Arne Schmidt's page

If a mage were inclined to disintigrate the armor an opponent was wearing how would one resolve this?

It seems like it would work as a standard disintigrate attack (ranged touch, wearer's SR or other magic resistance applies, saving throw as wearer, etc). The only difference being that any damage would be dealt to the armor rather than to the target. Hardness would still apply.

In other words, the sunder rules would not come into play at all. I admit I haven't scoured the books, but that seems the correct conclusion to me.

Is that how my fellow DMs would rule this?
Thanks,
Fin

Does a mage's Disjunction spell dispel/dismiss/suppress supernatural abilities that are in effect on a creature within the spell's area?

For example, if a mage's disjunction was cast upon a balor demon would it lose its flaming body, death throes, and vorpal strike supernatural abilities? For how long would these abilities be suppressed?

I know that it would lose all its active spell-like abilities and that it's sword and whip would lose their magical properties (on a failed save for each), except possibly the vorpal property which is a supernatural function of the balor.

Any thoughts, advice, or clarifications would be much appreciated.

So how does one handle something like this?

If I have a gargantuan creature (one that occupies a space 20' across) but he's standing on a 10' ledge, do I consider him to be balancing? squeezing? Is it easier for him to fall? What if it is a 15' wide ledge? or if he's at the corner of a pit such that the 10' square in 1 corner of his space is over the edge?

Any thoughts would be appreciated as I will be dealing with this scenario in the near future.

Thanks.

Is it possible for a monster to stack these feats on the same ability? For example, could a pit fiend, caster level 18 take empower SLA and apply it to fireball in addition to the quicken SLA he already has applied to it?

By the rule for Quicken SLA, the creature can only select a spell with a spell level equal to half of its caster level -4 this would still seem to be possible. An empowered fireball is a fifth level spell. And half of 18 minus 4 is 5.

Does this seem doable or is there a problem with my math?

Is there any spell or ability that allows you to avoid or negate the alignment based damage taken by entering an area warded with a forbiddance spell?

What I'm wondering is if mind blank which prevents your alignment from being detected might work to negate the damage as in the field would be unable to detect your alignment and attack you.

Obviously the field might not work by detecting your alignment but is simply harmful to anyone of different alignment so that might be a moot point and I'm looking for other options.

I have a group of players who needs to move through an about a mile of chamber that is dimensionally locked and has alternating forbiddance effects every 60 feet.

Note that they will be disguised and observed by their enemeies so they can't simply heal up after each entry (or rest and recover) as that would give away the fact that they are not of the appropriate alignment.

Short of being the correct alignment how might they get through this? Are there methods of faking the correct alignment as far as the spell is concerned?

Thanks for any help.

Hey all,
The sorceror in the party I DM for has recently started using Mislead which is a tremendous defensive boon for her. I want to make sure that I'm ruling its use correctly.

On the round she casts it (using a standard action) she can cause the illusion to appear anywhere within the spell's range simultaneous with her turning invisible (including over top of herself so that the switch is not noticed).

In that round she can also have the illusion move away from her (as she's already spending the standard action). She can also tell the illusion to pretend to cast spells.

If she wants to move the illusion again or tell it to pretend to do something else she needs to use another standard action for concentration. If she doesn't do this on the next round than the illusion only lasts for 3 more rounds.

So here are some of my questions.
1. She has to stop concentrating on the illusion to cast any other spell (even a quickened spell), right?
2. Can she change the illusions actions by spending another standard action after she has stopped concentrating?
3. If she is casting ray spells or the like can she make them appear to come from the illusion or do they give away her actual position?

Thanks for any help you guys can offer and if there's anything you've run into with this spell that I haven't mentioned here, but you think I should know, please feel free to share.

A Celestial sorceror's wings of heaven ability is a supernatural one. Does it take a standard action to sprout the wings for a minute of use or do the wings sprout as part of movement?

In the case of a sorceror falling off a high ledge could they immediately use the wings to arrest their fall or would they plummet due to an inability to activate them before impact?

Thanks for your thoughts.

If a monster is hit with 4 negative levels from an enervation or energy drain attack does it's spell resistance decrease by 4?

Spell resistance doesn't seem to be called out as a level dependent value (such as caster level), but there seems room for debate there.

Thoughts?

I have two players in a 15th level pathfinder campaign and I've come upon a bit of a problem.

One is a TWF ranger, the other a great sword wielding paladin with the vital strike feat chain.

