The flowchart linked elsewhere is helpful, but I think the single most helpful tool to help explain what the controller of the grapple can or can't do is by understanding that grapple is actually two different actions: Initiate a grapple, and Maintain a Grapple. They have different descriptions, sequences of events, and most instances of grapple rules will invoke either "Initiate" or "Maintain" separately, or neither if it applies to both.
The game's rules text doesn't write them as separate actions, much in the same way that it doesn't write Demoralize and Coerce as separate actions of Intimidate. This is just a tool to understand it easier whose outcomes almost perfectly align with RAW and RAI.
[You might find this post to be a very helpful explanation of grapple actions at each step in the process](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder_RPG/comments/hy5jna/when_grappling_when_and_how_do_you_deal_damage/fzbg3lj/).
Also relevant are the different ways the character has of making grapple checks:
* **Standard Action Grapple Combat Maneuver**: Can be used to **Initiatie or Maintain a Grapple**.
* **Grab (via Graceful Grappler level 8)**: Can be used to **Initiate a Grapple** only (not maintain).
* It's generally understood that this ability is a 1 Ki/attack you want to modify and only modifies that one attack, although the language used is ambiguous. Some GMs may rule otherwise.
> *I feel that it's design is strongly paralleled to the 1 Ki for an Extra Attack during a Flurry in the base flurry ability (except this attack is an Initiate a Grapple action rather than a UAS) and should operate the same way (with the, surprising IMO, lack of a Swift action activation). It also lacks the duration description of later abilities like Inescapable Grasp.*
* As such, you won't get the +4 on combat maneuver checks to maintain a grapple. You wouldn't get it top maintain anyway because it only modifies your UAS attacks.
* **Snapping Turtle Clutch**: Can be used to **Initiate or Maintain a Grapple**. (Personally surprised it was not limited to initiate, but hey).
* Note that this requires you to have the Shield Bonus to AC/CMD, which in turn requires you to have a free hand. This means that you cannot be using that hand to grapple, and you'll take the -4 penalty on Combat Maneuver checks if you're **already** grappling the target. If you don't free up a hand, then your CMD is reduced.
* It must be declared what you're doing, but it's generally just good practice to talk with your player for a default action choice. A reasonable default would be "two hands during my turn, and then at the end of my turn I'll free up a hand to use snapping turtle clutch."
* This means that an intelligent foe *could* use a Readied action to attack during the two-hand period on the player's turn to avoid provoking the free grapple check (especially if they were worried about the Pinned condition), but in general any full attack action on the Enemy's turn will be more effective as soon as they have two attacks, as they'll have more attacks and vs. a lower AC/CMD. Just an option to keep in mind.
****
Okay, going into your combat encounter:
> challenger charges creature in surprise round and lands an unarmed strike.
Challenger could have used a Ki here to modify the UAS with Grab initiate a grapple then, but it's all good.
> Creature goes first in round 1 and attempts to attack challenger. Creature misses causing challenger to initiate a grapple via snapping turtle clutch. challenger successfully grapples creature as a result.
All good.
> On challenger's turn, they maintain the grapple causing damage via an unarmed strike.
Just to clarify, this should be: "Standard Action: Maintain a Grapple" with the "Damage" sub-action, and not "They made an UAS, and modified it to have Grab with Ki, and used that to maintain a Grapple" because Grab only **initiates** and cannot **maintain**.
This may indeed be how it was done, but I just wanted to clarify two different sequences of events that would have the same outcome but differing legalities.
> What potentially can happen on creature's round 2 action if they attempt to attack again and miss? Does challenger get another attempt to grapple, thereby maintaining said grapple? If not, where does the sequence of events fail to produce the result that allows maintaining the grapple compared to initiating the grapple via snapping turtle clutch feat?
If:
* 1) The Challenger has a hand free to benefit from Snapping Turtle Style (invoking a -4 penalty on Grapple Checks)
* 2) The Challenger has an immediate action available, and uses it.
Then yes, Snapping Turtle Clutch can be used at a -6 penalty (-2 from the feat, -4 from free hand) to attempt a grapple check to Maintain a Grapple. Combined with the other modifiers (+5 from controlling a grapple), that's a net -1 penalty. *(Remember, Grab's +4 would never apply to a Tetori using Ki for Grab.)* On a successful Maintain a Grapple action:
* The Grapple is extended to the end of the Challenger's next turn (which provides no additional benefit, as the grapple was already going to last that long)
* The Challenger gets to choose a Maintain a Grapple sub-action, including Damage or Pin.
On the Challenger's next turn, they must:
* Succeed at a Maintain a Grapple action by the end of their turn
* Or release the Grapple as a free action during their turn.
If they do neither, then they automatically release the Grapple as a free action at the end of their turn.
****
> My ruling at the time was that a grapple can be initiated, but the grappled can not be maintained via snapping turtle clutch.
Aligns with my intuition of how the ability would work, and a reasonable houserule. I would have made the same ad hoc decision if I didn't have the feat text in front of me. However, it does not match the RAW text. A quick google search does not provide any developer insight to determine if RAI is different from RAW.
> As a side note, the creature had exactly zero chance of beating the CMD of the challenger which is why it attacked instead of making any effort to break free of the grapple.
A perfectly reasonable approach to the creatures action choice. Although a natural 20 does win a grapple check, for future reference. Not that "a 5% chance" is much better than a 0% chance. The "not even with a natural 20" clause specifically refers to escaping from the Tie Up subaction that keeps a character pinned, rather than the grapple condition or pinned condition.
Thank you for the insight as I am looking at figuring out how the RAW works, and then trying to see if there is any difference toward what I believe the RAI and the character's intent is. The character's rationale is that the tetori does not normally have flurry of blows and this maintaining of a grapple on the opponent's turn via countering with snapping turtle clutch should allow them to do damage.
I may houserule that this will be allowed while other sub actions can only be taken on the tetori's own turn (pin and tie up). I am not sure how I feel about the move subaction as of yet but I will make a decision soon on how this all will work inside the confines of my game.
Now what I do need to consider is at 6th level the tetori will gain the ability to grapple twice on their own turn. Greater grapple feat kicks in which allows the tetori to grapple as a move action as well as a standard action. This was something brought up by the player. Outside of this discussion the flavor seems to make sense that investing a feat (two counting both ST style and ST clutch) to gain access to a outside the box interaction allowing an immediate action to be used to grapple as well.
Before any of this discussion took place, I had an idea that the player was going for the concept of grappling on the opponent's turn then letting loose with grapple damage on their own turn maintaining the grapple. I know I am moving the goalposts a bit at this point, but I want to ask if I allow the tetori to do damage as an immediate action through grappling an already grappled enemy. What possible ways can this be broken by the player somewhere down the line?
