| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm adding these feats to my Runelords campaign, and I thought I would share them with you all. Please let me know what you think, especially if you end up using them in a game!
----
You excel at changing your tactics to suit upcoming situations. Each day you experiment with new techniques tailored to the expected enemy.
Prerequisite: Any two combat feats.
Benefit: After a full night's rest and one hour of rigorous practice, you may select any one combat feat for which you meet the prerequisites. You are treated as though you possess that feat until you practice another. This is an extraordinary ability. If you become fatigued or exhausted, you lose the benefit of this feat until the condition is lifted. You may choose this feat only once.
----
You have grown even more flexible with your battle tactics, and are able to rehearse even complex maneuvers on short notice.
Prerequisite: Battle Adaptation, any four combat feats, base attack bonus +8.
Benefit: As Battle Adaptation, except you may adapt an additional feat during your one hour of practice, for a total of two feats. Additionally, you no longer lose the benefits of Battle Adaptation feats when fatigued.
----
You have mastered improvisation, and you carry winning tactics to the end of the battle no matter how tired you become.
Prerequisite: Improved Battle Adaptation, any six combat feats, base attack bonus +16.
Benefit: As Battle Adaptation, except you may adapt an additional feat during your one hour of practice for a total of three feats. Additionally, you no longer lose the benefits of Battle Adaptation feats when exhausted.
OMGWTFBBQ!!1!!11ELEVENTYONE!!!
TOME OF BATTLE!!!
<runs screaming>
All kidding aside, I like this. I will use this.
OMGWTFBBQ!!1!!11ELEVENTYONE!!!
TOME OF BATTLE!!!
<runs screaming>
Never read it.
For the record, I see nothing supernatural about this feat chain, I tried to get that across in the flavor text.
I'd be happy to hear about similarities to ToB rules where they are relevant, but please let's not get into a hatefest.
Thanks for the support! Let me know how this works out for you.
OMGWTFBBQ!!1!!11ELEVENTYONE!!!
TOME OF BATTLE!!!
<runs screaming>Never read it.
For the record, I see nothing supernatural about this feat chain, I tried to get that across in the flavor text.
I'd be happy to hear about similarities to ToB rules where they are relevant, but please let's not get into a hatefest.
Thanks for the support! Let me know how this works out for you.
it was a tweak at anti-TOB folks. I personally thought it a bit much...but not vehemently so.
In a nut shell, "warriors" could prepare maneuvers or stances like spells. This concept kinda morphed into 4th ED.Keeping it to feats works, and I submit makes a ton of sense for fighters.
Keeping it to feats works, and I submit makes a ton of sense for fighters.
Thanks!
Yeah, this was meant to be a feat-based solution for the problem of feat bloat vs. finite feat slots. I think it does that quite nicely. There's no special fighter love written into the feats because they don't really need it. They can get it first, and they can get the most out of it, as printed.
I should note that I think this feat is "too good" to be a feat. It is clearly the best choice over any other combat feat — that's intentional. This feat gets a special exception from me because it doesn't "compete" with other feats. It can't make a character more powerful than any character with the same permanent feats; just more flexible.
Allowing this in my group, I fully expect that every martial PC will pick this up as their next combat feat.
Keeping it to feats works, and I submit makes a ton of sense for fighters.Thanks!
Yeah, this was meant to be a feat-based solution for the problem of feat bloat vs. finite feat slots. I think it does that quite nicely. There's no special fighter love written into the feats because they don't really need it. They can get it first, and they can get the most out of it, as printed.
I should note that I think this feat is "too good" to be a feat. It is clearly the best choice over any other combat feat — that's intentional. This feat gets a special exception from me because it doesn't "compete" with other feats. It can't make a character more powerful than any character with the same permanent feats; just more flexible.
Allowing this in my group, I fully expect that every martial PC will pick this up as their next combat feat.
So greater will let you "mimic" the entire TWF tree?
That's handy.
So greater will let you "mimic" the entire TWF tree?
That's handy.
What's funny is that it is still not worth doing in most cases. You'd have to have a clear reason for knowing TWF would come in handy that day.
On the plus side, this really solves a lot of the overspecialization problems with feats. A character can actually get up to competent with a found exotic weapon in jailbreak scenarios, for example.
But why not let a 16th level combat PC TWF? It technically can't be more powerful than a permanent TWF build. Plus, I expect a lot of players to take this in my campaign.