Here's the problem. Vital strike has dramatically increased movement during battle across the board. This has resulted in it being very difficult for the TWF fighter to achieve a full attack action and thus gain the benefit of multiple attacks.

I was wondering if anyone has a suggestion on how to balance this a bit.

I've considered allowing TWF as a standard action (the two highest BAB attacks only) and then awarding a free two weapon rend when used in this fashion. Then he could move and make a significant major attack each round while maintaining his character concept.

Perhaps this should be a feat like Vital Strike (perhaps called Double Strike).

Any thoughts?

I've just had a new player join a 14th level Pathfinder game with a single class cleric. He's a quick study and managed to contribute well, but was underwhelmed by his character's effectiveness in battle compared to the paladin, sorceror, and ranger in the party (all also 14th level).

I was hoping for some advice to help optimize his character (which I'm happy to let him rebuild now that he's seen how it plays and has a better understanding of the impact of his choices).

He's a human cleric, 14th level, with the war and weather domains. We're playing with spontaneous casting of healing and domain spells (though he has lost his domain slots to take this option.). The character is built as a generalist with a Wisdom of 22, Str/Dex/Con in the 16 range. He's currently wielding a repeating heavy crossbow (his dieties' favored weapon, I'm also willing to change his dieties favored weapon if it helps with build options) and a heavy mace with shield for melee. His feats are divided between ranged weapon (3), melee weapon (2), and spellcasting (3)

I'm always hearing that clerics are the most powerful class, can anyone give me some advice to help this player achieve some of that potential?

Are there spellcasting feats that are particularly helpful to a cleric? Are there particular spells that make them demons in combat? Should they be focusing on save or die style spells, if so which ones? That sort of thing.

The campaign will be heavily focused on fighting evil outsiders (and mostly on their plane of origin rather than the prime material world).

Thanks for any advice you can offer!

Hey all,
I'm about to start a high level campaign (actually a continuation of a campaign from some years ago) and a new player is going to be playing a 14th level human ranger.

I'm hoping to get some advice on the feat and magic item selection for this build.

The player is interested in some decent bow skills and his ideal fighting style would be bastard sword with buckler and short short sword in off-hand. This is because he likes this style out of game, not because of any mechanical advantages it might have.

I'm looking for advice on how I can make this feasible for him. Barring that Bastard sword and shield would be his next choice.

He's got 4 combat style feats to choose, and 8 feats from class levels and his human bonus feat. The only feat he's expressed a strong interest in is combat expertise.

His current stats (with some boosting items already purchased) are:
Str 16, Dex 19, Con 12, Int 13, Wis 16, Cha 8.

He has 86,000 gp to spend (we're running with low treasure).

Anyone who has any thoughts I'd love to hear them,
Thanks!

Would it be possible to create a +1 flaming weapon that had the flaming enhancement applied 3 times (thus an equivalent to a +4 weapon) and added +3d6 fire damage on a hit?

I don't see anything that directly addresses this in the rules and it does appear that you could create a +1 flaming frost shock weapon (doing +3d6 energy damage) which would seem to be mechanically more effective than +3d6 fire (since resistance would only reduce 1d6 of a multi-energy weapon).

Any thoughts?

Hey all,
I'm considering running a high level Pathfinder campaign and I'm interested in incorporating the success I had with skill challenges in 4E into that campaign.

I know many people don't like skill challenges, but I didn't run them as written in 4E and my players really enjoyed them. So much so that 2/3rds of the encounters we ran were skill challenges rather than combats. (If anyone is interested in how I ran them I'll be happy to discuss that as well).

But the main thing I want to discuss in this thread is how to do them in Pathfinder. Three methods have occurred to me (see below). Thanks in advance to any and all who choose to comment.

Method 1: Revert to the Pathfinder Alpha version of skills. Skill Selections are made rather than skill points spent. A trained class skill is level+3 plus ability and racial mod. A trained cross class skill is (1/2 level)+3 plus ability and racial mod. This has the advantage of putting all trained skills within a much tighter range of each other, but still leaves the problem of untrained skills having no appreciable modifier (and thus being far below trained skill users at higher levels).

