Already did it. At least two times.
Regarding the "Escape from Grapple"No. "Escape from Grapple" and "Escape the Pin" are different actions. Very similar, but clearly different. Or you have some part of the text indicates opposite for you?We have specific rules that trump the general rules for escape from grapple.
What? Really, what??? Are you serious now?It's the same debate as in "can you trip someone who is already tripped?".
You even didn't try to read carefully and understand my point, did you?As such, you can't pin someone even further then he is already "pinned".
We are talking about actions available for PINNED creature. Not one who pins, but one who is pinned.
There isn't different rules for standing and grounded grappling in D&D 3.5. Or you have some part of the text indicates opposite for you?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)
"At the ground" is an unnecessary substance. There are no differences between "full lock" at the ground and "full lock" while standing. Both are the same pin.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.
Rules about grapple and pin are poor written and can be interpreted in two ways. RAW is ambiguous here. Not "RAW sole adds options and restrict some, but not all other options" is clear and only possible reading. You for some reason like this interpretation and want to think it is sole true, but you are wrong.But RAW speak another language here.
And while we have ambiguous wording we should use RAI. Especially since RAI is pretty clear stated by one of game designers.
I gave you all you need, but I can't make you drink.If you disagree, point me to the text phrase where you are basing of your interpretation please.