So greater will let you "mimic" the entire TWF tree?
That's handy.What's funny is that it is still not worth doing in most cases. You'd have to have a clear reason for knowing TWF would come in handy that day.
On the plus side, this really solves a lot of the overspecialization problems with feats. A character can actually get up to competent with a found exotic weapon in jailbreak scenarios, for example.
Indeed...
I don;t know if you watched Firefly, but this reminded me of the episode where Mal was challenged to a duel of honor with swords.He spent all night learning to use a sword, and feinting, and managed to win.
This feat would allow any fighter to improvise similarly.
EDIT: Does the feat being "mimiced" stay until changed, or does the fighter need to train every morning with it?
Indeed...
I don;t know if you watched Firefly, but this reminded me of the episode where Mal was challenged to a duel of honor with swords.
He spent all night learning to use a sword, and feinting, and managed to win.This feat would allow any fighter to improvise similarly.
EDIT: Does the feat being "mimiced" stay until changed, or does the fighter need to train every morning with it?
Stays until changed, although that was the intention of the fatigue clause — you have to rest.
@firefly: yes, that anecdote perfectly represents my feelings on it.
Another quick note: You can use Adapted feats as prereqs for other adapted feats. You lose any feats if you lose the pre-reqs for those feats.
So as long as you have BAB 16 and 6 combat feats and you have the Adapted feat, you can choose improved adapted, then get one feat and greater, and the 3 feats for greater? I dunno...
So as long as you have BAB 16 and 6 combat feats and you have the Adapted feat, you can choose improved adapted, then get one feat and greater, and the 3 feats for greater? I dunno...
Thank you for that.
I am adding a clause: "You cannot use Battle Adaptation to learn the improved or greater versions of the same."
Great thinking! Any more where that came from?
That's the only abuse I can think of...
I don;t know if you watched Firefly, but this reminded me of the episode where Mal was challenged to a duel of honor with swords.
He spent all night learning to use a sword, and feinting, and managed to win.
It didn't really happen that way, though, did it? Mal effectively lost the duel horribly, without realizing he was overmatched - but before his opponent finished him, the girl they were fighting over interrupted the duel and shifted the opponent's attention to her. While they were talking, Mal took the opportunity to stab the guy, thus "winning" the duel.
A lot less like combat feats and a lot more like a rogue using sneak attack on a flat-footed opponent.
I don;t know if you watched Firefly, but this reminded me of the episode where Mal was challenged to a duel of honor with swords.
He spent all night learning to use a sword, and feinting, and managed to win.It didn't really happen that way, though, did it? Mal effectively lost the duel horribly, without realizing he was overmatched - but before his opponent finished him, the girl they were fighting over interrupted the duel and shifted the opponent's attention to her. While they were talking, Mal took the opportunity to stab the guy, thus "winning" the duel.
A lot less like combat feats and a lot more like a rogue using sneak attack on a flat-footed opponent.
Tomato, tomahto.
He fared far better than someone who'd never picked up a sword.
It is my opinion that most feat effects are not "parsed by the narrative" — that is — it really isn't obvious narratively that someone is swinging with a +1 or a +2 bonus mechanically. Even with something like TWF — a normal character can always try it, it just isn't optimal... if you're looking at a TWF how do you know if he has the feats or is it just dumb luck on attack and damage rolls?
This is why I don't have a problem with the learning and forgetting of feats. When you think about it in these terms, Vancian spellcasting is less believable.
"Fighter, how come yesterday you were great at dual wielding, and today you are so-so?"
"Wizard, how come yesterday you could teleport and today you can't?"
|
It is my opinion that most feat effects are not "parsed by the narrative" — that is — it really isn't obvious narratively that someone is swinging with a +1 or a +2 bonus mechanically. Even with something like TWF — a normal character can always try it, it just isn't optimal... if you're looking at a TWF how do you know if he has the feats or is it just dumb luck on attack and damage rolls?
This is why I don't have a problem with the learning and forgetting of feats. When you think about it in these terms, Vancian spellcasting is less believable.
"Fighter, how come yesterday you were great at dual wielding, and today you are so-so?"
"Wizard, how come yesterday you could teleport and today you can't?"
+1
I would think of it more as getting your mind geared toward a style of fighting for the day, stretching, etc...