Method 2: Participants in a skill challenge may use a bonus based on the highest skill bonus in the party.
Player has no ranks in skill: They may use the highest skill modifier in the party at a -10 penalty.
Player has some ranks in skill: They may use the highest skill modifier in the party at a -5 penalty.
Participants in a skill challenge may always use their own skill modifier if it is better than the teamwork bonus described here.
A player still cannot make checks with skills that cannot be used untrained unless they have ranks in the skill.
The person granting the bonus must have ranks in the skill to assist his fellow party members (a highly dexterous halfling with a cloak of elvenkind, but no ranks in Stealth, cannot grant his bonus to Stealth to the rest of the party).
Additionally the most skilled party member must be present and in contact for this to take place. If they depart, lose consciousness, or refuse to help, then the party’s scores are based on the player with the next highest modifier in that skill.
In a skill challenge cooperation is expected. As such the Aid Another action is not possible as it is already assumed.

Method 3: Individual skill checks contribute to a cumulative total needed to succeed at a difficult skill task. So climbing a treacherous mountain undetected might require Climb checks, Survival checks, and Stealth checks. A point total for each one is set to determine success. For this example let's say the total is 100 points.
Each day each party member makes a roll for each skill. Their total points are added together and compared to the needed total. If they exceed it they succeed in the challenge for that day. If they fail any of the skills then some appropriate pre-planned consequence occurs (they fall, get lost, or are detected).

Method 3 is the least invasive on the player side and may have the most flexibility. It also does not require that the players be informed that they are in a skill challenge (which method 2 almost assuredly does). It also has the advantage of allowing unskilled characters to contribute without completely derailing the attempt (which the success versus failure system of 4E does when mixed with a skill point based system).

What do you all think?

One of the things I enjoyed about 4th Edition was Skill Challenges. I ran a city based campaign in which skill challenges accounted for 2/3rds of the encounters the party experienced and we had a great time.

I did not run Skill Challenges exactly as described in the 4th edition DMG or DMG 2. I allowed any skill that could be reasonably applied to the challenge to be used and I allowed it as many times as a new check seemed reasonable (instead of a limited number of times for "secondary" skills). I gave automatic successes for a good idea (or removed failures in some cases if the good idea was how to recover from a blunder). Each skill check in the challenge was accompanied by a specific description of how that check affected the outcome and this description often led the players to suggest the next skill they would like to attempt. They were awarded XP based on overcoming the challenge even if they didn't use skills to overcome it.

So with that said I'd like to find a way to incorporate skill challenges into a high level (14+) Pathfinder campaign that I'm considering running in the near future.

I tried skill challenges in a previous 3.5 campaign and what I found was that the skill variances between party members was too wide to allow group effort on most things. A trained party member with a skill boosting magic item often had a bonus 20 points higher than an untrained skill member of the same level. Setting a DC to challenge the trained party members made success impossible for an untrained party member. In some cases it was perfectly reasonable to expect skill checks by all party members (stealth scenarios, long term wilderness survival, a physical chase, climbing a mountain, etc) but to make it even mildly challenging for the trained party members made it impossible for the untrained members.

So here's what I propose as a Skill Challenge House Rule:
Skill Challenges: In a skill challenge cooperation is expected. As such the Aid Another action is not possible as it is already assumed. Every participant gains advantages toward completing the challenge. Participants in a skill challenge may use a bonus based on the highest skill bonus in the party.
Player has no ranks in skill: They may use the highest skill modifier in the party at a -10 penalty.
Player has some ranks in skill: They may use the highest skill modifier in the party at a -5 penalty.
Participants in a skill challenge may always use their own skill modifier if it is better than the teamwork bonus described here.
A player still cannot make checks with skills that cannot be used untrained unless they have ranks in the skill.
The person granting the bonus must have ranks in the skill to assist his fellow party members (a highly dexterous halfling with a cloak of elvenkind, but no ranks in Stealth, cannot grant his bonus to Stealth to the rest of the party).
Additionally the most skilled party member must be present and in contact for this to take place. If they depart, lose consciousness, or refuse to help, then the party’s scores are based on the player with the next highest modifier in that skill.

This allows me to set all of the skill DCs within 10 of each other for purposes of the challenge (using an Easy, Medium, and Hard DC for different skills).

The one downside to this scenario is that in 4E I quickly learned that skill challenges were more fun if you never told the players that they were in one. You just presented them with a series of checks that they used their skills to solve. Only I, as DM, was acutely aware of the framework in which the skill checks were taking place. That would be harder to do in this instance. But I might be able to get around this by always calling for a check from the best person first and then doing the math myself for the bonus the others use.

I also recognize that, under normal circumstances, this system would encourage people to always max out skills and to have minor overlap (1 rank in many skills) among party members to cover the most possible skills, this isn't really a concern for me because my players wouldn't do that. So while it's a valid criticism in general in my specific case it's a non-issue.

