New Page! Here are the current versions of the feats. If you are just joining us, there are some versions on the previous page you may prefer.
----
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 other 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 may expertly practice a wide variety of techniques.
Prerequisite: Battle Adaptation, Improved Battle Adaptation and any other 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.
----
Where are the drawbacks?
For your consideration, a compiled list of combat feats.
Bear in mind that you need to meet the prerequisites for a given feat before practicing it.
What sort of combinations are possible with Battle Adaptation? Anything that upsets you or seems abusive?
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!
Needs it least (because of his number of feats), but benefits most... yeah, I see where you're coming from. And for anyone OTHER than a fighter, loss of one or more feats to invest in this ability is a pretty substantial fraction of their available combat tricks, so that works out well.
Overall, for a standard Pathfinder campaign, I'd recommend this line of feats wholeheartedly for an "Ultimate Combat" book. I can't promise that my group will get to playtesting them unless one of the players asks (in which case I'll say "yes!"), but I hope others will and provide feedback.
One thing that I notice is that it illustrates how limited in scope the barbarian class is in comparison to other martial classes.
Fighters, rangers, and monks have relatively quick access to this feat because they all get bonus feats built into their class as features. The barbarian has no such ability, and must rely on his feats gained normally to invest in getting access to these feats.
Not saying that anything should or should not be done about that. Just making an observation.
On the monk front, I'd at least reduce the Greater Battle Adaptation BAB prereq to BAB +15 so it at least can get access to it.
Fighters, rangers, and monks have relatively quick access to this feat because they all get bonus feats built into their class as features. The barbarian has no such ability, and must rely on his feats gained normally to invest in getting access to these feats.
Well, I gave them bonus feats, too, but I'm aware not everyone else does!
Fighters, rangers, and monks have relatively quick access to this feat because they all get bonus feats built into their class as features. The barbarian has no such ability, and must rely on his feats gained normally to invest in getting access to these feats.Well, I gave them bonus feats, too, but I'm aware not everyone else does!
On that note, EL, I suggest giving monks full BAB instead. It's becoming a more popular house rule I think.
On that note, EL, I suggest giving monks full BAB instead. It's becoming a more popular house rule I think.
It is tempting to throw a clause in that the monk may use his monk level in place of BAB for these feats.
I'm not personally going to do that, for a number of reasons*, but I see what you're talking about. Greater BA is really, really cool, and I think it should be restricted to full BAB classes.
If anyone wants to test it out with a full BAB monk (or add a clause to BA that lets the monk use his full level in place of BAB) I'd love to hear the result.
I have both a Monk and a Barbarian in my playtest party. I'll let you all know if they opt to take the feat next level or not...
* I'm not out to make sweeping house rules like Kirth's (which I think are really cool). I believe the game works just fine as printed if the GM puts the love into running it. Targeted fixes like new feats are more my style, because I don't like forcing new rules on my players. I much prefer it when they can opt in.
Well, I DO have an open feat slot...
I'd like to make another plea for the conditions list. Why? Because the conditions list adds a flavor to the mechanics of the feat, one that I think makes the feat more interesting. By saying that this feat requires some concentration to use (thus making the lack of concentration suspend its effects) it gives the feat a limitation that makes dramatic sense, and provides some comparative value to perma-feats.
Spells and the ability to spellcast can be lost in some situations (such as when they are interrupted or when the user loses the access to the spells components) and those situations are opportunities for dramatic tension in the game. That's the role I see the for the conditions list.
As for the barbarian again, they represent the "instinctive/primitive" fighter, which I think is why they don't get so much feat lovin' as they do "rage powers" that sometimes work like feats (scent is a feat and a rage power for example).
I'd like to make another plea for the conditions list.
Anburaid, don't you play a warforged in my game? :P
I know that isn't the reason for your plea — you lack the schadenfreude for that kind of stunt — but it does illustrate one reason why I am not including the conditions clause.
When you take Battle Adaptation, you set back not only your ability to access PrCs, but also your ability to take non-combat feats. There are a number of very good non-combat feats. This exchange of focus and flexibility makes inherent sense to me: if you are training for arcane archer, you shouldn't be wasting your time swapping out Point Blank Shot for Cleave.
If there were any reason to believe this power made characters more powerful and not just more flexible, then I would entertain the need for further drawbacks. As it stands, I think Battle Adaptation is a balanced feat, though I am happy to hear examples to the contrary.
I encourage people to experiment with playtesting a condition clause drawback thingie. The basic idea is out there now, I'm dying to know what people do with it, even if they don't use my favorite version.
Raise thread!