It isn't like you can't dual wield normally, you just were focused on it today. Kind of like a singles hitter deciding to go for the long ball.
I am seriously thinking about dropping the Fatigue clause from this feat.
I am interested to hear from people who have a negative reaction to the feat as presented. Specifically, I would like detailed answers to the following questions:
These two aspects of the feat make it an exception in rules design, in my opinion. Whereas normally, any feat that is so good it becomes a clear choice for most characters is "too good", I think this achieves the desired effect (reconciling the feat slots vs glut of new feats) and it does so without being overpowered.
|
I rather like these. I think they are good compromises for all sides, in that you spend are basically leaving a feat slot open to be filled with whatever you think you'll need for the day. You don't get anything more than you would have before except for limited flexibility. Anyone who says this is broken should ask themselves why this is broken and a wizard being able to do the same with their spells is not.
I am seriously thinking about dropping the Fatigue clause from this feat.
I am interested to hear from people who have a negative reaction to the feat as presented. Specifically, I would like detailed answers to the following questions:
What does it matter if a feat is clearly the superior choice for most characters if it doesn't eliminate options? If Battle Adaptation is better than combat feat X, and yet you can use battle adaptation to access feat x — why not take it, and is it actually better than feat x with respect to encounter balance? How can a feat be overpowered if it cannot possibly improve a build to be better than a build with similar permanent feats? These two aspects of the feat make it an exception in rules design, in my opinion. Whereas normally, any feat that is so good it becomes a clear choice for most characters is "too good", I think this achieves the desired effect (reconciling the feat slots vs glut of new feats) and it does so without being overpowered.
I have to say, I like the fatigue clause because it provides flavor to the feats' mechanics. With the fatigue clause, its not just a very variable feat. Instead its the character trying out a new technique or tactic, one that has not been fully integrated into his/her repertoire, one that can be forgotten when the character is under extreme duress.
The goal shouldn't be to make the best feat, but to make a feat that solves the issue in a balanced fashion. The issue is more access to the growing number of feats. I have no problem with allowing more versatility, but it shouldn't be a total freebee. I might even include dazed and stunned to the list conditions that suspend battle adaptation, so that defensive feats get dropped when the user loses their concentration.
I like the fatigue clause in principle (which is why it exists) but it does unintentionally penalize Barbarians. If there were a reason to limit Barbarians with this feat, I would be quite pleased, but as it stands I personally feel Barbarians need this feat as much as anyone.
Let's be honest, the nature of this feat is a rules-hack. Its benefit obviates its cost. I tacked fatigue on there to make it a token drawback, because for some reason feats are expected to have drawbacks (where spells can just be pure benefit).
Since it's a cheat kind of design — an intentional hack to the whole system (made voluntary through a feat slot) — why does it need the drawback at all?
Anyone who says this is broken should ask themselves why this is broken and a wizard being able to do the same with their spells is not.
For that matter, anyone who says it would be too complex to prep each day needs to think hard about just how complex it is to prep spells.
|
|
I like the fatigue clause in principle (which is why it exists) but it does unintentionally penalize Barbarians. If there were a reason to limit Barbarians with this feat, I would be quite pleased, but as it stands I personally feel Barbarians need this feat as much as anyone.
Let's be honest, the nature of this feat is a rules-hack. It's benefit obviates its cost. I tacked fatigue on there to make it a token drawback, because for some reason feats are expected to have drawbacks (where spells can just be pure benefit).
Since it's a cheat kind of design — an intentional hack to the whole system (made voluntary through a feat slot) — why does it need the drawback at all?
Maybe if you made it so you could swap out the combat maneuver feats specifically, since you can always do those things, you just can't do them as well normally.
That way it isn't like one day you can and one day you can't, but rather one day you can do it better by focusing on it at the expense of something else.
This would also apply to things like TWF, since you always can do it, just not as well.
I like the fatigue clause in principle (which is why it exists) but it does unintentionally penalize Barbarians. If there were a reason to limit Barbarians with this feat, I would be quite pleased, but as it stands I personally feel Barbarians need this feat as much as anyone.
Let's be honest, the nature of this feat is a rules-hack. It's benefit obviates its cost. I tacked fatigue on there to make it a token drawback, because for some reason feats are expected to have drawbacks (where spells can just be pure benefit).
