychic Warriors have a Power called Grip of Iron, which will give you a +4 on your Grapple Checks.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Jurassicka wrote: Hi.
I like to min max.
We are using all rule books, as in any material on D20PFSRD.
I've never tried to incorporate this into a build, but since your GM is allowing everything on d20pfsrd, you should take a look at Psychic Warrior.
Psychic Warriors have a version of Enlarge Person, and theirs is special. Expansion is augmentable: you can spend extra Psionic Strength Points to grow 2 sizes instead of 1, and that is rare in Pathfinder.
Also, Psychic Warriors have a Power called Grip of Iron, which will give you a +4 on your Grapple Checks. Actually the hair is only a single weapon (you can only have one natural weapon per limb) so cannot grapple multiple enemies.
Conjoy wrote: Actually the hair is only a single weapon (you can only have one natural weapon per limb) so cannot grapple multiple enemies. The hair is a single Natural Attack, yes. I'm talking about Great Cleave. You typically use a single weapon to use Great Cleave.
I have not seen any rule that says you cannot Grapple multiple enemies. It's generally difficult to accomplish, since normally Grappling requires a Standard Action, and you only get one of those/round, as has been discussed earlier on this thread.
I have not seen any rule that states that a White Haired Witch can only have one opponent Grappled in her hair? Have you? Would you link to it, please?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I’ve posted this elsewhere. Mark Seifter’s thoughts on maintaining in the round you initiate
TLDR; You can’t.
I’m pretty sure there’s similar designer comment elsewhere that you can maintain multiple times in a round provided you have the feats mentioned. Somewhere Bruno the Handsome Tetori asked about it with a specific attack sequence that involved maintain as a standard, move, and swift and got confirmation that works. I can’t search effectively right now, though.
If it's only a single weapon, how can it be simultaneously grappling more than one person? That's also not how the rules work.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Magic + unexpected rule interactions. They probably didnt expect someone to try and grapple multiple target.
Also, the Grappling Style let's you grapple with only a single hand, and you can grapple multiple targets.
Yes, you can grapple multiple opponent's with multiple limbs. But the hair isn't multiple, its a single weapon.
It can't grapple and make subsequent attacks either.
Temperans wrote: Magic + unexpected rule interactions. They probably didnt expect someone to try and grapple multiple target.
Also, the Grappling Style let's you grapple with only a single hand, and you can grapple multiple targets.
in theory you can grapple an unlimited number of enemies via something like snapping turtle clutch. The problem is that you'll probably have to let go of all but one or two because you don't have enough action economy to do more then that, well before you run into the problem of not having enough limbs.
Ferious Thune wrote: I’ve posted this elsewhere. Mark Seifter’s thoughts on maintaining in the round you initiate
TLDR; You can’t.
I’m pretty sure there’s similar designer comment elsewhere that you can maintain multiple times in a round provided you have the feats mentioned. Somewhere Bruno the Handsome Tetori asked about it with a specific attack sequence that involved maintain as a standard, move, and swift and got confirmation that works. I can’t search effectively right now, though.
I've demonstrated comprehensively that you can within the rules. Mark Seifter is not making an official rules post to change the rules there. Now, Mark Seifter is a game designer, and his opinion is better evidence than my opinion, but the problem is that I am not offering my opinion as evidence. You are offering Mark's opinion as evidence. And Mark Seifter himself has asked us not to do that.
Mark Seifter wrote: Remembering that this is just my off-the-cuff answer, so it isn't official--it's just how I'd run it in my games until a FAQ... Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote: gtg, thanks Mark, I'll go back to that thread and let them know we got an official developer ruling on the subject! Mark Seifter wrote: Please don't do that--there is no official designer ruling on the subject. As I said two posts ago, that isn't official. It's my personal opinion as a GM. TLDR: the game designers have to follow their own rules the same as we do. More even. If they can't even play their own game, no one can. They are a business. We are the customers. They want our money. We have a right to a product that does what it says it does. Mark Seifter's own words reflect this understanding, regardless of his personal opinions on how grappling works.