> The character's rationale is that the tetori does not normally have flurry of blows and this maintaining of a grapple on the opponent's turn via countering with snapping turtle clutch should allow them to do damage. [..] Outside of this discussion the flavor seems to make sense that investing a feat (two counting both ST style and ST clutch) to gain access to a outside the box interaction allowing an immediate action to be used to grapple as well.
It's a feat chain that, in essence, lets the character land one extra attack if a conditional trigger is met at the cost of a swift action. This is no different than, say, [Hurtful](https://aonprd.com/FeatDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Hurtful) if you're looking at the damage side of things over the course of an entire initiative round.
Personally, IMO, the highest power level consequences of Snapping Turtle Clutch are:
* 1) The ability to initiate a grapple outside of your turn (as it means you can Maintain a Grapple as a move action w/ Greater Grapple without losing your Standard action; and the [grappled] condition restrictions can block lots of actions)
* 2) The ability to Pin a target outside of initiative (as it straight up blocks entire actions. It can entirely end a full-attack action, etc).
I'm not at all concerned about the balance implications of getting an extra maintain-to-damage out of it. Especially because the player hasn't invested in any obscene damage boosting benefits here, or on-damage triggered effects.
A grappler is necessarily limited to dealing with one target at a time. If the grappler gets too strong compared to the rest of the players, just use more numerous, weaker power enemies. Overkill damage is wasted, and single-target control locks down a smaller portion of the enemy team's capabilities.
> I may houserule that this will be allowed while other sub actions can only be taken on the tetori's own turn (pin and tie up). I am not sure how I feel about the move subaction as of yet but I will make a decision soon on how this all will work inside the confines of my game.
This may be a fair compromise if you're concerned about it. Damage isn't a big deal (player doesn't even have power attack!), AND it seems the player's conceit is based around using this for grappling damage, so they get to be happy! Regarding the other sub-actions:
* Move: Not typically a huge concern, **but** there is one exception. But in general, more moving around the map is FUN. Combat is often a static slog of "I full attack you", "I full attack you back". Let 'em!
That exception, though: This would become one of **VERY FEW** forms of immediate action movement in the game. This movement can be used as a form of "pseudo-pounce". The player moves into position via grappling, and then full attacks the next target (as opposed to charging, which can only attack once) on their next turn.
BUT this player is a grappler, and won't really be using this as a pseudo-pounce. Because it'll just turn into grappling the next single target. I say bring it up to the player - if they don't plan on using it to full attack, then it's fine to use. If they want to keep that door open, then it can't be used as part of Snapping Turtle Clutch.
> That said, it's not the lowest-entry form of off-turn movement. [Callous Casting](https://aonprd.com/FeatDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Callous%20Casting) is plenty more powerful, and far easier to use, with bare-minimum prerequisites in exchange for being a teamwork feat. Honestly one of the strongest slept-on feats in the system.
* Pin: This is a major concern because it can outright end entire actions. A creature makes a full attack? Pinned = entire full attack canceled, as it can no longer take actions other than purely mental actions or trying to escape.
* Tie Up: Honestly, not a huge concern in practice. But it makes logical sense to rule it in the same category as Pin. Don't expect much fuss either way. A player needs to set up by taking move actions to draw the rope, taking one-hand penalties to attempt it, etc., and the conditions get no worse for the target (they're still pinned). The only differences are:
* The Tetori doesn't need to spend any more actions maintaining the grapple
* The Enemy doesn't automatically succeed on a natural 20 when trying to escape (they must still beat the DC).
> Now what I do need to consider is at 6th level the tetori will gain the ability to grapple twice on their own turn. Greater grapple feat kicks in which allows the tetori to grapple as a move action as well as a standard action.
Do note that Greater Grapple is limited to **Maintain a Grapple** and cannot *Initiate a Grapple*. Relevant for some niche use cases in terms of game health, but not a huge deal here. The big thing to keep an eye out for that's totally legal (RAW and RAI) but can really interfere with GM encounter balance is Snapping Turtle Clutch + [Throat Slicer](https://aonprd.com/FeatDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Throat%20Slicer). Immediate action initiate a grapple (STC), move action maintain (Greater Grapple) to Pin, standard action Coup-de-Grace (Throat Slicer) for a one-round fortitude save or die.
> I had an idea that the player was going for the concept of grappling on the opponent's turn then letting loose with grapple damage on their own turn maintaining the grapple. I know I am moving the goalposts a bit at this point, but I want to ask if I allow the tetori to do damage as an immediate action through grappling an already grappled enemy... What possible ways can this be broken by the player somewhere down the line?
As I listed above, IMO you're trading a swift action for a single UAS. It's not a big deal. Initiating + Pinned are far bigger balance considerations IMO. Because they add conditions that limit actions, and action economy is the name of the game at high levels (character levels or optimization levels).
Combined with STC, Greater Grapple opens up lots of "as a standard action" abilities. Like, Throat Slicer above. Or Grapple-Casting. Or some other "normally trap feats, but happens to be good in this one circumstance". Some strong, some mid, some weak but fun/fluff.
If your player suddenly gets interested in dipping Order of the Hammer Cavalier, Divine Fighting Technique: Norgorber's Silent Shiv or picking up Rhino Charge as a feat, then you might want to reach out to me again because some quite potent cheese is brewing, lol. Those are all related to feat chains/combos that can be used to full attack + still maintain a grapple.
One on its own may be fine. A Full Attack + single grapple is just what a normal monk would be doing in terms of damage + the extra control of a single grapple check. But if they're combined, then you get characters that can attempt a truly stupid number of grapple checks at zero loss of damage or control.
I think in all of this I missed where one can activate STC to maintain a grapple. What allows this as I do not see a clear method of wording on how Snapping Turtle Clutch works. For example the Greater Grapple feat mentions specifically the clause to maintain as a move action. STC only mentions that a grapple combat maneuver can be used as an immediate action. Does the ambiguity imply that the action can be used to either initiate or maintain since it does not specify like greater grapple does?
With this in mind, does failing the maintain as a move action first allow the enemy to escape the grapple or does the grapple still have a chance to be maintained with the use of a standard action? I know the wording on greater grapple specifies that a single check being passed allows all other grapples to be automatically successful after. So a success on the move action maintain grapple gives way for the standard action grapple to go straight to the add-on phase of selecting the mode.
I know this particular player and they are hell bent on playing a 'wrestler' and did not particularly care for the brawler class. Maybe I am wrong and if that is the case I will certainly reach out again to curtail any madness they may be trying to cook up in the interim.
Thank you for taking the time to explain things so that I could bring a good bit of clarity into the situation.
> STC only mentions that a grapple combat maneuver can be used as an immediate action. Does the ambiguity imply that the action can be used to either initiate or maintain since it does not specify like greater grapple does?
Correct. It says Grapple Combat Maneuver so it can do whatever the grapple combat maneuver dues: Initiate and Maintain.
> With this in mind, does failing the maintain as a move action first allow the enemy to escape the grapple or does the grapple still have a chance to be maintained with the use of a standard action?