Since it's a cheat kind of design — an intentional hack to the whole system (made voluntary through a feat slot) — why does it need the drawback at all?
One possible idea is to only let the drawback apply when external forces impose the condition. If you strain yourself fairly hard, you are usually expecting it, and have a better chance of maintaining concentration and memory despite the lapse. But if an outside entity does the same thing to you, even should they warn you (such as an ally), you can't maintain the same level of hold on your composure. That said, I would tack on that Stunning, Nauseated and Staggered conditions should probably induce the drawback regardless of the source, due to the extreme level of distraction these conditions imply.
With the fluff explanation given for the working of these feats and the reason for losing their benefit, I would almost want Endurance to aid in retaining the feats despite distractions.
Maybe if you made it so you could swap out the combat maneuver feats specifically, since you can always do those things, you just can't do them as well normally.
That way it isn't like one day you can and one day you can't, but rather one day you can do it better by focusing on it at the expense of something else.
This would also apply to things like TWF, since you always can do it, just not as well.
Is that even necessary?
There are very few feats I think that strain believability in this context, and those that do usually require pre-requisites that would limit it to very high level characters.
I get what you're saying, and it seems like a great solution if you are bothered by the flexibility... but I'm just not, I suppose.
I even like the idea of someone using Greater Battle Adaptation to take Toughness three times if he knows he's going into a situation where Hit Points are going to be better than any 3-feat chain. I'm 100% okay with that, and it is the kind of thing I feel like a martial character ought to be able to do. Like the thread title says: a soldier needs to adapt and overcome.
|
I'd be inclined to make this feat chain easier for Fighters to access than for Barbarians, Paladins, Rangers, Cavaliers, etc.
Either a limit of X Fighter levels, in the strictest version, or a larger selection of Combat Feats for prerequisites, or perhaps just the Improved and Greater versions being so limited.
I'm not greatly opposed to a non-Fighter learning the first feat, but the second two feel more and more like tricks that non-Fighters shouldn't be able to pick up as readily.
I'm not sure if it's needed or not, but it may be worth adding a limitation that states that feats gained through Adaption cannot be used as prerequisites for any other features (be it feats, prestige classes, magic item creation, etc), except for additional feats "learned" through Adaption.
I'd be inclined to make this feat chain easier for Fighters to access than for Barbarians, Paladins, Rangers, Cavaliers, etc.
Either a limit of X Fighter levels, in the strictest version, or a larger selection of Combat Feats for prerequisites, or perhaps just the Improved and Greater versions being so limited.
I'm not greatly opposed to a non-Fighter learning the first feat, but the second two feel more and more like tricks that non-Fighters shouldn't be able to pick up as readily.
Seems like a matter of taste, but I will point out that the Fighter is presently the only martial class that has enough feats to attain some semblance of flexibility. If anything, they need this feat the least. As written, these feats already favor the fighter, because they get earlier access and have more permanent feat trees to expand, allowing them to make "deeper" choices than anyone else.
So yeah, I don't feel the fighter needed more love, but he's definitely getting more love than the other martials from this feat already. Considering the above points, do you really think he needs more? (non-sarcastic inquiry)
I'm not sure if it's needed or not, but it may be worth adding a limitation that states that feats gained through Adaption cannot be used as prerequisites for any other features (be it feats, prestige classes, magic item creation, etc), except for additional feats "learned" through Adaption.
Yes, this is the intention. I'll probably add a clause making this explicit when I have actually playtested this for a few sessions, and post it back here.
That is one inherent drawback of the feats. You can't qualify for other permanent feats or for prestige classes using Battle Adaptation. That's the best kind of drawback in feat design, in my opinion — something obvious and intrinsic.
Think about it — even if there was no Fatigued clause, you might still stay away from Battle Adaptation in order to fast track a prestige class. This makes sense. You are fast tracking a specific set of abilities, you can't afford to waste training time experimenting with techniques that won't help you reach that training goal.
I think that not-counting-for-pre-reqs is enough of a drawback on its own, and I should drop the fatigue clause.
I'm not greatly opposed to a non-Fighter learning the first feat, but the second two feel more and more like tricks that non-Fighters shouldn't be able to pick up as readily.
Easily rectified by increasing the number of Combat Feats in the pre-req — which I considered doing anyway.