My opinion is unambiguously backed by what the rules say.
The rules say that Greater Grapple lets you make 2 checks per round to harm your opponent.
The rules say that once a Grapple has been established, subsequent successful checks let you do that bad grappling stuff: Move, Pin Damage, Tie Up.
Mark Seifter says that you should not use his unofficial posts as evidence to trump official rules.
Conjoy wrote: Yes, you can grapple multiple opponent's with multiple limbs. But the hair isn't multiple, its a single weapon.
It can't grapple and make subsequent attacks either.
It's not a "limb" at all! It's magic hair that appears when you take a level in White Haired Witch, and it lets you do things as described in the rules.
Can you find an actual rule that says you can't have multiple opponents Grappled in your hair?
Scott Wilhelm wrote: My opinion is unambiguously backed by what the rules say. 1. I said those were Mark Seifter’s thoughts. I did not say it was an official ruling.
2. I’ve given up trying to convince people who make statements like the one you did. There’s no point, and I didn’t make my post for your benefit, as you’ve already made up your mind and are convinced that you are absolutely correct.
Anyone else who might put weight into how one of the people who writes the game rules on the situation now has the link and can decide for themselves.
Ferious Thune wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: My opinion is unambiguously backed by what the rules say. 1. I said those were Mark Seifter’s thoughts. I did not say it was an official ruling.
2. I’ve given up trying to convince people who make statements like the one you did. There’s no point, and I didn’t make my post for your benefit, as you’ve already made up your mind and are convinced that you are absolutely correct.
Anyone else who might put weight into how one of the people who writes the game rules on the situation now has the link and can decide for themselves. I've made up my mind because of what the rules say.
Mark Seifter did not write the grappling rules, and he did not form those opinions as a game designer.
If you can show the rules say something different, you can convince me. I've been convinced of things before.
I am reporting on what the rules say. I have brought an abundance of evidence to this thread, on the situation now, and the readers can decide for themselves.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Yay. Another 40 page grapple thread with Scott.
Suffice it to say, if you plan to run with Scott's interpretation that it will not work at most tables.
Hair is a natural attack. Only one creatute may be kept in a grapple per limb.
Second: progressing a grapple (to pin etc) isnt the same as maintain.
Maintaining the grapple is done one time at the beginning of the round.
The grapple feats change what kind of action you have remaining
". 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 your target does not break the grapple, you get a +5 circumstance bonus on grapple checks made against the same target in subsequent rounds. 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)."
**A** check,
Perfect Tommy wrote: Suffice it to say, if you plan to run with Scott's interpretation You will have an abundance of evidence to confidently demonstrate your character is in compliance with the rules.
Perfect Tommy wrote: Hair is a natural attack. Only one creatute may be kept in a grapple per limb. Repetition isn't proof. You have brought absolutely zero evidence to support this claim.
Perfect Tommy wrote: Second: progressing a grapple (to pin etc) isnt the same as maintain. That is false according to
You, who wrote: 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)." Those actions, according to the Grapple Rules are Move, Damage, Pin, and Tie Up.
Perfect Tommy wrote: Yay. Another 40 page grapple thread with Scott. My advice has been directly to the point of the OP's thread here for the purpose of helping her realize her ideas.
Meanwhile, it is easy for me to be stubborn when I am defending my position from on top of a mountain of evidence. What I wonder is how people keep hoping to be heard as long as they are buried under the mountain of evidence?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Scott,
1. Paizo writes game rules not legal contracts. They are often interpreted in different ways.
Nonetheless, game designers introduce these rules. Games are played. And how things work becomes canonical.
Cevah, Ferious, I telling you how things are is evidence -of what canonical play is and is reprrsentative of what the op will face if they attempt your suggestion.