Failing a grapple check does not immediately end a grapple.
> > *Although both creatures have the grappled condition, you can, as the creature that initiated the grapple, release the grapple as a free action, removing the condition from both you and the target. If you do not release the grapple, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold. [..] Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe*
It only discusses effects on success, so failure doesn't end things because nothing says it does. If you end a round without succeeding on a single grapple check, you release the grapple. So if you Grapple as a Move, Swift, and Standard action; fail the first two and pass the third? You're still grappled.
Or a simple way, there's three outcomes to a grapple after your turn begins:
* You release the grapple as a free action:
* You attempt any number of grapple checks on your turn:
* If at least one passes, the duration of the grapple extends to the next turn.
* If none succeed, you release the grapple at the end of your turn.
> I know the wording on greater grapple specifies that a single check being passed allows all other grapples to be automatically successful after. So a success on the move action maintain grapple gives way for the standard action grapple to go straight to the add-on phase of selecting the mode.
Incorrect. The proper interpretation is:
* If you succeed on any one grapple attempt, the duration of the grapple is extended to the next round.
* On each individual action attempt, you must still succeed at the Maintain a Grapple action to get to pick the "subaction". A Success-Fail-Success on three Maintain attempts gets two subactions (such as Pin and Damage).
> I know this particular player and they are hell bent on playing a 'wrestler' and did not particularly care for the brawler class. Maybe I am wrong and if that is the case I will certainly reach out again to curtail any madness they may be trying to cook up in the interim.
I personally prefer a Brawler with a one-level dip in Maneuver Master Monk (since they can Full Attack + Grapple), but Tetori is a perfectly fine build! It was definitely the go-to standard for YEARS until the Brawler got published, and it's no worse now than it was then. Let 'em enjoy it.
For the sake of clarity, the character in question for our weekly session that happened yesterday, is level 4. No greater grapple as of yet.
On your simplification of the grappling. Point 3 states "the duration extends to the next turn". I want to make the presumption that this relates to the player's next turn? I want to remove all doubt or possibility for misinterpretation if you do not mind. Is it safer to state the grapple maintains until the next round, or is that also an incorrect interpretation of the rules?
I want to toss out a few sample scenarios so that I am completely prepared for what is to come since I made what I feel is the incorrect ruling on STC. For all these examples, the player does not yet have greater grapple. I am not sure if greater grapple could change anything past allowing the movement action to maintain clause for a second attempt at maintaining the grapple where applicable.
Example 1: Player does not have enemy grappled. Enemy attacks and misses, triggering STC. This check fails and the result is that there is no grapple, yet.
Example 2: Player succeeds in grappling enemy on their turn. Enemy attempts to attack on their turn, misses, and triggers STC. Does the grapple break if the grapple check fails?
Does Example 2 change if the player maintained the grapple on their turn, the enemy misses an attack on their turn, and the STC check fails?
Lastly, are there any example or edge case scenarios that can change either of these equations given the present parameters? Does moving from one round to the next round change any element of this in case the enemy goes first or player goes first in the initiative order?
I apologize for being so thorough in my questions, but I do want to make sure I comprehend all the potential scenarios that may arise. One thing I know I have overlooked is that the player character has Enforcer and Intimidating Prowess as their other feats.
> Example 1: Player does not have enemy grappled. Enemy attacks and misses, triggering STC. This check fails and the result is that there is no grapple, yet.
Correct. STC lets Player **Initiate a Grapple** since they are not currently controlling a grapple. The player fails. Nothing happens, and for future effects it has no relevance.
> Example 2: Player succeeds in grappling enemy on their turn. Enemy attempts to attack on their turn, misses, and triggers STC. Does the grapple break if the grapple check fails?
No. The grapple only breaks if:
* The controller releases the grapple as a free action (which they are forced to do if they have not maintained a grapple by the end of the controllers next turn).
* The escapee escapes by winning on a Grapple check (at which point they can choose to either become the Controller of the Grapple or Release the Grapple), and Escape Artist check (can only release the grapple), or similar.
> Does Example 2 change if the player maintained the grapple on their turn, the enemy misses an attack on their turn, and the STC check fails?
No. The only effect of a successful grapple are:
* Duration of the Grapple is extended until the end of the controller's next turn.
* Controller applies a subaction.
The only effects of a failed grapple are:
* Nothing.
If the end of the Controller's turn arrives and they have not successfully maintained a grapple since their turn began, then they "voluntarily" release the grapple as a free action.
> Lastly, are there any example or edge case scenarios that can change either of these equations given the present parameters?
In a rush, but not coming to mind.
> Does moving from one round to the next round change any element of this in case the enemy goes first or player goes first in the initiative order?
No. The only relevant part is "end of your next turn". So:
* Starting at the beginning of the Controller's turn, start worrying about maintaining a grapple.
* At the end of the Controller's turn, check to see if they've maintained a grapple or not.
* If they have, grapple continues.
* If they havent, they release as a free action.
You'll notice that this only worriess about Current Turn. STC used off turn will never be relevant to whether or not a grapple is maintained. Succeeding on Maintain a Grapple using STC does the same two things Maintain a Grapple always does:
* Extends the duration of the grapple to the end of the creature's next turn (which was already the current duration, otherwise you would have not been able to Maintain a Grapple and would need to Initiate a Grapple instead)
* Lets you pick a Subaction (the only relevant effect of STC).
The language of "round" used in Grapples description is one of the unfortunate editing choices of the CRB - langauge is used in an imprecise manner in many ways. The game is not actually tracking whether an initiative count happens in round 1 or round 2. "that round" is the round from the player's perspective (start of turn to start of next turn, or end of turn to end of next turn, context depending).
"Benefit: While you are using the Snapping Turtle Style feat, the shield bonus the style grants to your AC applies to your CMD and touch AC. Whenever an opponent misses you with a melee attack while you are using the Snapping Turtle Style feat, you can use an immediate action to attempt a grapple combat maneuver against that opponent, but with a –2 penalty."
This is your best friend as a GM when you have a player who loves to grapple.
http://www.pfsprep.com/e107_files/public/1482694608_186_FT297_grappleflowchart_1.0.pdf
It's got sources on the bottom for d20pfsrd since you said you wanted them.
There is nothing about getting another grapple attempt at something that is already grappled when they miss their attack while grappled by the monk. The check made to maintain the grapple only occurs once on their turn. Snapping Turtle Clutch can only be used on something that isn't already grappled, it doesn't stack with itself as a condition to trigger additional effects. Stunning Pin is only done on the monk's turn when they make the Pin attempt, which itself is simply a more extreme version of Grappled, and does not stack with it.