Please let me know your thoughts on this system, but I must request that people refrain from simply commenting on how they feel about skill challenges. I've had great success with them and my players enjoy them very much. I would simply like to find a way to use them in Pathfinder. So please no Skill Challenge bashing.

Many thanks to anyone who chooses to contribute!

NOTE: This is a reposting of this thread from the house rules and homebrews forum as it seems more appropriately considered as a conversion of a 4E mechanic.

One of the things I enjoyed about 4th Edition was Skill Challenges. I ran a city based campaign in which skill challenges accounted for 2/3rds of the encounters the party experienced and we had a great time.

I did not run Skill Challenges exactly as described in the 4th edition DMG or DMG 2. I allowed any skill that could be reasonably applied to the challenge to be used and I allowed it as many times as a new check seemed reasonable (instead of a limited number of times for "secondary" skills). I gave automatic successes for a good idea (or removed failures in some cases if the good idea was how to recover from a blunder). Each skill check in the challenge was accompanied by a specific description of how that check affected the outcome and this description often led the players to suggest the next skill they would like to attempt. They were awarded XP based on overcoming the challenge even if they didn't use skills to overcome it.

So with that said I'd like to find a way to incorporate skill challenges into a high level (14+) Pathfinder campaign that I'm considering running in the near future.

I tried skill challenges in a previous 3.5 campaign and what I found was that the skill variances between party members was too wide to allow group effort on most things. A trained party member with a skill boosting magic item often had a bonus 20 points higher than an untrained skill member of the same level. Setting a DC to challenge the trained party members made success impossible for an untrained party member. In some cases it was perfectly reasonable to expect skill checks by all party members (stealth scenarios, long term wilderness survival, a physical chase, climbing a mountain, etc) but to make it even mildly challenging for the trained party members made it impossible for the untrained members.

So here's what I propose as a Skill Challenge House Rule:
Skill Challenges: In a skill challenge cooperation is expected. As such the Aid Another action is not possible as it is already assumed. Every participant gains advantages toward completing the challenge. Participants in a skill challenge may use a bonus based on the highest skill bonus in the party.
Player has no ranks in skill: They may use the highest skill modifier in the party at a -10 penalty.
Player has some ranks in skill: They may use the highest skill modifier in the party at a -5 penalty.
Participants in a skill challenge may always use their own skill modifier if it is better than the teamwork bonus described here.
A player still cannot make checks with skills that cannot be used untrained unless they have ranks in the skill.
The person granting the bonus must have ranks in the skill to assist his fellow party members (a highly dexterous halfling with a cloak of elvenkind, but no ranks in Stealth, cannot grant his bonus to Stealth to the rest of the party).
Additionally the most skilled party member must be present and in contact for this to take place. If they depart, lose consciousness, or refuse to help, then the party’s scores are based on the player with the next highest modifier in that skill.

This allows me to set all of the skill DCs within 10 of each other for purposes of the challenge (using an Easy, Medium, and Hard DC for different skills).

The one downside to this scenario is that in 4E I quickly learned that skill challenges were more fun if you never told the players that they were in one. You just presented them with a series of checks that they used their skills to solve. Only I, as DM, was acutely aware of the framework in which the skill checks were taking place. That would be harder to do in this instance. But I might be able to get around this by always calling for a check from the best person first and then doing the math myself for the bonus the others use.

I also recognize that, under normal circumstances, this system would encourage people to always max out skills and to have minor overlap (1 rank in many skills) among party members to cover the most possible skills, this isn't really a concern for me because my players wouldn't do that. So while it's a valid criticism in general in my specific case it's a non-issue.

Please let me know your thoughts on this system, but I must request that people refrain from simply commenting on how they feel about skill challenges. I've had great success with them and my players enjoy them very much. I would simply like to find a way to use them in Pathfinder. So please no Skill Challenge bashing.

Many thanks to anyone who chooses to contribute!

There are several things I very much enjoyed in D&D 4E that I’d like to try to include in a Pathfinder campaign. Here I’m hoping that you all can perhaps provide some advice on how to incorporate these mechanics into Pathfinder or solid mechanical or balance reasons not to adopt a particular aspect of 4E.

Please avoid edition wars or simply stating what you like or dislike, I’m looking for experience and rules insight. I already know I like these things so simply telling me that you don’t think Skill Challenges has a place in Pathfinder would not be helpful.