For example, if Great Battle Adaptation required +16 BAB and 8 combat feats, pretty much only a fighter could take it easily. I think that's a little too steep, mind you, but it would achieve the goal you set forward without locking these feats away entirely from other classes.
You are now my favorite dead president, Mr. Lincoln.
This is easily the coolest feat I've ever seen. It adds some oomph to martial classes that they didn't have before, though I admit this does feel like it would become an absolute necessity for martial classes, if only for the first feat in the chain.
I will use this for sure, but only the first feat. It is my personal preference that there not be so much variation in feat usage at my table.
|
|
Maybe if you made it so you could swap out the combat maneuver feats specifically, since you can always do those things, you just can't do them as well normally.
That way it isn't like one day you can and one day you can't, but rather one day you can do it better by focusing on it at the expense of something else.
This would also apply to things like TWF, since you always can do it, just not as well.
Is that even necessary?
There are very few feats I think that strain believability in this context, and those that do usually require pre-requisites that would limit it to very high level characters.
I get what you're saying, and it seems like a great solution if you are bothered by the flexibility... but I'm just not, I suppose.
I even like the idea of someone using Greater Battle Adaptation to take Toughness three times if he knows he's going into a situation where Hit Points are going to be better than any 3-feat chain. I'm 100% okay with that, and it is the kind of thing I feel like a martial character ought to be able to do. Like the thread title says: a soldier needs to adapt and overcome.
My thoughts were more by doing this you can lose the fatigued aspect, as I don't think it would effect balance, while still giving flexibility and fitting in with flavor.
Just my 2 cents, I like the concept.
|
I like the idea a lot, anything that gives feat based characters more flexibility can't be a bad thing. My only concern is that there is no reason not to take the feat chain as it stands, even if your trying to qualify for a prestige class, you'll want to pick it up once you do meet the prerequisites of the class, since there's absolutely no cost to do so (you can simply use the adaptation feat to learn the feat you would have otherwise selected).
I'd humbly suggest the following alternative, it basically removes the free feat you get with the first feat in the chain, while still giving the increased flexibility.
----
You excel at changing your tactics to suit upcoming situations. Each day you experiment with new techniques tailored to the expected enemy.
Prerequisite: Any two combat feats.
Benefit: After a full night's rest and one hour of rigorous practice, you can choose to learn a new combat feat in place of any combat feat you have already learned. The old feat cannot be one that was used as a prerequisite for another feat, prestige class, or other ability, and cannot be Battle Adaptation, Improved Battle Adaptation, or Greater Battle Adaptation. This is an extraordinary ability. You may choose this feat only once.
Special: You cannot learn this feat through the use of Battle Adaptation, Improved Battle Adaptation, or Greater Battle Adaptation.
----
You have grown even more flexible with your battle tactics, and are able to rehearse even complex maneuvers on short notice.
Prerequisite: Battle Adaptation, any four combat feats, base attack bonus +8.
Benefit: After a full night's rest and one hour of rigorous practice, you may select any one combat feat for which you meet the prerequisites. You are treated as though you possess that feat until you practice another. This is an extraordinary ability. You may choose this feat only once.
Special: You cannot learn this feat through the use of Battle Adaptation, Improved Battle Adaptation, or Greater Battle Adaptation.
----
You have mastered improvisation, and you carry winning tactics to the end of the battle no matter how tired you become.
Prerequisite: Improved Battle Adaptation, any six combat feats, base attack bonus +16.
Benefit: As Improved Battle Adaptation, except you may adapt an additional feat during your one hour of practice, for a total of two feats.
Special: You cannot learn this feat through the use of Battle Adaptation, Improved Battle Adaptation, or Greater Battle Adaptation.
This is way too good. From first level, a human could get a shifting feat every day. Is there a combat character that wouldn't take this? I can't even think of a way to make this playable.
----
See above, but multiply by 2.
----
Maybe use the effects of basic battle adaptation with these prereqs and you have a balanced feat...
|
|
This is way too good. From first level, a human could get a shifting feat every day. Is there a combat character that wouldn't take this? I can't even think of a way to make this playable.
----
See above, but multiply by 2.----
Maybe use the effects of basic battle adaptation with these prereqs and you have a balanced feat...
If you have it so you have to also renounce an existing feat, that could be a fix. You basically are trading two feats (the one you are swapping and the Battle Adaptation feat) for one that can be changed.
