Dysfunctional Rules X: I Cast Comprehend Rules

[loky1109]

The final part of the sentence gives you additional "attack replacement"-actions (in addition to those "attack replacement" options you are given in the general grappling rules).

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.

Where does it say that you can't use the "general attack action"-options anymore?

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).

---

This is not a full lock grappling technique where your enemies actions are totally restricted.

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

The 3.5 "pin" state is when the grapplers are on the ground and one has the upper position. The grounded grappler can still attack (e.g. a headbutt; a knife, claws, bite...).

Where did you take it from? It's clearly wrong. "On the ground" names "prone" not "pin".

The "3.5 pin" resembles something like in This Video.

You need only to give at least some proof of this hypothesis.

This is not a full lock grappling technique where your enemies actions are totally restricted.

Ok. Let's say that. But then where is a full lock grappling technique? Or you want to say it doesn't exist?

casting a spell just confirms with a friendly reminder that the general options are still available in the "pin" state.

It isn't "a friendly reminder" it is "the existence of an exception confirms the existence of the rule".

Sadly, "Skip" seems to have the false impression what RAW is dictating here.

Do you know how D&D 3.5 should work better than Skip Williams? It's... arrogantly.

---

Cold fire was just to showcase that you can produce fire at nearly any temperature. There are still limits like the freezing point. But the argument was intended to show that any temperature is possible. We assume that on first contact (when the fire is still fully exposed to Oxygen to fuel its reaction) the fire is at the hottest state and just enough to damage you. But constant contact extinguishes the flames locally temporarily enough to prevent further damage. While a punch or headbutt will cause new/additional body parts to come into contact.

Yes, you can use imagination and explain why it's harmless to hug fire elemental. Fact you need use imagination so hardly for explaining this exactly means this rule is dysfunctional.