First game change, the Improved Maneuver feats would all become nearly worthless - maybe a house rule to upgrade the bonuses from +2 to +4 would make those feats more enticing.
Secondly, some people would use these feats much more often than they do now. No penalty for using them and no requirement to burn a feat to overcome that penalty means more usage.
I probably would not really be more inclined to play a dedicated tripper or dedicated anything - we're really talking about just one feat and lots of the "dedicated" builds get it for free anyway.
Be monster with zillion legs and lots natural attacks. Death Hurkle is a happy beast.
In our game Maneuvers only provoke when they fail.
I'd be very happy and my barbarian'd be all like "RAWR! Imma grapple today even though I don't have feats because I feel like it!" instead of his usual "I'd totally grapple you but I put my feats into less situational things!"
How would it change? Bull rush would be used a lot as readied actions, and grapple/trip would be utilized at the right times to give your allies an opening.
First game change, the Improved Maneuver feats would all become nearly worthless - maybe a house rule to upgrade the bonuses from +2 to +4 would make those feats more enticing.
Secondly, some people would use these feats much more often than they do now. No penalty for using them and no requirement to burn a feat to overcome that penalty means more usage.
I probably would not really be more inclined to play a dedicated tripper or dedicated anything - we're really talking about just one feat and lots of the "dedicated" builds get it for free anyway.
Most of maneuvers would really benefit from having the improved and greater versions merged. They're one of the worst example of feat bloat in Pathfinder, since in Pathfinder you pay two feats (Improved + Greater) for about what one feat got in D&D. Having a few of the pre-requisites toned down would help a lot too.
Really, the biggest problem maneuvers have in Pathfinder is that they're (yet another) excessively long feat chain you have to invest in, and a lot of maneuvers are situational. Spending four feats on a maneuver that common and broad categories of enemies are immune to doesn't strike many people as a good choice, when you could take other feats that are consistently useful.
|
The idea is slanted a lot more /against/ the PC's then for them just so you know.
The added protection you get form having at least some return damage boosting your CMD is important when you can get it. Monsters with half-decent strengths would be stealing every holy symbol, spell component pouch and spare weapon without any regards to almost anything else.
It would become very silly quite quickly.
Agile Maneuvers would be far more common.
Strongly physical characters would dominate combat a lot more IMO, since essentially all of them could push around most others (quite literally). You wouldn't see more trip specialists, but you'd have a lot more tripping. Remember, the AoO doesn't just potentially inflict damage, it penalizes the maneuver.
I do wish it was perhaps slightly easier to do maneuvers w/out feats. The penalty equal to the damage dealt by AoO is pretty harsh. Maybe just a -5? Although that takes away the classic 'giant grabs little thing that sticks him really hard to make him back off' trope.
Most of maneuvers would really benefit from having the improved and greater versions merged. They're one of the worst example of feat bloat in Pathfinder, since in Pathfinder you pay two feats (Improved + Greater) for about what one feat got in D&D. Having a few of the pre-requisites toned down would help a lot too.
This really isn't true - you can look back at the Beta-testing forums for in-depth arguments. Essentially a +2 vs. a static CMD is approximately as good as the +4 in opposed rolls that the 3.5 feats gave. Also the additional benefits from the Greater feats far out-strip any side benefits the 3.5 feats had (including Trip).
Monsters with half-decent strengths would be stealing every holy symbol, spell component pouch and spare weapon without any regards to almost anything else.
It would become very silly quite quickly.
Now, that's a funny image. Instead of the party fighting 4 ogres, hacking them to bits and blasting them to smithereens while trying to avoid being pounded into bloody grease stains on the ground, now I see 4 separate battles:
Ogre#1 is having a tug-o-war, trying to steal the fighter's shield - both the fighter and the ogre are pulling on the shield to win the tug-o-war. "Mine!" "No, it's mine!" "I saw it first!"...
Ogre#2 is grappling the rogue and looking for an arm-bar submission while the rogue is trying to remember how to apply full guard and slip the pin, all the while wishing he had levels of monk...
Ogre#3 is having his own tug-0-war, both giant hands wrapped around the cleric's holy symbol as he tries to yank it away from the cleric who is hanging onto his symbol for love of god and life...
Ogre#4 is in yet another tug-o-war, this time over the wizard's spell component pouch, but he's holding the pouch 10 feet off the ground and the scrawny wizard is hanging onto it for dear life, dangling from the pouch like a monkey hanging from a tree...
|
|
Monsters with half-decent strengths would be stealing every holy symbol, spell component pouch and spare weapon without any regards to almost anything else.
It would become very silly quite quickly.