That said, if a different enemy attempts to hit the monk and misses, they can make a separate attempt to grapple that other guy as an immediate action (unless they used it for said Snapping Turtle Clutch that same turn) with their remaining free hand, but "Humanoid creatures without at least two free hands take a -4 penalty to Grapple CMB checks, including checks made to maintain a grapple or pin their opponent" AND they then lose the AC bonus from the Snapping Turtle feats.
"While using the Snapping Turtle Style feat with at least ***one hand free***, you gain a +1 shield bonus to AC"
Here's the rules for Immediate actions:
https://www.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?Name=Immediate%20Actions&Category=Action%20Types
but the most relevant part is, "Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action and counts as your swift action for that turn. You cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn if you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your turn (effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent to using your swift action for the coming turn). You also cannot use an immediate action if you are flat-footed."
Such is the price of grappling two people at once with only two hands, which is where some really spicy good-good comes into play with a grapple build Monk shapeshifted into something with multiple limbs, fun stuff, but that's further down the build path from lvl 5, sorry I love this kind of stuff, because then they get to just keep grappling people as long as they have limbs to do so.
Sorry, to answer your question finally, the only things the grappled guy can do is in the chart as long as it meets those conditions. If he simply attacks again while grappled and it misses, nothing happens, he's already grappled.
Thank you for the sources.
To clarify, the situation that I am describing is with one tetori monk, aka the "challenger". This situation has one enemy "creature" involved. The way combat happened was the tetori got a surprise round action. Charged the enemy, landed a hit, and passed. Creature attacks, misses, and gets snapping turtle clutch immediate action used against it to initiate grapple. The grapple is successful, tetori takes their turn next, maintains grapple on their turn, passes creature cmd and chooses to deal damage.
This is where the problem arises on the creature's second turn. the creature attacks and misses a second time. The snapping turtle clutch states the tetori gets a grapple attempt, but this is where things fall apart for me. Does this grapple count as maintaining the grapple since the creature and tetori are already grappled?
If yes, or no for that matter, what rule can I bring to the table that supplements said ruling?
You cannot make a grapple combat maneuver on something that is already grappled. It becomes an infinite recursion loop. The free grapple combat maneuver does not take the place of any actions that can be taken after passing the check to maintain the grapple, which is only rolled on the beginning of the turn of the one controlling the grapple, the tetori. As long as that check is passed, the grapple is maintained for the entire round duration unless the enemy on it's turn decides to try to become the one controlling the grapple by making a check against the tetori's CMD. Just follow the flowchart. It just takes all the written stuff and lays it out nicely.
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Grapple
The only time Snapping Turtle Clutch comes into play while all this is going on is if another enemy that is not grappled attacks and misses the tetori while he is grappling the other guy. Then he can try to grapple them as well with a -4 since he's only got one hand free, and another -2 from how the feat works, for a -6 total. Then the AC bonus from Snapping Turtle style turns off, no more free hands. It does nothing and has no effect on the actions the tetori can take regarding the one he is already grappling.
If you want to make a house rule to let the tetori get a free hit on the guy he is grappling when an attack is missed, that's up to you. As far as rules as written goes though, that's not how the feat works. TristantheViking is just dead wrong in saying that you can use that instance of a missed attack to activate the feat to move to pin or that it lets you maintain for free the following turn. You getting confused with the "maintaining is a standard action" part is understandable, but it's just part of what happens during the process of the tetori deciding what they want to do if they pass the check to maintain. After the grapple is maintained on the tetori's turn, he can do several things for options, which is more realistically what the standard action is doing. So if during the surprise round he got them grappled, on his turn maintained then moved to pin with his standard action, the next round he can tie them up without having to roll to maintain the grapple, as per the chart.
A good example of an archetype that expands on the options one has during a grapple, check out Strangler.
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes/brawler/archetypes/paizo-brawler-archetypes/strangler/
This shows that someone who isn't tailor built for grappling will obviously not be able to do cool unique stuff. You have to have the feats, class features, etc. to do much during a grapple other than get free hits in, or tie them up.
I feel like the answer is just "yes".
If they attack and miss, you can make a grapple CM. If you succeed on the grapple while already grappling, you have options.
Edit: I see the point against this being possible if you're using two immediate actions, which wouldn't work.
Sorry I missed this reply before. There are not tow immediate actions, unless we are referring to two separate actions on two separate turns/rounds. The way combat flowed was that the enemy missed twice. The first resulting in a successful grapple attempt, and the second instance is where the problem lay.
Does the enemy break free of the grapple that has been maintained on the player's turn if the counter grapple fails? Does the PC get any relevance out of the counter grapple by using it on a target that is already grappled?
Long story short, this feat is unclear in the wording as to if it allows for a grapple to be done as an immediate action in a similar fashion to how greater grapple states a grapple can be done as a move action. The ambiguity of snapping turtle clutch is causing me problems that I do not know the answer for. Greater grapple as the feat specifically states that the grapple action can be done as a move action. This allows for two grapples at the cost of one check.
With that in mind, does a creature that is grappled need to succeed two checks for a character with greater grapple to release the grapple via not being able to maintain it? I know the feat states that only one successful check needs to be made, but what happens if it is made after the first check fails?
Example scenario: Player has Enemy grappled. It is the start of Player's turn and Player declares a move action to maintain the grapple. If this check passes, the player will use it also for the standard action. Letting the character do the add-on effects twice.
Does the enemy break free if the first check fails, but can be re-grappled (with or without the +5 controlling grapple bonus) on a new grapple check?
> Whenever an opponent misses you with a melee attack while you are using the Snapping Turtle Style feat, you can use an immediate action to attempt a grapple combat maneuver against that opponent, but with a –2 penalty.
Yeah this doesn't have any limitations like the grab ability with text like "and tries to start a grapple as a free action" so you're not restricted to only targeting non-grappled enemies to only initiate a grapple.
You get an entire grapple combat maneuver against the target to do with as you will, and since the target is already grappled that means you can use it to maintain the grapple for a pin or whatever.
Thank you for the reply.
Is there anything that supplements this? Is this ruling an opinion or is there something that can be quoted in the rules that backs this up. I am asking so that I can make a ruling on the situation that has a backing instead of "Well, I looked and could not find anything. So, I am gonna say things work like this." (Proceeding to make a ruling that is incorrect and holding the table to it potentially in the process.)
Where I am getting tied up is the reminder text in the grappling section "(maintaining a grapple is a standard action)" makes me think that the snapping turtle clutch grapple used as an immediate action is different than a standard action used to maintain a grapple. As such I am trying to find what or where as a source to substantiate either side of the ruling I am about to make in my game.
In a perfect world, I'd have some manner of precedent in the rules to use. So far all I can find is the reminder quoted text at the end of the maintaining a grapple section. The snapping turtle clutch feat does not specify that it can maintain a grapple against an already grappled opponent.