My campaign just finally reached a point where the PCs got a feat level, and at least one of them has opted to take Battle Adaptation.
Has anyone else used this feat, or something like it in the two months this thread's been archived?
I'll post back as soon as I have any first-hand experience with it. I really like the concept and I can't wait to try it out!
I love these feats, ill test them this weekend.-
I like the feats better without the conditions but here's an idea if you later bring it back: You could bring the fatigue/exhausted clause back, since it gives some extra flavor as you yourself said earlier on the thread, just add a paragraph "Special: the fatigued condition caused by the barbarians Rage and similar abilities does not cause the loss of benefits from this feat. OTOH, with the conditions and the extra paragraph the feat gets too long, leaving it without conditions is the best design choice. I'll see if my DM will allow me to playtest these.
Thanks guys. I look forward to hearing your feedback.
Yeah, I'm gonna run the version at the top of this page, for all the reasons I outline above.
Hey everyone!
Battle Adaptation and its child feats have been added to the Pathfinder Database! Huzzah!
Vote! Do it!
I understand your position. Feat saturation was a huge issue in 3.5 that was somewhat solved in Pathfinder by resetting available feats and increasing the number of feats you get to every other level. But with the Advanced Player's Guide, we're seeing a glut of feats and options. I do like the flavour of re-training every day to offset this fact.
This feat line reminds me of the 3.5 Chameleon prestige class. At first level, you got a bonus feat that could be switched out every day.
But let's examine balance. The ability to switch out abilities to prepare for an encounter is the reason, IMO, to play a Wizard over a Sorcerer. The Wizard gives up the sheer number of spells that a Sorcerer has in exchange for increased versatility. If Sorcerers could prepare their spells every day as a Wizard AND cast the same number of spells a day as they did before, nobody would play a Wizard. Adding this feat chain is roughly analagous to allowing sorcerers the option of preparing spells vs. spontaneously casting them. Obviously this is not a perfect analogy, as Sorcerers have a limited ability to switch out spells when they level up as well as feats such as Expanded Arcana in the Advanced Player's Guide, but there is a balance issue here.
I think the best instance of these feats was the one suggested by Calixymenthillian, since you trade a volume of feats for fewer feats but additional versatility.
I have long regarded this feat as more of a system hack than a "real feat". It is something you add to the game to solve a specific problem. Thankfully, it is impossible to use this feat to make a character more powerful than someone without the feat. They're just more versatile.
This is the kind of thing your GM either allows or doesn't.
I have long regarded this feat as more of a system hack than a "real feat". It is something you add to the game to solve a specific problem. Thankfully, it is impossible to use this feat to make a character more powerful than someone without the feat. They're just more versatile.
I get that, and I understand the reasons behind the feat tree; I'm just trying to make a point about balance. Versatility makes a character more powerful. By your logic, allowing a Sorcerer the flexibility of the Wizard does not make the Sorcerer a more powerful class, just more versatile.
If you're going to make a new feat line with the specific intention of changing funtamentally the way you build and play a combat character to make up for what you feel is a flaw in the system, I think you're better off just doing a rules variant. "At BAB +4, +8, and +16, you can choose to prepare and change 1, 2, 3 of your combat feats at the beginning of the day."
Rather, it's a house rule created to address a perceived problem. If you don't perceive the problem, it will probably look overpowered to you.
I've limited this to combat feats because I went through the combat feats and vetted them as believable. Nobody is really lining up to take skill boosting feats, and allowing this kind of thing on metamagic feats would get out of hand fast, I think. Combat feats are a nice, clearly demarcated group of feats that benefit martial characters.
If you had observed a disparity in your campaign whereby casters or skillmonkeys were suffering from a glut of necessary feats and insufficient slots to experiment with new powers, I wholly endorse the invention of Skill Adaptation or Metamagic Adaptation. I have never witnessed a need for them, myself. Rogues might have some issues, but access to skill bonus feats is not among them.
Meanwhile, martial casters must contend with feats like Power Attack and Vital Strike, which are either so good to be perceived as mandatory, or else they were invented with the intention of fixing combat in general (as Vital Strike has been said to be). A Martial character needs more feats than he has slots, and he can't afford to experiment with his combat style at all; he must choose correctly each time. Battle Adaptation alleviates that somewhat.
If you're going to make a new feat line with the specific intention of changing funtamentally the way you build and play a combat character to make up for what you feel is a flaw in the system, I think you're better off just doing a rules variant. "At BAB +4, +8, and +16, you can choose to prepare and change 1, 2, 3 of your combat feats at the beginning of the day."
Notice that because the feat costs effectively nothing once you are eligible, this is basically what it does!
The feat format just makes it easier to integrate into an ongoing campaign.