2. Our previous grapple thread, where after ridiculous number of pages you finally conceded you were wrong,suggests you don't understand grapple rules.
3. I quoted the rule to you. "If you do not release the grapple" & ff.
For your understanding of the rules to be correct, you are saying the designers contradicted themselves in the same paragraph.
4. Of course one can make multiple grapple checks. No one disputes that.
The usual mechanic is this:
Grapple.
Next turn, maintain the grapple as a std action, which allows you to do various things.
Yes,feats change the type of action. No one disputes that either.
5. What is incumbent on you, is to find language that defeats the existing language:
Specifically:
*A* check to *maintain* the grapple.
Ie wording that allows you to break the standard condition on the type of action a grapple check is, says nothing about getting multiple checks in a round to maintain the grapple.
It is the second rule you must find a rule quote for, and you have not.
Another thing you must find
Is an exception for is the verbiage
"On subsequent rounds..."
So please quote the rule exception that allows you to break these two conditions.
The rule that gives you +5 to grapple in the same round, and the rule that specifically allows you to make multiple attempts to maintain.
And thirdly, mate, if you fail to maintain, the victim becomes ungrappled. You don't get another attempt to maintain the grapple.
You may, with the appropriate feats attempt to grapple again.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Mark Seifter did not write the grappling rules, and he did not form those opinions as a game designer. Mark Seifter was, at the time of that post or shortly after, working on a Grapple FAQ blog post. Sadly, nothing ever came of that (possibly due to the onset of work on PF2), so we continue to have to decide for ourselves how to interpret the rule. Again, I'm merely providing the link to a statement from one of the designers. There's a similar earlier statement from James Jacobs that it works. I'm not saying I'm certain which interpretation is correct, though I'm pretty sure how the FAQ would have clarified it if it had ever been published, given who was writing it and the statement they made.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: If you can show the rules say something different, you can convince me. I've been convinced of things before. The rules aren't clear. They have never been clear. That's why there are multiple threads trying to figure the issue out. That you've posted in. Dating back at least 5 years.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: I have brought an abundance of evidence to this thread, on the situation now, and the readers can decide for themselves. You've quoted the same rule as everyone else. You read it differently. That's the point. What you've provided is your argument for why it should be read the way you read it. There are only three pieces of evidence I'm aware of besides the rule itself: James Jacob's post saying it works and Mark Seifter's later post saying it doesn't and the ones saying that he's working on a grapple FAQ.
Without further clarification from the PDT, this is a table variation issue. No matter how convinced one poster on the boards is that their interpretation is 100% the only one possible. That's been true for the last 5 years that you've been posting on this issue, and it remains true today, since we never got that FAQ.
If you want to avoid table variation on pinning someone in the same round that you initiate a grapple, Bushwack is the feat that you want. Or as Mark mentioned in the post I linked, Snapping Turtle Clutch would let you initiate before your turn, then you could Pin on your turn.
For the record, I agree that on subsequent rounds, if you have Greater Grapple and Rapid grappler, you can make three checks to maintain to pin/damage/whatever. Even if you can only make 2 using your move action and Rapid Grappler, you could still make a standard action attack, so at worst you'd miss out on some constrict damage and maybe a little sneak attack damage if you've got the Strangler Brawler archetype. I still haven't been able to track down where the comments are on that. I'll look for them again later.
The rules could have been better written, but they are clear.
Greater Grapple clearly allows you to make 2 checks/round to harm your opponent.
The Grapple rules clearly say that successful checks after a grapple has been established allow you to Move, Damage, Pin, and possibly Tie Up an opponent.
The rules really say those things.