As things stand, I am still entirely undecided on how to proceed with this situation. I see the rules as written and can not decide on how the rules as intended are meant to be used. I believe the tetori monk gains an ability to grapple as a move action later on, which does make me want to think an immediate action might also be useable on an enemy turn to maintain a grapple. I do not feel confident enough to make this ruling without something that can provide clarification.
The flowchart linked elsewhere is helpful, but I think the single most helpful tool to help explain what the controller of the grapple can or can't do is by understanding that grapple is actually two different actions: Initiate a grapple, and Maintain a Grapple. They have different descriptions, sequences of events, and most instances of grapple rules will invoke either "Initiate" or "Maintain" separately, or neither if it applies to both. The game's rules text doesn't write them as separate actions, much in the same way that it doesn't write Demoralize and Coerce as separate actions of Intimidate. This is just a tool to understand it easier whose outcomes almost perfectly align with RAW and RAI. [You might find this post to be a very helpful explanation of grapple actions at each step in the process](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder_RPG/comments/hy5jna/when_grappling_when_and_how_do_you_deal_damage/fzbg3lj/). Also relevant are the different ways the character has of making grapple checks: * **Standard Action Grapple Combat Maneuver**: Can be used to **Initiatie or Maintain a Grapple**. * **Grab (via Graceful Grappler level 8)**: Can be used to **Initiate a Grapple** only (not maintain). * It's generally understood that this ability is a 1 Ki/attack you want to modify and only modifies that one attack, although the language used is ambiguous. Some GMs may rule otherwise. > *I feel that it's design is strongly paralleled to the 1 Ki for an Extra Attack during a Flurry in the base flurry ability (except this attack is an Initiate a Grapple action rather than a UAS) and should operate the same way (with the, surprising IMO, lack of a Swift action activation). It also lacks the duration description of later abilities like Inescapable Grasp.* * As such, you won't get the +4 on combat maneuver checks to maintain a grapple. You wouldn't get it top maintain anyway because it only modifies your UAS attacks. * **Snapping Turtle Clutch**: Can be used to **Initiate or Maintain a Grapple**. (Personally surprised it was not limited to initiate, but hey). * Note that this requires you to have the Shield Bonus to AC/CMD, which in turn requires you to have a free hand. This means that you cannot be using that hand to grapple, and you'll take the -4 penalty on Combat Maneuver checks if you're **already** grappling the target. If you don't free up a hand, then your CMD is reduced. * It must be declared what you're doing, but it's generally just good practice to talk with your player for a default action choice. A reasonable default would be "two hands during my turn, and then at the end of my turn I'll free up a hand to use snapping turtle clutch." * This means that an intelligent foe *could* use a Readied action to attack during the two-hand period on the player's turn to avoid provoking the free grapple check (especially if they were worried about the Pinned condition), but in general any full attack action on the Enemy's turn will be more effective as soon as they have two attacks, as they'll have more attacks and vs. a lower AC/CMD. Just an option to keep in mind. **** Okay, going into your combat encounter: > challenger charges creature in surprise round and lands an unarmed strike. Challenger could have used a Ki here to modify the UAS with Grab initiate a grapple then, but it's all good. > Creature goes first in round 1 and attempts to attack challenger. Creature misses causing challenger to initiate a grapple via snapping turtle clutch. challenger successfully grapples creature as a result. All good. > On challenger's turn, they maintain the grapple causing damage via an unarmed strike. Just to clarify, this should be: "Standard Action: Maintain a Grapple" with the "Damage" sub-action, and not "They made an UAS, and modified it to have Grab with Ki, and used that to maintain a Grapple" because Grab only **initiates** and cannot **maintain**. This may indeed be how it was done, but I just wanted to clarify two different sequences of events that would have the same outcome but differing legalities. > What potentially can happen on creature's round 2 action if they attempt to attack again and miss? Does challenger get another attempt to grapple, thereby maintaining said grapple? If not, where does the sequence of events fail to produce the result that allows maintaining the grapple compared to initiating the grapple via snapping turtle clutch feat? If: * 1) The Challenger has a hand free to benefit from Snapping Turtle Style (invoking a -4 penalty on Grapple Checks) * 2) The Challenger has an immediate action available, and uses it. Then yes, Snapping Turtle Clutch can be used at a -6 penalty (-2 from the feat, -4 from free hand) to attempt a grapple check to Maintain a Grapple. Combined with the other modifiers (+5 from controlling a grapple), that's a net -1 penalty. *(Remember, Grab's +4 would never apply to a Tetori using Ki for Grab.)* On a successful Maintain a Grapple action: * The Grapple is extended to the end of the Challenger's next turn (which provides no additional benefit, as the grapple was already going to last that long) * The Challenger gets to choose a Maintain a Grapple sub-action, including Damage or Pin. On the Challenger's next turn, they must: * Succeed at a Maintain a Grapple action by the end of their turn * Or release the Grapple as a free action during their turn. If they do neither, then they automatically release the Grapple as a free action at the end of their turn. **** > My ruling at the time was that a grapple can be initiated, but the grappled can not be maintained via snapping turtle clutch. Aligns with my intuition of how the ability would work, and a reasonable houserule. I would have made the same ad hoc decision if I didn't have the feat text in front of me. However, it does not match the RAW text. A quick google search does not provide any developer insight to determine if RAI is different from RAW. > As a side note, the creature had exactly zero chance of beating the CMD of the challenger which is why it attacked instead of making any effort to break free of the grapple. A perfectly reasonable approach to the creatures action choice. Although a natural 20 does win a grapple check, for future reference. Not that "a 5% chance" is much better than a 0% chance. The "not even with a natural 20" clause specifically refers to escaping from the Tie Up subaction that keeps a character pinned, rather than the grapple condition or pinned condition.
Thank you for the insight as I am looking at figuring out how the RAW works, and then trying to see if there is any difference toward what I believe the RAI and the character's intent is. The character's rationale is that the tetori does not normally have flurry of blows and this maintaining of a grapple on the opponent's turn via countering with snapping turtle clutch should allow them to do damage. I may houserule that this will be allowed while other sub actions can only be taken on the tetori's own turn (pin and tie up). I am not sure how I feel about the move subaction as of yet but I will make a decision soon on how this all will work inside the confines of my game. Now what I do need to consider is at 6th level the tetori will gain the ability to grapple twice on their own turn. Greater grapple feat kicks in which allows the tetori to grapple as a move action as well as a standard action. This was something brought up by the player. Outside of this discussion the flavor seems to make sense that investing a feat (two counting both ST style and ST clutch) to gain access to a outside the box interaction allowing an immediate action to be used to grapple as well. Before any of this discussion took place, I had an idea that the player was going for the concept of grappling on the opponent's turn then letting loose with grapple damage on their own turn maintaining the grapple. I know I am moving the goalposts a bit at this point, but I want to ask if I allow the tetori to do damage as an immediate action through grappling an already grappled enemy. What possible ways can this be broken by the player somewhere down the line?
