I was wondering why Improved Grapple is the only "Improved" special combat action feat that has another feat as a prerequisite?
You can use Improved Disarm without having a weapon in had, but cannot grab and hold on to the same opponent?
Just trying to find out what the logic behind the decision is.
Since a few of the Paizo staff are on the boards right now, any chance of this being answered?
I believe it's primarily from the remaining belief that Grappling still needs some toning down, or to not be such an obvious choice over the other, less-loved, combat maneuver feats. I'm on the edge of agreeing with you that it doesn't need it.
|
I was wondering why Improved Grapple is the only "Improved" special combat action feat that has another feat as a prerequisite?
You can use Improved Disarm without having a weapon in had, but cannot grab and hold on to the same opponent?
Just trying to find out what the logic behind the decision is.
Grappling is essentially an unarmed action. See Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll. Instead of hitting the enemy (karate), you grab hold of him (judo). I think that the Improved Unarmed Strike feat represents the required skill level in unarmed fighting to allow for a more efficient grapple.
Disarming is essentially performed with weapons. See Attempting to disarm a foe while unarmed imposes a –4 penalty on the attack.
Actually, I wouldn't mind adding BAB +1 and the Weapon proficiency feat for disarm attempts made with weapons and BAB +1 and Improved Unarmed Strike for bare-handed katana-catching.
Realistically speaking, I'd say that a pre-req in Improved Unarmed Strike for improved grapple is right on. I'd also say that Improved Unarmed Strike would be required to attempt a disarm while you yourself are not armed. I know a lot more about disarming someone while empty handed than I do about trying to do it with a weapon.
If you want to really drive home realism, I'd say that there should probably be two different feats; Improved Disarm (armed) and Improved Disarm (unarmed). It seems to me the two would employ an entirely different set of principles.
That being said, there is, and should be, a dividing line between realism for the sake of realism, and abstractionism for the sake of simplicity, and the game has both. There could literally be a hundred different feats that make up unarmed combat in DnD, but they would bog down the game to the point of being unplayable. So as it stands now is perfectly ok with me.