They don’t say that you can maintain in the same round that you start the grapple. They don’t directly say that you can’t, either. They do say things like “each round.” They are unclear on that point. Greater Grapple changes the action type to a move action. It does say that “This feat allows you to make two grapple checks each round (to move, harm, or pin your opponent), but you are not required to make two checks.” Initiating a grapple is not moving, harming, or pinning an opponent. I agree that using Greater Grapple you can maintain twice and damage twice, or pin and damage, or move and damage, or move and pin, or move twice. What is not clear is whether or not you can initiate a grapple and then maintain, since Greater Grapple does not directly say that it lets you do that. That whole section of the feat is talking about maintaining a grapple. One person who has some authority in their reading of the rules has said that you can’t. I think that is worth considering when deciding how to rule on it, and for me it’s enough to not try to both initiate and maintain in the same round with my character.
A trend that I’ve seen on the boards since the PDT issued their things we say on the boards individually aren’t rules statement is that statement being used as a reason to completely ignore things that they say on the boards. Whether it’s an official rules clarification or not, these are still people involved in creating the rules of the game, and giving some weight to the things they say is completely appropriate. Pretending that they don’t exist or aren’t relevant to the conversation just because they aren’t an official statement isn’t very productive when trying to explain the rule to someone and what they might run into at the table.
If Mark Seifter can read the same rule you are reading and come up with a different interpretation, then either one of you is wrong, or the rule is not clear. It’s up to an individual GM to decide what to do with that information. I choose to err on the side of caution and go with his interpretation. You’re free to run it how you want at your table.
Ferious Thune wrote: It’s up to an individual GM to decide what to do Well, "The GM is always right" is the answer to nearly every question on this forum. The only context where anything we have to say on these forums at all is in places where what the rules literally say hold weight in the GMs' minds, and that is the main reason why I restrict my arguments to the most literal interpretation of the rules I can, and furthermore it is those rules I consider the most important.
The Grappling Rules in the Combat Section of the Core Rulebook describe what generally happens during a Grapple, and the Grappling Feats describe what special things you can do when you have those Feats.
Ferious Thune wrote: If Mark Seifter can read the same rule you are reading and come up with a different interpretation, then either one of you is wrong, or the rule is not clear. In most cases, it is possible that more than one interpretation of anything is correct. If a Pathfinder Society Player can demonstrate that his interpretation is legal with respect to building his character, then he should be allowed to play his character his own way according to the rules. Paizo Publishing sides with me in this matter: that's GMing 101, dude!
Gamemastering 101 wrote: The rules exist to make the game predictable, fair, and balanced; they grant equal footing to both players and GMs so that they have an idea of what to expect during the game. We players are the paying customers of Paizo Publishing. It is imperative that Pathfinder Society GMs respect the rules of their own game they are refereeing. It is completely inappropriate for a PFS GM to rule somebody's character build out of existence when the player can clearly demonstrate he is abiding by the rules as I have done.
Ferious Thune wrote: this is a table variation issue. So what you are doing here is registering a complaint to Paizo Publishing that you have been seeing GMs breaking the rules according to their own prejudices and bullying player out of the game stores who are obeying the rules. This is a serious problem you are bringing to light.
Paizo Publishing has issued statements on more than one occasion that Pathfinder Society is intended to be tolerant of different attitudes and different playing styles, and you need to remember,
Gamemastering 101 wrote: You are the face of pfs With all of that in mind, remember that GMs are the number one representative of Paizo, Pathfinder Society, and their regional lodges. and you are seeing people doing a rather shoddy job of it.
Pretty much nothing in your message is an accurate representation what I said, of PFS, or even of GM 101. It is not the job of a GM to let the players play the rules however they interpret them. And that is not fostering a fun or fair environment for anyone. The GM is there to interpret the rules for the table and to try to make it a fun and fair experience, not to make sure that every player’s individual reading of the rules is followed. Making a ruling at the table that does not match what the player would like the ruling to be is perfectly fine. If you insist otherwise as a player, and you do so in a way that disrupts the game, you’ll likely eventually be asked to leave the table.
Since you’ve quoted GM 101, let’s see what it has to say on the topic.