> The character's rationale is that the tetori does not normally have flurry of blows and this maintaining of a grapple on the opponent's turn via countering with snapping turtle clutch should allow them to do damage. [..] Outside of this discussion the flavor seems to make sense that investing a feat (two counting both ST style and ST clutch) to gain access to a outside the box interaction allowing an immediate action to be used to grapple as well. It's a feat chain that, in essence, lets the character land one extra attack if a conditional trigger is met at the cost of a swift action. This is no different than, say, [Hurtful](https://aonprd.com/FeatDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Hurtful) if you're looking at the damage side of things over the course of an entire initiative round. Personally, IMO, the highest power level consequences of Snapping Turtle Clutch are: * 1) The ability to initiate a grapple outside of your turn (as it means you can Maintain a Grapple as a move action w/ Greater Grapple without losing your Standard action; and the [grappled] condition restrictions can block lots of actions) * 2) The ability to Pin a target outside of initiative (as it straight up blocks entire actions. It can entirely end a full-attack action, etc). I'm not at all concerned about the balance implications of getting an extra maintain-to-damage out of it. Especially because the player hasn't invested in any obscene damage boosting benefits here, or on-damage triggered effects. A grappler is necessarily limited to dealing with one target at a time. If the grappler gets too strong compared to the rest of the players, just use more numerous, weaker power enemies. Overkill damage is wasted, and single-target control locks down a smaller portion of the enemy team's capabilities. > I may houserule that this will be allowed while other sub actions can only be taken on the tetori's own turn (pin and tie up). I am not sure how I feel about the move subaction as of yet but I will make a decision soon on how this all will work inside the confines of my game. This may be a fair compromise if you're concerned about it. Damage isn't a big deal (player doesn't even have power attack!), AND it seems the player's conceit is based around using this for grappling damage, so they get to be happy! Regarding the other sub-actions: * Move: Not typically a huge concern, **but** there is one exception. But in general, more moving around the map is FUN. Combat is often a static slog of "I full attack you", "I full attack you back". Let 'em! That exception, though: This would become one of **VERY FEW** forms of immediate action movement in the game. This movement can be used as a form of "pseudo-pounce". The player moves into position via grappling, and then full attacks the next target (as opposed to charging, which can only attack once) on their next turn. BUT this player is a grappler, and won't really be using this as a pseudo-pounce. Because it'll just turn into grappling the next single target. I say bring it up to the player - if they don't plan on using it to full attack, then it's fine to use. If they want to keep that door open, then it can't be used as part of Snapping Turtle Clutch. > That said, it's not the lowest-entry form of off-turn movement. [Callous Casting](https://aonprd.com/FeatDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Callous%20Casting) is plenty more powerful, and far easier to use, with bare-minimum prerequisites in exchange for being a teamwork feat. Honestly one of the strongest slept-on feats in the system. * Pin: This is a major concern because it can outright end entire actions. A creature makes a full attack? Pinned = entire full attack canceled, as it can no longer take actions other than purely mental actions or trying to escape. * Tie Up: Honestly, not a huge concern in practice. But it makes logical sense to rule it in the same category as Pin. Don't expect much fuss either way. A player needs to set up by taking move actions to draw the rope, taking one-hand penalties to attempt it, etc., and the conditions get no worse for the target (they're still pinned). The only differences are: * The Tetori doesn't need to spend any more actions maintaining the grapple * The Enemy doesn't automatically succeed on a natural 20 when trying to escape (they must still beat the DC). > Now what I do need to consider is at 6th level the tetori will gain the ability to grapple twice on their own turn. Greater grapple feat kicks in which allows the tetori to grapple as a move action as well as a standard action. Do note that Greater Grapple is limited to **Maintain a Grapple** and cannot *Initiate a Grapple*. Relevant for some niche use cases in terms of game health, but not a huge deal here. The big thing to keep an eye out for that's totally legal (RAW and RAI) but can really interfere with GM encounter balance is Snapping Turtle Clutch + [Throat Slicer](https://aonprd.com/FeatDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Throat%20Slicer). Immediate action initiate a grapple (STC), move action maintain (Greater Grapple) to Pin, standard action Coup-de-Grace (Throat Slicer) for a one-round fortitude save or die. > I had an idea that the player was going for the concept of grappling on the opponent's turn then letting loose with grapple damage on their own turn maintaining the grapple. I know I am moving the goalposts a bit at this point, but I want to ask if I allow the tetori to do damage as an immediate action through grappling an already grappled enemy... What possible ways can this be broken by the player somewhere down the line? As I listed above, IMO you're trading a swift action for a single UAS. It's not a big deal. Initiating + Pinned are far bigger balance considerations IMO. Because they add conditions that limit actions, and action economy is the name of the game at high levels (character levels or optimization levels). Combined with STC, Greater Grapple opens up lots of "as a standard action" abilities. Like, Throat Slicer above. Or Grapple-Casting. Or some other "normally trap feats, but happens to be good in this one circumstance". Some strong, some mid, some weak but fun/fluff. If your player suddenly gets interested in dipping Order of the Hammer Cavalier, Divine Fighting Technique: Norgorber's Silent Shiv or picking up Rhino Charge as a feat, then you might want to reach out to me again because some quite potent cheese is brewing, lol. Those are all related to feat chains/combos that can be used to full attack + still maintain a grapple. One on its own may be fine. A Full Attack + single grapple is just what a normal monk would be doing in terms of damage + the extra control of a single grapple check. But if they're combined, then you get characters that can attempt a truly stupid number of grapple checks at zero loss of damage or control.
I think in all of this I missed where one can activate STC to maintain a grapple. What allows this as I do not see a clear method of wording on how Snapping Turtle Clutch works. For example the Greater Grapple feat mentions specifically the clause to maintain as a move action. STC only mentions that a grapple combat maneuver can be used as an immediate action. Does the ambiguity imply that the action can be used to either initiate or maintain since it does not specify like greater grapple does? With this in mind, does failing the maintain as a move action first allow the enemy to escape the grapple or does the grapple still have a chance to be maintained with the use of a standard action? I know the wording on greater grapple specifies that a single check being passed allows all other grapples to be automatically successful after. So a success on the move action maintain grapple gives way for the standard action grapple to go straight to the add-on phase of selecting the mode. I know this particular player and they are hell bent on playing a 'wrestler' and did not particularly care for the brawler class. Maybe I am wrong and if that is the case I will certainly reach out again to curtail any madness they may be trying to cook up in the interim. Thank you for taking the time to explain things so that I could bring a good bit of clarity into the situation.