Glad you resurrected this thread!
I had the thought of including some sort of level or BAB requirement into the feats in order to prevent a 1st level human fighter from being able to become more powerful. Not that it would be a big deal, but I feel like combat types really don't need any help until at least 5th level.
Just an idea. I'm off to go vote for your feats now.
It's come to my attention that I accidentally submitted the oldest version, not the newest version that includes everyone's suggestions. :( How embarrassing.
I've submitted the corrections already, just waiting for the update now...
Rory, I certainly respect that it might be your experience. In my experience as a GM, I've only noted the martial classes as being so inflexible that they require help.
I also generally allow my players to repec whenever they are unsatisfied with a choice, but there remains a stigma even despite my allowances. Battle Adaptation formalizes that respec to some degree, where it is needed most.
Again, if you see a need for other types of respec feats, by all means implement them! Post back here and tell us how it goes.
Dear Evil Mr. President Lincoln sir,
I have a suggestion to keep the feat in its original form while accommodating barbarians: add an alternate feat that allows a barbarian to select a feat they do not currently qualify for (such as one with a dex or int requirement, one at the end of a feat tree they haven't followed, or one that requires fighter levels). The barbarian may use that feat, but ONLY while raging. This plays to their main strength without punishing their weakness, it fits their flavor (as someone who can do something amazing and superhuman, but afterward, when the rage has subsided, would be hard-pressed to repeat it or explain it), and it adds a new way for them to be unique among the feat-starved combat classes; in effect, they get better feat access than but on a limited time frame.
I'd imagine a smite version would also be possible, and would add a lot of personalization to paladin characters.
As someone without much experience at balancing homebrew content, does anyone think this idea too good, or not good enough? Granted, they could just snag weapon specialization and tread the fighter's toes, but they're still doing it with half the feats of a fighter and in more limited contexts.
I like this feat chain. I would have had no problem using any of the versions you proposed.
Outside of balance and powerlevel I think this is really fitting choice for the fighter. Even if this became a class feature of the fighter only I would like it. But the way it is described it regulates itself.
Especially when the setting does not include the "magic supermarket" where you can get every weapon with every type of enchantment on it, this feat shines.
So when the Fighter, currently using his greatsword, finds a nice pair of magical daggers, he can simply train a bit with them and thus swap his feats accordingly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The corrected version is now on PFDB! Go vote!
I like this feat chain. I would have had no problem using any of the versions you proposed.
Outside of balance and powerlevel I think this is really fitting choice for the fighter. Even if this became a class feature of the fighter only I would like it. But the way it is described it regulates itself.
Especially when the setting does not include the "magic supermarket" where you can get every weapon with every type of enchantment on it, this feat shines.
So when the Fighter, currently using his greatsword, finds a nice pair of magical daggers, he can simply train a bit with them and thus swap his feats accordingly.
What I like most about these feats, is that it isn't that usefull for fighters. It's best for paladins, rangers, barbarians or even rogues and magus.
What I like most about these feats, is that it isn't that usefull for fighters. It's best for paladins, rangers, barbarians or even rogues and magus.
That's not to say fighters don't benefit. Fighters can pick up the first feat of several different trees, increasing their options for Battle Adaptation. Plus, Fighters get the easiest access to the feats in general. I just didn't need to build in any additional love for the fighter.
Yes, one of my goals was for this to benefit all combat-oriented characters, even those not traditionally considered feat-driven. Battle Adaptation makes great thematic sense for the monk, or even a rogue who specializes in capitalizing on enemy weaknesses.
These feats kind of remind me of a fighter archetype I made up.
Combat Tactician Fighter Archetype
Combat Tactics (Ex): At 1st level, the combat tactician gains the use of one combat feat for a number of rounds per day equal to 4 + his Intelligence modifier. At 2nd level, and every level thereafter, the combat tactician increases the number of rounds he can use this ability by 2. These rounds do not need to be consecutive and the combat tactician can change the feat chosen each time he uses this ability. At 4th level, and every 4 levels thereafter, the number of feats the combat tactician gains when using this ability increases by 1, to a maximum of 6 feats at 20th level. He must meet the prerequisites of these feats; the combat tactician can use one or more of his temporary feats to qualify for more advanced temporary feats. This ability replaces the fighter’s Bonus Feats.
Maneuver Mastery (Ex): At 2nd level, and every 4 levels thereafter, the combat tactician gains a +1 bonus to his CMB and CMD. This ability replaces the fighter’s Bravery ability.
