I am very sorry here but these feats are no long 2nd tear feats. With the power down to +2 they should really not have any more prerequisites. Please Jason, make this change.
Sense all the combat maneuvers run off of strength, why make them required to get a feat that runs/requires another stat such as Int, or Dex?
I definitely think Improved Grapple should have Imp UA Strike removed as a pre-req. Grabbing someone is much easier than getting all pugilist on them.
As for the others, I'd like see the Stat requirement removed. I mean, why does my burly Fighter need an Int of 13 to trip someone? A wolf with a 3 Int can do it!
I definitely think Improved Grapple should have Imp UA Strike removed as a pre-req. Grabbing someone is much easier than getting all pugilist on them.
As for the others, I'd like see the Stat requirement removed. I mean, why does my burly Fighter need an Int of 13 to trip someone? A wolf with a 3 Int can do it!
Maybe that feat for UA strike, but I would leave it open for those who have natural attacks to do it with out breaking the rules. Also One could do it, but would just get an AoO, unless they use a gauntlet right?
Basically, they all need to be combined. Why? It's retarded to force people to take seven hundred different feats so they can not suck in combat.
|
I was coming on here to say the same thing - to me it seems false that I need a 13 INT to do Improved Trip - when the check to adjudicate it is based off of STR.
I understand not putting it under STR as it already has the Power Attack tree, or putting under Dex since it has the Dodge/Spring Attack tree.
So considering that these feat no longer have the amount of immediate impact as they once did in 3.5, I am convinced that the prereq is no longer needed. (not to mention the fact that Combat Expert - the prereq feat is no where near as good as it once was, either).
That being said - this is not a cry for making the Improved feats back to how they were - I'm all for the change to make them a little less lucrative - cuz we all saw how stoopid imp trip/disarm became with the cliche' uber builds that plagued the gaming groups. So I say leave the feats as it - just remove the prereq feat - especially for Trip/Disarm. Improved Feint - I can see with INT. Imp Grapple, I can see with Improved Unarmed Strike.....
Imp Overrun, Sunder, Bullrush - I can understand Power Attack.
But Combat Expert and a 13 INT for trip disarm just seems wrong (especially as I said - the feats are not as good as they once were, and the mechanic to resolve it is based off Str - not Int).
Robert
Basically, they all need to be combined. Why? It's retarded to force people to take seven hundred different feats so they can not suck in combat.
I am not talking about something that extreme, just want the prereques. to be eliminated, as the feats aren't worth it to taking the multiple other preques. for each one.
I was coming on here to say the same thing - to me it seems false that I need a 13 INT to do Improved Trip - when the check to adjudicate it is based off of STR.
I understand not putting it under STR as it already has the Power Attack tree, or putting under Dex since it has the Dodge/Spring Attack tree.
So considering that these feat no longer have the amount of immediate impact as they once did in 3.5, I am convinced that the prereq is no longer needed. (not to mention the fact that Combat Expert - the prereq feat is no where near as good as it once was, either).
That being said - this is not a cry for making the Improved feats back to how they were - I'm all for the change to make them a little less lucrative - cuz we all saw how stoopid imp trip/disarm became with the cliche' uber builds that plagued the gaming groups. So I say leave the feats as it - just remove the prereq feat - especially for Trip/Disarm. Improved Feint - I can see with INT. Imp Grapple, I can see with Improved Unarmed Strike.....
Imp Overrun, Sunder, Bullrush - I can understand Power Attack.
But Combat Expert and a 13 INT for trip disarm just seems wrong (especially as I said - the feats are not as good as they once were, and the mechanic to resolve it is based off Str - not Int).
Robert
You say one thing, but then contradict yourself. Please clarify.
|
I have no problem with having a stat pre-requisite for these feats. A 13 int or a 13 strength is perfectly fine as a pre-req. What bothers me is that they don't have a 13 str or 13 int as a pre-req, they have a feat that has absolutely nothing to do with the ability as a pre-req.