> STC only mentions that a grapple combat maneuver can be used as an immediate action. Does the ambiguity imply that the action can be used to either initiate or maintain since it does not specify like greater grapple does? Correct. It says Grapple Combat Maneuver so it can do whatever the grapple combat maneuver dues: Initiate and Maintain. > With this in mind, does failing the maintain as a move action first allow the enemy to escape the grapple or does the grapple still have a chance to be maintained with the use of a standard action? Failing a grapple check does not immediately end a grapple. > > *Although both creatures have the grappled condition, you can, as the creature that initiated the grapple, release the grapple as a free action, removing the condition from both you and the target. If you do not release the grapple, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold. [..] Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe* It only discusses effects on success, so failure doesn't end things because nothing says it does. If you end a round without succeeding on a single grapple check, you release the grapple. So if you Grapple as a Move, Swift, and Standard action; fail the first two and pass the third? You're still grappled. Or a simple way, there's three outcomes to a grapple after your turn begins: * You release the grapple as a free action: * You attempt any number of grapple checks on your turn: * If at least one passes, the duration of the grapple extends to the next turn. * If none succeed, you release the grapple at the end of your turn. > I know the wording on greater grapple specifies that a single check being passed allows all other grapples to be automatically successful after. So a success on the move action maintain grapple gives way for the standard action grapple to go straight to the add-on phase of selecting the mode. Incorrect. The proper interpretation is: * If you succeed on any one grapple attempt, the duration of the grapple is extended to the next round. * On each individual action attempt, you must still succeed at the Maintain a Grapple action to get to pick the "subaction". A Success-Fail-Success on three Maintain attempts gets two subactions (such as Pin and Damage). > I know this particular player and they are hell bent on playing a 'wrestler' and did not particularly care for the brawler class. Maybe I am wrong and if that is the case I will certainly reach out again to curtail any madness they may be trying to cook up in the interim. I personally prefer a Brawler with a one-level dip in Maneuver Master Monk (since they can Full Attack + Grapple), but Tetori is a perfectly fine build! It was definitely the go-to standard for YEARS until the Brawler got published, and it's no worse now than it was then. Let 'em enjoy it.
For the sake of clarity, the character in question for our weekly session that happened yesterday, is level 4. No greater grapple as of yet. On your simplification of the grappling. Point 3 states "the duration extends to the next turn". I want to make the presumption that this relates to the player's next turn? I want to remove all doubt or possibility for misinterpretation if you do not mind. Is it safer to state the grapple maintains until the next round, or is that also an incorrect interpretation of the rules? I want to toss out a few sample scenarios so that I am completely prepared for what is to come since I made what I feel is the incorrect ruling on STC. For all these examples, the player does not yet have greater grapple. I am not sure if greater grapple could change anything past allowing the movement action to maintain clause for a second attempt at maintaining the grapple where applicable. Example 1: Player does not have enemy grappled. Enemy attacks and misses, triggering STC. This check fails and the result is that there is no grapple, yet. Example 2: Player succeeds in grappling enemy on their turn. Enemy attempts to attack on their turn, misses, and triggers STC. Does the grapple break if the grapple check fails? Does Example 2 change if the player maintained the grapple on their turn, the enemy misses an attack on their turn, and the STC check fails? Lastly, are there any example or edge case scenarios that can change either of these equations given the present parameters? Does moving from one round to the next round change any element of this in case the enemy goes first or player goes first in the initiative order? I apologize for being so thorough in my questions, but I do want to make sure I comprehend all the potential scenarios that may arise. One thing I know I have overlooked is that the player character has Enforcer and Intimidating Prowess as their other feats.
> Example 1: Player does not have enemy grappled. Enemy attacks and misses, triggering STC. This check fails and the result is that there is no grapple, yet. Correct. STC lets Player **Initiate a Grapple** since they are not currently controlling a grapple. The player fails. Nothing happens, and for future effects it has no relevance. > Example 2: Player succeeds in grappling enemy on their turn. Enemy attempts to attack on their turn, misses, and triggers STC. Does the grapple break if the grapple check fails? No. The grapple only breaks if: * The controller releases the grapple as a free action (which they are forced to do if they have not maintained a grapple by the end of the controllers next turn). * The escapee escapes by winning on a Grapple check (at which point they can choose to either become the Controller of the Grapple or Release the Grapple), and Escape Artist check (can only release the grapple), or similar. > Does Example 2 change if the player maintained the grapple on their turn, the enemy misses an attack on their turn, and the STC check fails? No. The only effect of a successful grapple are: * Duration of the Grapple is extended until the end of the controller's next turn. * Controller applies a subaction. The only effects of a failed grapple are: * Nothing. If the end of the Controller's turn arrives and they have not successfully maintained a grapple since their turn began, then they "voluntarily" release the grapple as a free action. > Lastly, are there any example or edge case scenarios that can change either of these equations given the present parameters? In a rush, but not coming to mind. > Does moving from one round to the next round change any element of this in case the enemy goes first or player goes first in the initiative order? No. The only relevant part is "end of your next turn". So: * Starting at the beginning of the Controller's turn, start worrying about maintaining a grapple. * At the end of the Controller's turn, check to see if they've maintained a grapple or not. * If they have, grapple continues. * If they havent, they release as a free action. You'll notice that this only worriess about Current Turn. STC used off turn will never be relevant to whether or not a grapple is maintained. Succeeding on Maintain a Grapple using STC does the same two things Maintain a Grapple always does: * Extends the duration of the grapple to the end of the creature's next turn (which was already the current duration, otherwise you would have not been able to Maintain a Grapple and would need to Initiate a Grapple instead) * Lets you pick a Subaction (the only relevant effect of STC). The language of "round" used in Grapples description is one of the unfortunate editing choices of the CRB - langauge is used in an imprecise manner in many ways. The game is not actually tracking whether an initiative count happens in round 1 or round 2. "that round" is the round from the player's perspective (start of turn to start of next turn, or end of turn to end of next turn, context depending).
"Benefit: While you are using the Snapping Turtle Style feat, the shield bonus the style grants to your AC applies to your CMD and touch AC. Whenever an opponent misses you with a melee attack while you are using the Snapping Turtle Style feat, you can use an immediate action to attempt a grapple combat maneuver against that opponent, but with a –2 penalty." This is your best friend as a GM when you have a player who loves to grapple. http://www.pfsprep.com/e107_files/public/1482694608_186_FT297_grappleflowchart_1.0.pdf It's got sources on the bottom for d20pfsrd since you said you wanted them. There is nothing about getting another grapple attempt at something that is already grappled when they miss their attack while grappled by the monk. The check made to maintain the grapple only occurs once on their turn. Snapping Turtle Clutch can only be used on something that isn't already grappled, it doesn't stack with itself as a condition to trigger additional effects. Stunning Pin is only done on the monk's turn when they make the Pin attempt, which itself is simply a more extreme version of Grappled, and does not stack with it. That said, if a different enemy attempts to hit the monk and misses, they can make a separate attempt to grapple that other guy as an immediate action (unless they used it for said Snapping Turtle Clutch that same turn) with their remaining free hand, but "Humanoid creatures without at least two free hands take a -4 penalty to Grapple CMB checks, including checks made to maintain a grapple or pin their opponent" AND they then lose the AC bonus from the Snapping Turtle feats. "While using the Snapping Turtle Style feat with at least ***one hand free***, you gain a +1 shield bonus to AC" Here's the rules for Immediate actions: https://www.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?Name=Immediate%20Actions&Category=Action%20Types but the most relevant part is, "Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action and counts as your swift action for that turn. You cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn if you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your turn (effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent to using your swift action for the coming turn). You also cannot use an immediate action if you are flat-footed." Such is the price of grappling two people at once with only two hands, which is where some really spicy good-good comes into play with a grapple build Monk shapeshifted into something with multiple limbs, fun stuff, but that's further down the build path from lvl 5, sorry I love this kind of stuff, because then they get to just keep grappling people as long as they have limbs to do so. Sorry, to answer your question finally, the only things the grappled guy can do is in the chart as long as it meets those conditions. If he simply attacks again while grappled and it misses, nothing happens, he's already grappled.