This is quite interesting...and makes me wonder how else it can be applied. My first thought is that the fighter should have something like this from level 1. Perhaps replace their level 1 feat with this, along with every other bonus feat they gain (4, 8, etc.) effectively giving them a pool of selectable feats that they can choose every morning.
Going even further, why not base the Ranger's combat styles of this idea? At the beginning of each day, he essentially chooses his combat style. The magus and gunslinger could benefit from this, as well.
I see a lot of potential in the concept of "prepared feats" like prepared spells.
Very fun feats, great work as usual.
-The Beast
For the barbarian, I suggest a new rage power called Adaptive Rage, (with Improved and Greater versions), which grants you Battle Adaptation while raging.
It would be very good, of course, but probably not too good, since a rage power is meant to be equal to a feat and the Adaptive Rage power is strictly worse than the real Battle Adaptation.
I also have another idea for how this could be improved:
Allow characters to replace their combat feats with feats from the battle adaptation tree as soon as they qualify for them. It's a very simple retraining rule and it also solves another problem.
If a particular feat is really useful or thematic for my class, it normally gets granted as a bonus feat, but almost never at 1st level, which is usually when I want to take it. This way, starting out with the most appropriate feat for your character isn't so limiting, although qualifying for it still might be a pain.
Beast, your suggestion about combat styles has given me another idea of my own. Rather than letting the ranger change his style, let all the martial classes with bonus feats (except the fighter) prepare any bonus feats from their list each day.
New Page! Here are the current versions of the feats. If you are just joining us, there are some versions on the previous page you may prefer.
----
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 other 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 may expertly practice a wide variety of techniques.Prerequisite: Battle Adaptation, Improved Battle Adaptation and any other 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.
----
Where are the...
I like your idea, but not the implementation. Battle Adaptation itself is fine, but the improved and greater versions are too much. Being able to switch on and off entire trees of feats is too powerful IMO.
If you really want to go for it, I would add some condition that states that you cannot have two of the battle adaptation feats count as prerequisites for each other.
Problem with that is that you still have to have the prerequisites to the feat you want to choose with Battle Adaptation. So you still have to be a 14th level fighter and have two critical feats, either as normal feats or with Battle Adaptation. Since you can only get Greater BA at 16th level you have to buy critical focus and one critical feat as a normal feat, then you can train another critical feat as BA and Critical Mastery with Improved BA. With Greater BA (at 16th level) you can either get Staggering or Tiring critical with BA and then get Stunning or Exhausting with GBA and Critical Mastery with IBA. It's not much different from a normal Fighter going with the critical Focus tree, the only benefit is if you're sure your enemies on the next day will be invulnerable to crits, you could change up to three feats for feats that would be more helpful.
Of course, you could buy only critical focus and wait until you are 16th level so you can choose two critical feats (escept Stunning and Exhausting cause they have prereqs) with BA and IBA and Critical Mastery with GBA.
You can't make a character with Battle Adaptation that has access to anything he couldn't have gotten without Battle Adaptation. As a GM, giving NPCs the feat means literally nothing unless they are around for more than a day, because their feats don't change, so I might as well stat them with static feats.
What the rule does is let martial characters switch up a small number of their feats on the same schedule that wizards and clerics switch up all of their spells.
Since feats are generally a lot less tailored to specific encounters than spells are, I still consider a martial with flexible feats to be less powerful than a caster with flexible spells.
If you have no problem with that aspect of the rules, then you might not understand why I added Battle Adaptation to my game. I find that letting players play around with their next feat before making it permanent is fun and doesn't break the game whatsoever.
I do not really see a use for this in my campaign, though I can see some potential for a fighter archetype, especially a spiritual warrior that draws upon ancestral knowledge during a daily devotion.
The feats as written are a bit better than what a fighter usually can do, it is mostly the fluff that is lacking a bit for me, if you would be interested to balance it I'd add another feat as a prerequiste, possibly iron will, having one less feat to put in a chain of combat feats pays for the added flexibility and reflexts the spiritual nature of such a warrior, if you go with such fluff.
Aside from my comments as a houserule it is just fine, I do not even expect it to see much use, except possibly to trade in improved critical if a keen weapon is found or things like that.
I do not really see a use for this in my campaign, though I can see some potential for a fighter archetype, especially a spiritual warrior that draws upon ancestral knowledge during a daily devotion.
IMO, the fighter needs flexibility least out of all the martial classes. He has it already, through sheer quantity of feats.
if you would be interested to balance it I'd add another feat as a prerequiste, possibly iron will, having one less feat to put in a chain of combat feats pays for the added flexibility and reflexts the spiritual nature of such a warrior, if you go with such fluff.
Well, my favorite drawback (if there must be one) is the fatigue/exhaustion clause from the original version. But I don't think this feat really needs a drawback, because it is not overpowered without one.