This is way too good. From first level, a human could get a shifting feat every day. Is there a combat character that wouldn't take this? I can't even think of a way to make this playable.
----
See above, but multiply by 2.----
Maybe use the effects of basic battle adaptation with these prereqs and you have a balanced feat...
It is the intent of this group of feats to be "mandatory". Its really more of a house rule designed to help martial characters compare to spellcasters in terms of their versatility. It assumes that there is an existing imbalance and attempts to adjust it slightly. If you believe the game is working as intended then these feats are not for you.
I like the fatigue clause in principle (which is why it exists) but it does unintentionally penalize Barbarians. If there were a reason to limit Barbarians with this feat, I would be quite pleased, but as it stands I personally feel Barbarians need this feat as much as anyone.
Let's be honest, the nature of this feat is a rules-hack. Its benefit obviates its cost. I tacked fatigue on there to make it a token drawback, because for some reason feats are expected to have drawbacks (where spells can just be pure benefit).
Since it's a cheat kind of design — an intentional hack to the whole system (made voluntary through a feat slot) — why does it need the drawback at all?
Meh, barbarians don't get to use this feat as effectively after there rage is done, but in my experience barbarians rarely get fatigued during fights. Even when they do, at higher levels there are paladins and restoration spells and effects to help them shake it off.
In the end, it makes sense that this feat, which represents a sort of memorization, would be slightly less good for a frothing at the mouth barbarian. Just part their inborn limitations, which can be overcome with experience or even just taking the second feat in the chain.
This is way too good. From first level, a human could get a shifting feat every day. Is there a combat character that wouldn't take this? I can't even think of a way to make this playable.
I respectfully disagree.
Yes, many characters would want to choose this feat very early on, as it would give them a chance to "try before you buy" later feats. As a GM, this is something I wish the game already had, for the sake of new players. Only a Fighter can take it from level 1, which is intentional as Fighters should excel at this.
How is it unplayable? I can pick a new feat in a fraction of the time it takes a wizard to scratchbuild a spell list for the day. No feat that I pick can have the net effect of making my character more powerful than he would be with a permanent feat. No feat on the list strains credulity to the extent that a character couldn't train up at the top of his form to pull it off, then lapse the next day as he changes his focus.
I suppose this is a matter of taste. If you want to give more feedback, I welcome your opinion.
Here is my new draft of the feat. I have incorporated some feedback from my own group, as well as many of the suggestions from this thread.
One suggestion I did not include was to have the adaptation feat replace a combat feat beside itself. It is my value judgment that "two for one" is too expensive.
I feel that martial characters deserve this basic level of flexibility. They deserve to shine in situations like desperate prison breaks with foraged weapons, or if one becomes unfortunately blinded but has a chance to practice blind-fighting. The still need to pay a cost in practice time, and the flexibility gained still pales in comparison to that of a prepared spell caster. There is no contest, IMO.
Nevertheless, I think it is a good compromise for those who consider this feat overpowered. I'd like to acknowledge that, even though I haven't included it.
Here's the new draft:
----
You excel at changing your tactics to suit upcoming situations. Each day you experiment with new techniques tailored to the expected enemy.
Prerequisite: Any two combat feats.
Benefit: After a full night's rest and one hour of rigorous practice, you may select any one combat feat for which you meet the prerequisites. You are treated as though you possess that feat until you practice another.
If you become dazed, exhausted, fatigued, nauseated, staggered or stunned, you lose the benefit of this feat until the condition is lifted.
The feat effect granted by Battle Adaptation cannot be used as a prerequisite for any permanent effect such as a prestige class or feat. You cannot mimic the effects of Improved or Greater Battle Adaptation using this feat.
----
You have grown even more flexible with your battle tactics, and are able to rehearse even complex maneuvers on short notice.
Prerequisite: Battle Adaptation and any four combat feats, base attack bonus +8.
Benefit:As Battle Adaptation, except you may practice an additional feat during your one hour of practice, for a total of two feats. Additionally, you no longer lose the benefits of practiced feats when dazed or fatigued.
Feat effects gained through Battle Adaptation may satisfy prerequisites for the practiced feat.
----
You have mastered improvisation, and you carry winning tactics to the end of the battle no matter how tired you become.
Prerequisite: Battle Adaptation, Improved Battle Adaptation and any eight combat feats, base attack bonus +16.
