how powerfull would a "Practised Initiator" feat be

[Akto]

As the titel says, how powerful would a feat be that would allow you to threat up to 4 "non initiator levels" as +1 instead Of + 1/2

[Ashtagon]

Given that half your non-initiator levels count as initiator levels anyway, and assuming it follows the same limit as the original feat (can't raise effective level above total character level), it probably wouldn't be terribly useful.

[Krazzman]

On the one Hand I would assume that it is Stronger than the other Practiced-Feats. On the other hand, most melee builds are already featstarved.

Either way the magic multiclass number for initiators would raise with this feat and it would make early multiclassing pretty good for them. A Warblade2/Fighter 2 for example could take two extra levels of Barbarian and be at initiator level 6 and could get 4th level maneuvers with his third warblade level.

[Lapak]

Originally Posted by Ashtagon

Given that half your non-initiator levels count as initiator levels anyway, and assuming it follows the same limit as the original feat (can't raise effective level above total character level), it probably wouldn't be terribly useful.

I'm not so sure about that, given that it's initiator-level + prereqs that determine what maneuvers you can take rather than actual levels in the class. A spellcaster who boosts his CL to 17 but only has 13 levels in spellcasting classes can't take 9th level spells, but an initiator who boosts to 17 can take 9th-level maneuvers.

I'm not sure it would be *over*powered, but it wouldn't be a negligible benefit.

[Hunter Noventa]

Originally Posted by Lapak

I'm not so sure about that, given that it's initiator-level + prereqs that determine what maneuvers you can take rather than actual levels in the class. A spellcaster who boosts his CL to 17 but only has 13 levels in spellcasting classes can't take 9th level spells, but an initiator who boosts to 17 can take 9th-level maneuvers.

I'm not sure it would be *over*powered, but it wouldn't be a negligible benefit.

Given that 9th level maneuvers are MAYBE on par with 6th level spells, I don't think it would be a big deal. They'd still have to actually be that level to take them after all, so it's not like they're getting early access.

[Ashtagon]

Originally Posted by Lapak

I'm not so sure about that, given that it's initiator-level + prereqs that determine what maneuvers you can take rather than actual levels in the class. A spellcaster who boosts his CL to 17 but only has 13 levels in spellcasting classes can't take 9th level spells, but an initiator who boosts to 17 can take 9th-level maneuvers.

I'm not sure it would be *over*powered, but it wouldn't be a negligible benefit.

An initiator 13 / cleric 7 still has an effective initiator level of 16 without any feat malarkey going on. Spending a feat to bring that all the way up to 20 doesn't seem that big a deal.

Although it may seem as though this gives access to very high levels, that's not really so likely. If you've multi-classed, you probably won't have enough maneuvers learned as prerequisites to qualify for the really high level stuff, even though you may meet the initiator level requirement. And if you do, it's not like manuevers are game breaking anyway.

[Krazzman]

Originally Posted by Hunter Noventa

Given that 9th level maneuvers are MAYBE on par with 6th level spells, I don't think it would be a big deal. They'd still have to actually be that level to take them after all, so it's not like they're getting early access.

It would give multiclassed initiators an "early entry". They would be on par with other single-class initiators if they only dipped for 4 levels. Maybe a few Maneuvers or stances short but depending on build those 4 levels could give them more back. Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian for example, 2 levels fighter for 2 bonus feats, monk for who knows, rogue for SA and Evasion, paladin for Cha-to-saves, Hexblade for Cha-to-saves and so on.

Cleric 4/Crusader 1/RKV would get more powerful thanks to this. starting on IL 5 instead of 3? Jeah probably not that big a deal later on but how many parties start higher than 6? In my experience not many but this doesn't belong here.

[Rejakor]

Originally Posted by Krazzman

On the one Hand I would assume that it is Stronger than the other Practiced-Feats. On the other hand, most melee builds are already featstarved.

Either way the magic multiclass number for initiators would raise with this feat and it would make early multiclassing pretty good for them. A Warblade2/Fighter 2 for example could take two extra levels of Barbarian and be at initiator level 6 and could get 4th level maneuvers with his third warblade level.

Weaker.

You'd think it'd be great to take it a few times and dip something.

But initiating requires a decent level investment to make use of a high IL. If you don't have that, you likely won't have anything that likes a high IL anyway. IL isn't useful for the stuff people dip for (concentration save replacers, iron heart surge, white raven tactics). It's only useful for the actual strikes and counters and stuff, and even then there's not that many that actually use it. Even using it to get higher level maneuvers than normal is a bit meh as most good maneuvers for dipping are lower level. Higher level ToB stuff is actually pretty terrible, overall.

[Mithril Leaf]

About on par (for the relative power level) with practiced manifester on an ardent.

[Twilightwyrm]

Originally Posted by Hunter Noventa

Given that 9th level maneuvers are MAYBE on par with 6th level spells, I don't think it would be a big deal. They'd still have to actually be that level to take them after all, so it's not like they're getting early access.

Really? Aren't you underestimating things a bit? Greater Celerity is an 8th level spell, Time Stands Still does (for a melee character) functionally the same thing, possibly better. There are, far as I recall, no 6th level spells that do over 100+ damage, and most certainly none that do so in an area. (Yes, the AoE is fire, but 10 or 15 off the top still leaves 85-90 automatic damage) Now unless you are of the philosophy that hates direct damage, this should at least be competitive with 7th level spells. Maybe not much higher than that, but once we start adding the rest of the available maneuvers into the mix, I'd say they become at least competitive.

[The Dark Fiddler]

My first impression was that the feat would be quite a bit worse off than the other "practiced" feats, because treating 4 levels as full is only actually a +2 to your IL, rather than the +4 CL or ML the similar feats would give you. Then I realized, as others have mentioned, that this would actually affect what level of maneuvers you can take, a feature exclusive to this hypothetical feat.

It'd make multiclassing initiators, which is already pretty darn easy, even better, but I'm not entirely certain it's worth a feat unless you have a lot of other levels you want to get in.

[Darth Stabber]

Originally Posted by Twilightwyrm

Really? Aren't you underestimating things a bit? Greater Celerity is an 8th level spell, Time Stands Still does (for a melee character) functionally the same thing, possibly better. There are, far as I recall, no 6th level spells that do over 100+ damage, and most certainly none that do so in an area. (Yes, the AoE is fire, but 10 or 15 off the top still leaves 85-90 automatic damage) Now unless you are of the philosophy that hates direct damage, this should at least be competitive with 7th level spells. Maybe not much higher than that, but once we start adding the rest of the available maneuvers into the mix, I'd say they become at least competitive.

I don't hate damage spells, but they are usually an inefficient use of resources. It may sound trite, but every damage spell of 3rd lvl or higher has compete with haste. For cl rounds the BSF type is throwing an extra attack. Assuming he is using a greatsword and has 18 str and is using a +1 weapon that is 2d6+7. Assuming a 75% chance to hit you are looking at 6d6+21 over 4 rounds. This averages to 42 damage, assuming you BSF is poorly built. If you add in some smart build choices and a better weapon, 100 damage is easily achieved and all you used was a third level spell. So i say with great confidence that damage spells are poor judges of the power of a spell level. 100 damage is high for a damage spell, but damage spells suck. You can just outright kill something dead with a 7th level spell. As a note, with a dedicated build, like a mailman sorc, you can make damage spells good, but at that point you are using some powerful metamagic cheese.