GM 101 wrote: Enforce Rule Zero. If you aren’t positive of a rule, or if there is an argument with a player, you are right. Generally, don’t look up the rule yourself, but be willing to look at a page that a player hands you. In general, a single ruling won’t change the outcome of a battle, but if you think you’re right, stick to your guns. GM 101 wrote: hoW to make rulinGs
In order to keep play moving during a scenario, it is often necessary for a GM to make rulings on the spot, especially when something is not covered by the rules or when no one is sure how a particular rule works. Remember that an event coordinator or a fellow GM can be a great resource when trying to decide how a rule works. If you make a ruling for an unclear situation, stick with it for the rest of the scenario but make sure that your players know that it applies just for this game session.
Or this section directly above what you quoted:
GM 101 wrote: you are in charGe
One of the most important things for a GM to remember is that you are the one in charge of your table, and you must assert your authority appropriately. This does not mean that you can gleefully crush the life and joy out of your players without abandon. It does mean that you are the final arbiter of rules and social situations (within the framework of PFS). Do not allow players to bully you, whether it is over a rules dispute, with power gaming, or with inappropriate behavior. If needed, simply state Rule 0: The GM is always right.
Or this:
GM 101 wrote: DealinG With proBlem players
When dealing with groups of varied players, coming up against players who don’t mesh with your GMing style is inevitable. Most of the time, it’s best to grin and bear it. However, there will be times when that doesn’t work.
Talk to the player. Ask the player politely to stop his inappropriate behavior. It might be best to simply ask at the table, or to pull the player aside privately—just use your best judgement. The vast majority of the time, this is enough to curb the player and get on with the game.
Warn the player. Pull the player aside and warn him that if he continues this behavior, it will result in you asking him to leave. Give him reasons why his behavior is unacceptable. It is highly recommended that you have this conversation away from the table and in private, or the player will get very defensive.
Kick the player. If at this point the player is still causing problems, then it is time to ask him to leave. Fill out his chronicle sheet, awarding him for whatever gold he’s earned or faction missions that he has completed. If he completed 3 encounters, he gets an experience point. Remember, it is better that you kick one player than for your entire table to have a miserable game.
Or from the Roleplaying Guild Guide:
Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide wrote: As a Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgments, within the rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder RPG source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com. What it does mean is that only you can judge what is right for your table during cases not covered in these sources. When a rule is unclear, as this one is, it’s the GM’s call as to how it works at their table. That means table variation. The quote from the guide above is under a section titled “Table Variation.” No one is breaking the rules of PFS because they believe you can’t initiate a grapple and maintain it in the same round and tell you that’s how it will work at their table, no matter how sure you are that you are right and they are wrong. And that interpretation of the rules in no way invalidates your character. Your choice at that point is to accept the ruling and continue playing and having fun, or leave the table. If you continue to argue, you’ll likely be asked to leave, which as I’ve quoted above is also GM 101.
At this point, the rule has been discussed, the OP has long since stopped posting, and there is nothing else positive that can come from the direction things have taken. I’m going to hide this thread. Best of luck to you.
A PFS GM is supposed to have a job to do, but a PFS GM is not supposed to break the rules to enforce his own prejudicial notions of the game. A PFSGM is supposed to follow the rules. Fishing for excuses to rule a fastidiously researched character out of existence would be the GM disrupting the game, and that is the exact opposite of what a PFSGM is supposed to do. Readers who see this happening should report the GMs who do this.
