Quote Originally Posted by loky1109 View Post
Can't agree with you. For me it looks exactly as full available list (plus casting a spell as special exception) of "attack replacement" actions available for pinned creature.
and which part of the text indicates this for you? If you can't point it out, it sole your imagination (no offense here, but my brain needs to confirm it, otherwise it won't believe you ;)



By that logic, you can use this option being pinned:
Escape from Grapple
You can escape a grapple by winning an opposed grapple check in place of making an attack. You can make an Escape Artist check in place of your grapple check if you so desire, but this requires a standard action. If more than one opponent is grappling you, your grapple check result has to beat all their individual check results to escape. (Opponents don’t have to try to hold you if they don’t want to.) If you escape, you finish the action by moving into any space adjacent to your opponent(s).
and this:
Pin Your Opponent
You can hold your opponent immobile for 1 round by winning an opposed grapple check (made in place of an attack). Once you have an opponent pinned, you have a few options available to you (see below).
Regarding the "Escape from Grapple"
Quote Originally Posted by When you are Pinned
On your turn, you can try to escape the pin by making an opposed grapple check in place of an attack. You can make an Escape Artist check in place of your grapple check if you want, but this requires a standard action. If you win, you escape the pin, but you’re still grappling.
We have specific rules that trump the general rules for escape from grapple.

Regading "Pin Your Opponent":
It's the same debate as in "can you trip someone who is already tripped?". And after 20 years of discussions, imho most people are on the "No you can't trip someone who is already tripped"-side. As such, you can't pin someone even further then he is already "pinned". That is by logic not possible. It's like saying "I stand up, while already standing". You can't further stand up than normal. So pls, lets skip this nonsense. It won't make anyone happy and it won't bring any meaningful results.



I think it exactly is. And should be. Yes, wording is slightly poor and ambiguous, but there are nothing against my interpretation.

...

Do you know how D&D 3.5 should work better than Skip Williams? It's... arrogantly.
Imho, if we ask how realistic the implementation of grappling into 3.5 is, we have to admit that it is far from perfect. It tries to give some oversimplified rules for a fluent gameplay.

What we have is:
- rules for standing grappling (standing as in the 3.5 rules)
- rules for grounded grappling (grounded as in the 3.5 rules)

The question or problem is, which kind of grounded grappling this is. Is it:
(a) just both grappler at the ground, both in equal good/bad position.
(b) both grapplers at the ground and one has the upper hand
(c) both grapplers are at the ground, but one has a "full lock" on the other.

I can see why the "full lock" option (c) is appealing and why even Skip Williams seems be believe in it. So you have an argument for RAI as said. But RAW speak another language here. RAW sole adds options and restrict some, but not all other options.
So imho, the "pin" state is best reflected by option (b), that one grappler has the upper hand, which alters the options slightly (and doesn't exchanges em completely).

If you disagree, point me to the text phrase where you are basing of your interpretation please.