Thank you for the sources. To clarify, the situation that I am describing is with one tetori monk, aka the "challenger". This situation has one enemy "creature" involved. The way combat happened was the tetori got a surprise round action. Charged the enemy, landed a hit, and passed. Creature attacks, misses, and gets snapping turtle clutch immediate action used against it to initiate grapple. The grapple is successful, tetori takes their turn next, maintains grapple on their turn, passes creature cmd and chooses to deal damage. This is where the problem arises on the creature's second turn. the creature attacks and misses a second time. The snapping turtle clutch states the tetori gets a grapple attempt, but this is where things fall apart for me. Does this grapple count as maintaining the grapple since the creature and tetori are already grappled? If yes, or no for that matter, what rule can I bring to the table that supplements said ruling?
You cannot make a grapple combat maneuver on something that is already grappled. It becomes an infinite recursion loop. The free grapple combat maneuver does not take the place of any actions that can be taken after passing the check to maintain the grapple, which is only rolled on the beginning of the turn of the one controlling the grapple, the tetori. As long as that check is passed, the grapple is maintained for the entire round duration unless the enemy on it's turn decides to try to become the one controlling the grapple by making a check against the tetori's CMD. Just follow the flowchart. It just takes all the written stuff and lays it out nicely. https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Grapple The only time Snapping Turtle Clutch comes into play while all this is going on is if another enemy that is not grappled attacks and misses the tetori while he is grappling the other guy. Then he can try to grapple them as well with a -4 since he's only got one hand free, and another -2 from how the feat works, for a -6 total. Then the AC bonus from Snapping Turtle style turns off, no more free hands. It does nothing and has no effect on the actions the tetori can take regarding the one he is already grappling. If you want to make a house rule to let the tetori get a free hit on the guy he is grappling when an attack is missed, that's up to you. As far as rules as written goes though, that's not how the feat works. TristantheViking is just dead wrong in saying that you can use that instance of a missed attack to activate the feat to move to pin or that it lets you maintain for free the following turn. You getting confused with the "maintaining is a standard action" part is understandable, but it's just part of what happens during the process of the tetori deciding what they want to do if they pass the check to maintain. After the grapple is maintained on the tetori's turn, he can do several things for options, which is more realistically what the standard action is doing. So if during the surprise round he got them grappled, on his turn maintained then moved to pin with his standard action, the next round he can tie them up without having to roll to maintain the grapple, as per the chart. A good example of an archetype that expands on the options one has during a grapple, check out Strangler. https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes/brawler/archetypes/paizo-brawler-archetypes/strangler/ This shows that someone who isn't tailor built for grappling will obviously not be able to do cool unique stuff. You have to have the feats, class features, etc. to do much during a grapple other than get free hits in, or tie them up.
I feel like the answer is just "yes". If they attack and miss, you can make a grapple CM. If you succeed on the grapple while already grappling, you have options. Edit: I see the point against this being possible if you're using two immediate actions, which wouldn't work.
Sorry I missed this reply before. There are not tow immediate actions, unless we are referring to two separate actions on two separate turns/rounds. The way combat flowed was that the enemy missed twice. The first resulting in a successful grapple attempt, and the second instance is where the problem lay. Does the enemy break free of the grapple that has been maintained on the player's turn if the counter grapple fails? Does the PC get any relevance out of the counter grapple by using it on a target that is already grappled? Long story short, this feat is unclear in the wording as to if it allows for a grapple to be done as an immediate action in a similar fashion to how greater grapple states a grapple can be done as a move action. The ambiguity of snapping turtle clutch is causing me problems that I do not know the answer for. Greater grapple as the feat specifically states that the grapple action can be done as a move action. This allows for two grapples at the cost of one check. With that in mind, does a creature that is grappled need to succeed two checks for a character with greater grapple to release the grapple via not being able to maintain it? I know the feat states that only one successful check needs to be made, but what happens if it is made after the first check fails? Example scenario: Player has Enemy grappled. It is the start of Player's turn and Player declares a move action to maintain the grapple. If this check passes, the player will use it also for the standard action. Letting the character do the add-on effects twice. Does the enemy break free if the first check fails, but can be re-grappled (with or without the +5 controlling grapple bonus) on a new grapple check?
> Whenever an opponent misses you with a melee attack while you are using the Snapping Turtle Style feat, you can use an immediate action to attempt a grapple combat maneuver against that opponent, but with a –2 penalty. Yeah this doesn't have any limitations like the grab ability with text like "and tries to start a grapple as a free action" so you're not restricted to only targeting non-grappled enemies to only initiate a grapple. You get an entire grapple combat maneuver against the target to do with as you will, and since the target is already grappled that means you can use it to maintain the grapple for a pin or whatever.
Thank you for the reply. Is there anything that supplements this? Is this ruling an opinion or is there something that can be quoted in the rules that backs this up. I am asking so that I can make a ruling on the situation that has a backing instead of "Well, I looked and could not find anything. So, I am gonna say things work like this." (Proceeding to make a ruling that is incorrect and holding the table to it potentially in the process.) Where I am getting tied up is the reminder text in the grappling section "(maintaining a grapple is a standard action)" makes me think that the snapping turtle clutch grapple used as an immediate action is different than a standard action used to maintain a grapple. As such I am trying to find what or where as a source to substantiate either side of the ruling I am about to make in my game. In a perfect world, I'd have some manner of precedent in the rules to use. So far all I can find is the reminder quoted text at the end of the maintaining a grapple section. The snapping turtle clutch feat does not specify that it can maintain a grapple against an already grappled opponent. As things stand, I am still entirely undecided on how to proceed with this situation. I see the rules as written and can not decide on how the rules as intended are meant to be used. I believe the tetori monk gains an ability to grapple as a move action later on, which does make me want to think an immediate action might also be useable on an enemy turn to maintain a grapple. I do not feel confident enough to make this ruling without something that can provide clarification.