Part One of my inquiry, focused on what improvements Pathfinder has made to D&D 3.5, can be viewed HERE.

Many thanks, to any and all who chose to contribute.

• Minions: This seems relatively easy to add to me and I think can be lifted whole cloth. Has anyone tried this?

• Skill Challenges: This I expect to be trickier to add given the wide open variance of skill levels among players. My gut reaction is to adopt a 4E like approach to skills so that Skill Challenges will be a viable activity within game. This would have the side benefit of making NPC generation easier. Anyone who has tried Skill Challenges in 3.5 or Pathfinder I’d love to hear your experiences.

• Dynamic Combats: I liked that 4E had made virtually all forms of attacks into standard actions, including multiple weapon attacks. This made it so that the player’s move action never needed to expended on anything other than actually moving. Any thoughts on a way to incorporate this into Pathfinder?

• Simplified Conditions and Modifiers: This addresses the High Calculation Combat Effects issue that I had with 3.5 (see part one). Penalties applied to fixed traits like attack, defense, skill use, action availability, etc. No Con drain or caster level changes. I’m considering adopting a similar condition track and then creating a condition that applies specific penalties in place of ability drain (a con drained modifier). Anyone tried anything like this?

• Simplified Attacks of Opportunity: Only two things provoke and they always provoke (unlimited AoOs available to everyone). This made tracking AoO availability and provocation very simple and straightforward. I’d like to adopt it, but I’m concerned about balance issues as certain actions are balanced by AoOs. I’d definitely add Combat Maneuvers as something that provokes as well.

• Passive Senses: Also easily added to Pathfinder I suspect by simply stating that under normal circumstances everyone is taking 10 on Perception and Sense Motive checks. Thoughts?

• Decentralized Healing: Healing surges were both a boon and a bane to my party. Some people found them highly unrealistic and magical in nature. I saw them as akin to Vitality Points as used in the Star Wars d20 RPG (pre Saga Edition). Would using Vitality/Wound points perhaps allow a similar dynamic of reducing dependence on healers by allowing easy healing between combats?

• Defender Viability (marking): I liked that a tank had a way to demand the attention of a given enemy or penalize him for going after someone else. I’ve been considering a feat chain that would allow a marking mechanic into the game for those interested in taking it. Has anyone tried something like this?

Thanks to all who comment!

I’m a long time DM considering returning to the table. I’ve extensively played D&D 3.5 and some 4E and I’m torn now because there are things from both that I like, and things from both that either I, or my players, dislike. So I’m considering Pathfinder as an alternative. We’re intrigued by the class, race, and rules revisions. However before we shell out the cash to make the switch I’d like to find out from you, the experts, what you think about a few things.

I’m considering continuing a D&D 3.5 campaign that stopped at 14th level by converting the campaign over to the Pathfinder rules. I’ve seen the beta rules and looked at the PRD, but I found them incomplete in answering my questions (or I just didn’t find the right parts). If you care to direct me to particular applicable parts of either I can check them out. But I’m most interested to learn if the revisions were effective in improving the play experience.

This is focused on things that I would like to have changed about D&D 3.5 and I’m hoping you all can tell me if they’ve been addressed and/or modified in Pathfinder.

My inquiry continues HERE with regard to parts of 4E that I’d like to add or convert over into a possible Pathfinder game.

Many thanks, to any and all who chose to contribute.

PART ONE: The things I’m hoping Pathfinder has improved from D&D 3.5. Where I know changes have been made I’ll ask specifically targeted questions.

• Spell Caster Dominance: This was a serious issue in my 3.5 campaign. An arcane sorceror in the party essentially dominated every situation unless I specifically engineered the encounter to focus on someone else. Has this been effectively addressed in Pathfinder?

• Skill Obsolescence: This is related to Spell Caster Dominance in that by 10th level or so the characters who had focused on skills were completely overshadowed by the arcane spell caster in the party. Virtually any skill oriented task could be completed more rapidly and more reliably with an arcane spell (knock for open locks, invisibility for stealth, teleport rather than survival in the wilderness, spider climb for climb, fly for jump and so on).

• Static Battlefield: I never liked the fact that to get multiple attacks essentially all combatants had to stand still on the battlefield (except the 5’ step of course). Have the revised feats such as Cleave and new feats such as Overhand Chop encouraged mobility on the battlefield?