Benefit: As Battle Adaptation, except you may practice an additional feat during your one hour of practice for a total of three feats. Additionally, you no longer lose the benefits of Battle Adaptation feats when exhausted or staggered.
Feat effects gained through Battle Adaptation and Improved Battle Adaptation may satisfy prerequisites for the practiced feat.
----
This feat has already improved tremendously with all your feedback. Please let me know what you think of this latest version, and I am open to revising the phrasing and formatting as well.
If you really want to "try before you buy," just institute a re-training rule. With a modest gp cost and a time cost measured in days or weeks you retain the ability to switch feats without letting players customize for a fight they know is coming later in the same day.
I think this is 99% there as-is!
I'm a little unsure of the conditions list, since about half of those don't allow, or severely restrict actions. My though is to make the list a little more intuitive. Perhaps fatigued, exhausted, frightened and panicked?
Is there something that makes you immune to fatigue and exhaustion?
How about an intelligence 13 requirement? Just a thought.
Maybe you have it perfect already.
Anyway, great job. I think it might have to be toned down a little for publication, but I could see this in Ultimate Combat. (or whatever the book is called.)
I'd like to see this become a core feature of the fighter class, rather than a feat chain, but so be it... it's something that's been needed for a long time now.
I think this is a brilliant idea EL. You've just found a good way to make the cleric feature from the war domain available to all non-casters.
I am interested to hear from people who have a negative reaction to the feat as presented. Specifically, I would like detailed answers to the following questions:What does it matter if a feat is clearly the superior choice for most characters if it doesn't eliminate options? If Battle Adaptation is better than combat feat X, and yet you can use battle adaptation to access feat x — why not take it, and is it actually better than feat x with respect to encounter balance? ...
I don't have a negative reaction, but as far as "problems" go, one of very few drawbacks I can see with this feat tree is that it essentially becomes a "feat tax" because it's a no-brainer for the vast majority of combat-oriented characters.
As far as drawbacks go, I'm not sure you need to add any to these feats. It's pretty annoying that several existing feats give you a drawback in the first place. And it's one more thing to track in-game.
BTW, I'm yoinking this idea for my games!
If you really want to "try before you buy," just institute a re-training rule. With a modest gp cost and a time cost measured in days or weeks you retain the ability to switch feats without letting players customize for a fight they know is coming later in the same day.
X-L, that's exactly what I started with actually. But instead of forcing my group to read yet another experimental house rule, I thought I would make this a feat... and then I was struck by the elegance of that solution. So yes, I really do consider this a non-invasive retraining rule.
I'm a little unsure of the conditions list, since about half of those don't allow, or severely restrict actions. My though is to make the list a little more intuitive. Perhaps fatigued, exhausted, frightened and panicked?
Is there something that makes you immune to fatigue and exhaustion?
If there is, I am OK with that. Whatever it is, it would be a very useful power. I believe a Paladin can do it with Mercy.
Yeah, I am having regrets about the condition list in this last version. I am seriously considering reverting to just fatigue and exhaustion. Even that might be unnecessary, but it is simple. Opinions, please!
How about an intelligence 13 requirement? Just a thought.
Nope. I can see the rationale, but an Int Prereq hurts the people who need this feat. Also, I am of the school where feat pre-reqs should be few and mechanically linked. Quite a few people have suggested this, though, so I might as well explain why I don't favor it.
Maybe you have it perfect already.
Doubtful. Especially on the conditions, I think it still needs work. The exception clauses are looking pretty good though!
I'd like to see this become a core feature of the fighter class, rather than a feat chain, but so be it... it's something that's been needed for a long time now.
As I mentioned upthread, the fighter actually needs this ability least of all the classes, but he benefits more than anyone from their existence. I actually think it works well this way, because the fighter is still the best with this feat (he gets it earlier and can go deeper into multiple trees). Knowing that, I also want characters to have access to some of the exotic new feats from the new books, no matter what class they are!
Kirth, I respect your opinion greatly, so be sure to post back if you end up testing this at all.
I think this is a brilliant idea EL. You've just found a good way to make the cleric feature from the war domain available to all non-casters.
Part of the inspiration came from the Beta Inquisitor's ability to change teamwork feats. The x/day mechanic was silly, but the idea was really fun in practice.
Thanks for the kind words. I honestly feel this one was kind of "above me" and I don't really believe I came up with it. Came to me in a dream, no joke.
