That's generally true, although that's just part of a larger rule, I think: "For non-spellcasters, being a specialist pays off more than being a generalist."
It's a tradeoff, like all things. There will be times when you miss the maneuver by two points. There will be times when you can't use your reach on the opponent. And times where the opponent has reach as well. In those times, having the feat would be handy. Other times, you'll be fine.True but I think the times when having those feats is worthwhile isn't worth the expenditure.
I can disarm, sunder and trip (4 feats including expertise assuming you'll have Power Attack) at a mere -2... and some situational inconveniences.
Perhaps the +4 from 3.5e would have been better...
Hap
I agree with TriOmegaZero.
Another aspect are NPCs and monsters. As a GM I often make specialized monsters and NPCs for the purpose of keeping the players on their toes and challenge them on a broader spectrum.
For these opponents these feats come in very handy.
I for one think reach weapons are great, but I would rather combine them with the "improved" and "greater" feats for added effect.
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
This thread has finally revealed to me what I've been missing. One of my players has been destroying most of my NPCs with a halberd and the Improved Trip feat. I assumed that the feat worked the same as 3.5 where you get the extra attack after a successful trip. Not so anymore! That was what I was missing.
So I would agree, that with a reach weapon the improved versions aren't as beneficial as they once were. The small bonuses help and the ability to use the feat with non-reach weapons (or even unarmed) is nice. Also keep in mind that any creature with reach of it's own would still get the attack of opportunity against a character performing the maneuver without the feat. I would still choose the improved versions so that I could get the greater versions too. The greater versions would bring back the extra attack (in the form of an attack of opportunity).
True but I think the times when having those feats is worthwhile isn't worth the expenditure.
I can disarm, sunder and trip (4 feats including expertise assuming you'll have Power Attack) at a mere -2... and some situational inconveniences.
Perhaps the +4 from 3.5e would have been better...
Hap
Please don't forget that in cramped spaces you cannot use a reach weapon at all.
It's no use to have a powerful weapon when your foe is out of your threatening area - either if the area is too far from you, or too near to you...
The feats are still pretty useful, since they provide a bonus to CMB and CMD for the maneuver and as the others said already. You can't always have a reach weapon to save you from the AoO... heh... most of my NPC guards do use reach weapons themselves. Swords were the weapons of nobility and cavalry. The rabble used to bear much less sophisticated weapons.
Please don't forget that in cramped spaces you cannot use a reach weapon at all.
1. Is that a rule or a general statement?
If its a rule do you have a link? That will change a lot of thing for my games.If its a general statement, Short Haft is always an option.
Not related to The Wraith's statement
2. Bigger monsters(huge and even some large) often have a high enough CMB and CMD that even with the feats the players will most likely be on the losing end. I would ask my DM are the feats worth taking before I took them.
1. Is that a rule or a general statement?
If its a rule do you have a link? That will change a lot of thing for my games.
If its a general statement, Short Haft is always an option.
It's more of a general statement; of course, Short Haft is a possibility - but most GMs could not allow it, being on the Players Handbook 2 (some could not even be aware of its existance).
Plus, into very cramped spaces - like narrow tunnels 5-ft. high, 5-ft. wide - using an 8-ft. Longspear could not be possible at all (maybe only striking from corners).
Just my 2c.