• Overly Complex Special Maneuvers: Obvious the CMB/CMD system directly addresses this. Has it been a successful addition to your games?

• DM Prep Time: This is my biggest gripe. Wealth management always seemed a problem to me. It used to take me hours to make a single high level NPC if I wanted the details to be accurate. Has the new skill system helped speed up NPC generation in particular? Has any other part of DM Prep been streamlined?

• High Calculation Combat Effects (negative levels, ability damage): I never liked penalties (or bonuses for that matter) that essentially required you to recalculate your character sheet in mid-game. Are there any alternatives to be found in Pathfinder? (or any house rules that serve a similar function?)

• Healer Dependence: I always bothered me that a party pretty much could not succeed without a dedicated healer in the party because healing by any other means was so slow as to prevent further adventuring (even skill assisted overnight heal rates). Has Pathfinder improved on this at all?

All comments and welcome and appreciated!

nigh undetectable bump.

The wording of 'magical attack' in this ability has left me somewhat unsure what exactly it applies too. Does it only apply to effects like hypnotic pattern, rainbow pattern, and scintillating pattern? It seems a rather limited ability if this is all that it applies too.

The fact that is mentions figments as well leaves me unsure what it can be used to counter. Can it counter a silent or major image? Does it allow a save against those even when the illusion is not interacted with?

I'm not an expert on spells, but are there any non-instaneous figments that qualify as magical attacks at all? I can't think of any. This makes me wonder if the spell is intended to allow the bard to help others see through illusions.

How would a giant squid attack work using the grapple rules in Pathfinder?

I assume Improved Grab would still give a free Combat Manuever check to start a grapple. So initiating multiple grapples in a single round is still possible. But how does grappling multiple foes affect the Squid? Are there penalties?

If it takes a standard action each round to maintain a grapple does that mean that once the squid grapples someone it cannot use its other tentacles against anyone else? Can the maintenance check be made with an attack action instead (thus part of a full attack which would include attacking non-grappled foes).

Does the maintenance check apply to all targets currently grappled?

Should the Improved Grab ability allow a free check to maintain the grapple each round as well?

I'm curious how this would work and I'm planning to run a giant squid attack this weekend, so thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Let's say we're running the stereotypical giant squid encounter.

I've got 8 tentacle attacks. How does one handle grappling multiple targets under the Pathfinder rules?

Under the 3.5 system the squid could take a -20 on its much larger grapple bonus to not be considered grappled itself and could therefore grapple another target. No such provision exists in PFRPG.

Improved Grab allows the squid to start a grapple for free with each tentacle attack, however maintaining a grapple is a standard action each round, so does that mean none of its other tentacles can attack once it has grappled someone?

Or does Improved Grab allow the squid to make free maintenance checks as well?

As it stands now I'm considering giving it a single maintanence check each round which applies to all grappled creatures.

I also note that its very easy for this squid to drop people in the water once their grappled. Normally the squid could just move them to an adjacent square over the water and release them. However I'm going to rule that you can always oppose a release with a free grapple check to continue the grapple.

Any thoughts on this would be welcome.

I like the general direction in which you've taken the half-orc. However Orc Ferocity feature seems to me to be an ability that will come into play so rarely as to not be useful (only at the very rare 0 hp).

Instead I would suggest a +2 racial bonus on endurance related checks (as the endurance feat grants) and that half-orcs be allowed to sleep in medium armor without becoming fatigued. The half-orc is also considered to have the endurance feat for purposes of prerequisites of other feats.

This increases the chances of them taking the die-hard feat which would be better than the orc ferocity feature.

So now the improved combat manuever feats (FEATS, pg. 33) basically give you a +2 to your CMB check with that manuever and eliminate the attack of opportunity for making the manuever.

How does this interact with weapons which give bonuses to particular manuevers and in particular with reach weapons?

If I use a whip to perform a trip or disarm manuever the target most likely doesn't threaten me so he gets no AoO anyhow.

In fact using a whip is just as good as having the improved disarm feat (+2 to disarm, no AoO due to reach) and even the weapon handedness modifiers have been removed. Adding improved disarm only gives me a +2 bonus on the check.

I appreciate the streamlining of the system, but perhaps the handedness modifiers should be added back in. It seems like it would be easier to sunder or disarm a dagger using a great sword than it would be using another dagger.

What about adding weapon enhancement bonuses to the CMB check? A magic shield would improve your bull rush manuevers, a magic sai your disarm attempts, a magic whip your trip and diarm attempts, and so on.