Now, that's a funny image. Instead of the party fighting 4 ogres, hacking them to bits and blasting them to smithereens while trying to avoid being pounded into bloody grease stains on the ground, now I see 4 separate battles:
Ogre#1 is having a tug-o-war, trying to steal the fighter's shield - both the fighter and the ogre are pulling on the shield to win the tug-o-war. "Mine!" "No, it's mine!" "I saw it first!"...
Ogre#2 is grappling the rogue and looking for an arm-bar submission while the rogue is trying to remember how to apply full guard and slip the pin, all the while wishing he had levels of monk...
Ogre#3 is having his own tug-0-war, both giant hands wrapped around the cleric's holy symbol as he tries to yank it away from the cleric who is hanging onto his symbol for love of god and life...
Ogre#4 is in yet another tug-o-war, this time over the wizard's spell component pouch, but he's holding the pouch 10 feet off the ground and the scrawny wizard is hanging onto it for dear life, dangling from the pouch like a monkey hanging from a tree...
Aaand that's why my casters always carry a couple of spares. :p
Most of maneuvers would really benefit from having the improved and greater versions merged. They're one of the worst example of feat bloat in Pathfinder, since in Pathfinder you pay two feats (Improved + Greater) for about what one feat got in D&D. Having a few of the pre-requisites toned down would help a lot too.This really isn't true - you can look back at the Beta-testing forums for in-depth arguments. Essentially a +2 vs. a static CMD is approximately as good as the +4 in opposed rolls that the 3.5 feats gave. Also the additional benefits from the Greater feats far out-strip any side benefits the 3.5 feats had (including Trip).
If I can add, as you level you need 2 of those maneuver feats to hold up against foes and its a situational ability. That hurts. You also still need combat expertise before you can try maneuvers unless your class gives it to you for free, and you probably need combat expertise for anything down the line. Its nice that greater versions have things to attached to them, but it sucks that you need 2 feats anyway.
Anyways, outside of mechanical, earlier I was talking about my barbarian being able to say he can do it one day because its cool or deciding not to because he doesn't invest any feats into it because its too situational. I would like it if you could perform these acts without provoking because I feel like that makes them more attractive and makes it much more likely you'll see it. My first pathfinder game someone grabbed a goblin and threw him out a window for instance. That's pretty awesome and good narrative I think. This however was at level one, and if he was level 10 and the guy had a greatsword, that would probably be much less likely to happen. At least he might attempt it if he wasn't provoking and getting a greatsword to the sternum over it.
Aaand that's why my casters always carry a couple of spares. :p
And my divine casters wear enough holy symbols to make a coat out of them. Would be funny to watch them try to take all 20 over several turns. Much less threatening than stabbing me!
It gets worse once we throw in things like Dirty Tricks. Every fight turns into the PC's versus Heel Wrestlers.
Powder in the Eyes, Low Blows, the works. You'd spend most of the fights sickened, disarmed and blind. It'd be like every terrible encounter in the PFS but in every game.
Just because you can doesn't mean you will or should.
What if there was a single feat that let you not provoke when you attempted a (any) maneuver? Doesn't give a bonus like the 'improved' feats just took out the AoO.
What if there was a single feat that let you not provoke when you attempted a (any) maneuver? Doesn't give a bonus like the 'improved' feats just took out the AoO.
Why put a Feat-Tax on it?
Everyone who wants to be a maneuver specialist pays the current tax and gets a bonus on the CMB rolls, even using the current RAW. With your suggestion, everyone who wants to be a maneuver specialist would still pay your new tax but won't get a CMB bonus - instead he'll become a generalist with all maneuvers but the'll all be less likely to work.
I don't see how the less-effective generalist is better off than the more-effective specialist, since they are both taxed the same number of feats.
The only benefit to your suggestion is to someone who plans to be a maneuver generalist - now he can save several feats, but he's still lacking those CMB bonuses. It's probably to his advantage, but this is a corner case build in the first place, and he'll actually miss the CMB bonuses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if there was a single feat that let you not provoke when you attempted a (any) maneuver? Doesn't give a bonus like the 'improved' feats just took out the AoO.
Tack it onto Combat Expertise seeing most players don't use it or flat-out forget about it except as a pre-req. The alternative would be to move the non-provoke statements into a new feat, Improved Combat Expertise mayhaps?
What if there was a single feat that let you not provoke when you attempted a (any) maneuver? Doesn't give a bonus like the 'improved' feats just took out the AoO.Tack it onto Combat Expertise seeing most players don't use it or flat-out forget about it except as a pre-req. The alternative would be to move the non-provoke statements into a new feat, Improved Combat Expertise mayhaps?
The last thing I want is to need moar feats.
I didn't say they couldn't. I'm just enjoying the visual that Morgen painted.
My inquisitor grapples, trips and bull rushes people just because he feels like it. Only three words:
Litany of Sloth