I don't have a negative reaction, but as far as "problems" go, one of very few drawbacks I can see with this feat tree is that it essentially becomes a "feat tax" because it's a no-brainer for the vast majority of combat-oriented characters.
I'd call it a "Feat Tax with a Charitable deduction." In the end, it doesn't really cost anything (except PrC/Feat eligibility and the fatigue clause), so it isn't much of a "tax" is it?
Does the long list of conditions bother anyone else?
Does anyone else think you could just drop the conditions clause altogether and let PrC/Feat eligibility be the sole drawback?
Does the long list of conditions bother anyone else?Does anyone else think you could just drop the conditions clause altogether and let PrC/Feat eligibility be the sole drawback?
It bothers me. Why? There is enough stuff to track in this game. Why track yet another thing?
Drop the conditions altogether. Why do we feel the need to give a feat a cool ability only to curtail it somewhat with a drawback? We don't do that with the vast majority of spells do we? The main drawback of any feat (well, maybe not these particular ones) is that you didn't choose something else.
Besides, why make your game harder to play?
Oh, and this really needs serious consideration for Ultimate Combat.
Anthony, Tri,
Thanks for the clarification on that. I am going to playtest it without any conditions clause, but I encourage anyone who is interested in any permutation we've discussed to try their own version and tell us about it. Talk is cheap, right?
Here is the text I'll be using, without the conditions clause:
You excel at changing your tactics to suit upcoming situations. Each day you experiment with new techniques tailored to the expected enemy.
Prerequisite: Any two combat feats.
Benefit:
After a full night's rest and one hour of rigorous practice, you may select any one combat feat for which you meet the prerequisites. You are treated as though you possess that feat until you practice another.
The feat effect granted by Battle Adaptation cannot be used as a prerequisite for any permanent effect such as a prestige class or feat. You cannot mimic the effects of Improved or Greater Battle Adaptation using this feat.
You have grown even more flexible with your battle tactics, and are able to rehearse even complex maneuvers on short notice.
Prerequisite: Battle Adaptation and any four combat feats, base attack bonus +8.
Benefit: As Battle Adaptation, except you may practice an additional feat during your one hour of practice, for a total of two feats.
Special: Feat effects granted by Battle Adaptation may satisfy prerequisites for the practiced feat.
You have mastered improvisation, and you carry winning tactics to the end of the battle no matter how tired you become.
Prerequisite: Battle Adaptation, Improved Battle Adaptation and any eight combat feats, base attack bonus +16.
Benefit: As Battle Adaptation, except you may adapt an additional feat during your one hour of practice for a total of three feats.
Special: Feat effects granted by Battle Adaptation or Improved Battle Adaptation may satisfy prerequisites for the practiced feat.
Why do we feel the need to give a feat a cool ability only to curtail it somewhat with a drawback? We don't do that with the vast majority of spells do we?
This is exactly my feeling on the matter. The only reason I included that condition clause is because of the troublesome precedent that feats should have drawbacks. Whenever I actively consider this, it becomes evident that it is nonsense!
Originally, I thought that without the fatigue clause, there would be no drawback at all. At this point, I submit that PrC/Perma-Feat eligibility is enough of a drawback. It also forces you to commit a slot to a combat feat, rather than Iron Will, or Toughness, or any other non-combat feat. I think it is on-par with Vital Strike, another feat that some people blink at.
With Vital Strike, we ask "Why would anyone not take this feat?" And the answer is "they may be very committed to full attacks." For some players, that is enough of a drawback. To me, Vital Strike looks very much like a "no-brainer" feat; one created to redress a flaw in the system, no less.
Well, Battle Adaptation exists to redress a flaw in the system too. A few flaws, actually: overly rigid feat mechanic leads people to discard found weapon treasure, new books add more feats to compete for a finite number of slots, new players get locked in to naive feat choices, etc. But Battle Adaptation has an advantage in the "no-brainer" feat department... it doesn't eat up a whole feat slot. Yes, it forces you to commit to a combat feat in that slot. But it also leaves you room to experiment with other feats, including Vital Strike, so you can see if they are worth committing to if you are playing your first-ever Pathfinder character.
And to top it all off, despite being "too good" like Vital Strike is (IMO), Battle Adaptation is technically unable to make a character overpowered. The balance is built into the feat!
</rant>