Reflexive Constriction (monster feat)

[rferries]

In another thread I whipped up some monsters with both spellcasting powers and constriction, and it occurred to me that constricting monsters should be able to constrict automatically (beyond the first round), leaving them free to make other attacks/cast spells/etc.

Reflexive Constriction [General]
Once you've established a hold on an enemy you can crush them with very little thought.

Prerequisites
Constrict special attack, improved grab ability, and either Improved Grapple or MultigrabSK.
SKSerpent Kingdoms

Benefits
While you have established a hold on a creature, you may make grapple checks to constrict that creature as free actions (you may only make one such check each turn for each creature you are grappling). You are otherwise free to cast spells, make attacks, and perform other actions. This feat does not allow you to grapple more than one creature though the improved grab ability.

Normal
Only the first grapple you initiate with the improved grab ability is a free action.

[DracoDei]

This is very close to giving Haste, and thus is a very powerful feat.

Not bad, just could do with Improved Grapple as a feat tax (since most monsters with Improved Grab don't actually have that feat).

I would make sure you either have, or don't need language preventing additional grabs while using this feat (or at least that they suffer the an appropriate penalty for having a limb (or part of the length for snake-like creatures) already engaged).

[rferries]

This is very close to giving Haste, and thus is a very powerful feat.

Not bad, just could do with Improved Grapple as a feat tax (since most monsters with Improved Grab don't actually have that feat).

I would make sure you either have, or don't need language preventing additional grabs while using this feat (or at least that they suffer the an appropriate penalty for having a limb (or part of the length for snake-like creatures) already engaged).

I've tightened up the prerequisites and the language, hopefully?

[DracoDei]

As currently written it looks like you need one of four requirements, rather than this first two plus either the third or the fourth.

Other than that it looks fine. Powerful, but in the ballpark.

[rferries]

As currently written it looks like you need one of four requirements, rather than this first two plus either the third or the fourth.

Other than that it looks fine. Powerful, but in the ballpark.

Ha yes, I thought that was the convention for feat prerequisite grammar for some reason. Fixed now, and thanks for the feedback!