Gamemastering 101 wrote: Enforce Rule Zero. If you aren’t positive of a rule, or if there is an argument with a player, you are right. Generally, don’t look up the rule yourself, but be willing to look at a page that a player hands you. In general, a single ruling won’t change the outcome of a battle, but if you think you’re right, stick to your guns. We're not talking about the outcome of a battle. We are talking about breaking the published rules of the game for the purpose of ruining players' character builds. We are also talking about ruining somebody's character build that can only be obtained through the purchase of a special rulebook: Knights of the Inner Sea, which I only purchased for the purpose of using Expert Captor to Grapple and Tie Up an opponent in 1 Round, because the rules unambiguously say I can. And we are not talking about a game in progress being ground to a halt by a rules debate and supporting the need for a GM to be able to make rulings--sometimes even mistaken ones--to keep the game-action flowing. We are talking about a situation where I directly and exhaustively vetted how the Grappling rules work on a public online forum with my Venture Lieutenant prior to the purchasing of the book, and that Venture Lieutenant (Mark Seifter actually), agreed with me about this.
What we are quoting here directly states that the GM is to be willing to look at the page the player hands you. We are talking about a player who can comprehensively and unambiguously demonstrate that her character build feature is legal, and PFS does not allow the GM to throw out the character in that case.
Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide wrote: This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder RPG source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com. What it does mean is that only you can judge what is right for your table during cases not covered in these sources. We are not talking about something that is unclear.
The Combat Rules clearly state that you are allowed to take 1 Standard Action per round.
The Grappling Rules clearly state that making a Grapple Check is a Standard Action.
Grapple wrote: As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe, hindering his combat options. The Grappling Rules clearly state that if you don't Maintain the Grapple every round, the Grapple ends.
Grapple wrote: you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold. The Grapple Rules clearly state that successful Grapple Checks after the first lets you apply those other Grapple effects: Move, Damage, Pin, and Tie Up.
Grapple wrote: 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). Move... Damage... Pin... Tie Up... The Grappling Rules do say that this is done as a part of maintaining a grapple, and only 1 such check is necessary/round, but it also says that the check is done as a Standard Action.
Remember that Greater Grapple is a Feat, and the whole point of Feats is that they give you special abilities that the regular rules don't allow.
Feats wrote: feats represent abilities outside of the normal scope of your character’s race and class. Many of them alter or enhance class abilities or soften class restrictions, while others might apply bonuses to your statistics or grant you the ability to take actions otherwise prohibited to you. What ability is granted by Greater Grapple that is "otherwise prohibited?" Well,
Greater Grapple wrote: Once you have grappled a creature, maintaining the grapple is a move action. So, the rules do say that you get to make 1 Standard Action and 1 Move Action (or 1 Full Round Action instead) each round.
Action Types wrote: In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action So, that right there is enough to state unambiguously that you can make an Initiate Check as a Standard Action and a Maintain Check as a Move Action all in 1 Round. But, does the Core Grappling Rules say that you only make 1 Maintain Check/round? Does Greater Grapple allow you to meke 2 checks/round? Well,
Greater Grapple wrote: This feat allows you to make two grapple checks each round And Greater Grapple also states that this maintain check can be made as a Move Action. But does that maintain check allow you to apply Move, Damage, Pin, or Tie Up to your opponent?
Grapple wrote: 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). Move... Damage... Pin... Tie Up... But can the extra Grapple check allowed by Greater Grapple be used to further harm the opponent? Well,
Greater Grapple wrote: This feat allows you to make two grapple checks each round (to move, harm, or pin your opponent) So the rules do unambiguously state that
1. Initiating or Maintaining a Grapple is normally a Standard Action, but Greater Grapple lets you make a Maintain Check as a Move Action.
2. You get to take both a Standard Action and a Move Action in a single round.
3. Greater Grapple specifically empowers the character to make 2 checks/round.
4. Grapple Checks after the Grapple has been established allow the Grappler to Maintain the Grapple and further prosecute it by applying any of the effects: Move, Damage, Pin, and Tie Up.
5. Greater Grapple specifically states that those 2 checks per round can be made to harm your opponent.
So, yes.
PFS Players are supposed to be able to play the game our own way within the rules. That is what we are paying money for.
Paizo Publishing has gone on record to say that they encourage different gaming styles.
And while these rules could have been better written, they are not unclear.
|