You don't want someone making a sunder if they are too physically weak to break the weapon, fine. Make the pre-req Str 13, don't force people to take a feat that they might not be able to use to do it. Power attack, I have a boar animal companion that I want to overrun people. So I took imp overrun. But then I had to give her power attack to do it. Her attack bonus is allready stupid low, she misses half the time, power attack would make her miss even more, but I can't overrun without it? Why, Overrun nowhere in the mechanic requires that you power attack to do it so why is that feat a pre-req. I have a feat that I am NEVER going to use, NOT ONCE unless I'm fighting something with a rediculously low AC. Pre-reqs should be things you have to be able to do in order to do the next thing in line. You have to be nimble to dodge, you have to be good at dodging to get mobility, you need to be quick and mobile to get spring attack, it makes sense, even if you don't like it you see the idea behind it.
What, you have to be able to take strong wild swings to shove somebody, WTF?
You have to be good at defending yourself to trip somebody?
Imp unarmed strike as a pre-req for imp grapple is the only one that makes sense, but that one doesn't have a min stat req.
Having a min stat req for these feats I can get behind, YES I need a 13 str to overrun someone, but just make it a 13 str. Don't make it power attack as a pre-req.
|
|
You say one thing, but then contradict yourself. Please clarify.
I don't think i did.
To sumarize: I think the manuever feats don't need the prereqs as they no longer do as much for one as they use to. specifically disarm/trip.
I further indicated that while I can live with the 13 str for overrun and bullrush, and maybe Int for Feint - those I can live with - and make sense; the trip/disarm needing a 13 INT and Combat Expert just seems wrong.
Because 1) combat Expert no longer is a truly wonderful feat, the trip/disarm are not as powerful as they once were to warrant the prereqs (they are now as they should be btw - they were too powerful), and since you resolve them with CMB (a strength based mechanic) it makes little sense force INT on it as well.
In other words CE is going to benefit bards and wizards only for the most part - most fighters/paladins/clerics are not going to have a good INT - and even if they scrape by with bare minimum (13 INT) they're not going to get much for the CE feat anyway! Not even rogues need a high INT anymore (with the combining of skills eliminating choices to allocate points to, and Disable no longer an INT based skill); Thus wizards and bards would be the most capable of taking Imp Trip/Disarm, However wizards and bards will not possess the STR to even bother trying those abilities.
So it's a catch-22
So I say get ride of the prereqs - especially the INT based ones - but I'm willing to concede that the Str based ones, and INT based Feint are acceptable if thats a bone of contention. I dont see Improved Feint needing Combat Expert - but I can understand a 13 INT - and the resolution of that skill isn't based off of CMB - so making it INT based isn't as ludicrous as Trip/Disarm having and INT prereq and yet resolving it w/ Strength.
Robert
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
On a different angle about these feats, I like that they grant a special ability related to the combat maneuver, but I'd like to see them grant an additional +2 to your check, so that with both feats, you would have a +4, which would go a long way to making the maneuvers more usable.
|
|
Well said, and a very balanced opinion.
I fully agree with you Robert.
Gracias.
During the Alpha playtesting we started the Curse of the Crimson Throne AP, I started with a Paladin - I knew going in that he wasn't going to be the best melee combatant by far (see the uber-lengthy Paladin design focus thread for more on why they pale to other melee combat classes); so I decided to choose Imp Trip (in Alpha, they removed Combat Expert as a prereq for the feat) and just rely on a CMB check to knock foes to the ground and take advantage of that +4 to hit to level the playing field between me and the fighter.
Then Beta came out and re-applied the prereq - since my paladin has only an 10 INT, there was no way that I would be able to get CE or Imp Trip - so I traded it out for Imp Bullrush. But I have not been nearly as effective in combat since. :-(
Robert
|
|
Well said, and a very balanced opinion.
I fully agree with you Robert.Gracias.
During the Alpha playtesting we started the Curse of the Crimson Throne AP, I started with a Paladin - I knew going in that he wasn't going to be the best melee combatant by far (see the uber-lengthy Paladin design focus thread for more on why they pale to other melee combat classes); so I decided to choose Imp Trip (in Alpha, they removed Combat Expert as a prereq for the feat) and just rely on a CMB check to knock foes to the ground and take advantage of that +4 to hit to level the playing field between me and the fighter.
Then Beta came out and re-applied the prereq - since my paladin has only an 10 INT, there was no way that I would be able to get CE or Imp Trip - so I traded it out for Imp Bullrush. But I have not been nearly as effective in combat since. :-(
Robert
One of the reasons I chose combat expertise on that thread as a choosable bonus feat that you didn't have to meet the pre-reqs for was specifically so paladins could get the Imp CMB feats if the (most likely) didn't have a 13 int.