I personally find feat pre-reqs without a direct, mechanical link to be stifling. If someone imagines a character that's able to do something, I don't want to insert non-sequitur requirements that might ruin their fun unless there's a damned good reason.
Aside from my comments as a houserule it is just fine, I do not even expect it to see much use, except possibly to trade in improved critical if a keen weapon is found or things like that.
Yes, actually. In practice, I believe people will use the slot to experiment for a few sessions after they gain a new feat, and once they find something that works they will probably stick with it until they need to change.
Honestly, I allow that kind of re-specification with feats all the time as a matter of kindness. Locking your players into bad choices is silly. There are too few long-running campaigns to be stuck in one playing a character that doesn't work. Battle Adaptation merely formalizes the re-spec that I already allow, and gives it a narrative presence in the game.
Locking your players into bad choices is silly.I know where you are coming from, and I think it is a great idea. I think what I may be suggesting is that an additional restriction should exist on the battle adaptation feats. One where the lower feats can only qualify for feats up to a certain level. Like battle adaptation can only qualify up to fighter level or BAB +8, Improved +12, and Greater +16. That way you can still use the feats to build a tree, but not steal all the fruit at the top without still investing in roots at the bottom. Does that make more sense?
Yes, that makes perfect sense to me.
Could you give me an example of a build that "steals fruit"?
I find the current pre-reqs for each level of B.A. are already quite stringent, so even though what you're saying makes sense, I'd like to be smashed in the face with an example to drive the point home.
Locking your players into bad choices is silly.I know where you are coming from, and I think it is a great idea. I think what I may be suggesting is that an additional restriction should exist on the battle adaptation feats. One where the lower feats can only qualify for feats up to a certain level. Like battle adaptation can only qualify up to fighter level or BAB +8, Improved +12, and Greater +16. That way you can still use the feats to build a tree, but not steal all the fruit at the top without still investing in roots at the bottom. Does that make more sense?Yes, that makes perfect sense to me.
Could you give me an example of a build that "steals fruit"?
I find the current pre-reqs for each level of B.A. are already quite stringent, so even though what you're saying makes sense, I'd like to be smashed in the face with an example to drive the point home.
Really? It makes no sense to me... I think they're not getting the fact that you still need to meet the prerequisites for the feat you use with Battle Adaptation. That means even if you use GBA to get Pinpoint Targeting you still need to have a +16BAB, Improved Precise Shot, Precise Shot and Pointblank Shot. Maybe they are complaining that you can get Imp Precise Shot and Precise Shot with IBA and BA and use those as prereqs for Pinpointing Target. But since they only serve as prerequisites to take Pinpoint Target with GBA I fail to see the problem, since you are only trading three feats for three feats.
My current character is a Clr5/ Mnk6 that has a heavy focus on Grappling and other CMB based maneuvers. I use Battle Adaptation and its Improved version to rotate through Improved and Greater Maneuver feats depending on what I think I will be facing or what kind of battlefield chaos I want to cause.
Though, this feat is also great to use to replace your Weapon Focus (Longsword) and Improved Critical (Longsword) feats so that when that +3 Head-Explody Battle Axe drops you can rest and put your longsword away and not be crippled because you took a bunch of feats that are now useless.
It's really not too overpowered, it just lends a little bit of flexibility ala a wizard and his spellbook. You still need to rest 8 hrs and practice 1 hr, so it's not like you can just switch it out in the middle of combat.
These kinds of feats are more non-fighter combatant friendly, I think. Fighters don't need them as much as they don't have to choose between feats, they can just take them all!
Kudos and my crazy Cleric/Monk thanks you!
mercenario, the problem is that as you level, you can meet higher and higher prerequisites and change the feat to more and more powerful options. That way, you can have more high-level feats than would normally be possible.
I don't really see why a specific example matters. You could do it by upgrading any feat at all to any feat with a higher BAB or fighter level requirement. Even if we searched and searched and failed to find anything that made much difference, it seems crazy not to future-proof the feat and make sure you can only use it for what it's intended for.
But feats that have higher BAB and/or fighter level requirements also have other feats as requirements. You want do add a couple of confusing, near useless lines to a clen looking feat tree in the corner case of a possible future feat that doesn't follow the normal design rules for a high level feat. And that's just bad design.
...
...
You know what, I'm going to make a couple fighter builds, one using only core and APG and one with feats from all over 3.5 and see if I the feats are as game breaking as you think they can be. I'll be back on this topic on monday.
That way, you can have more high-level feats than would normally be possible.
Mortuum, I think you are misreading the feat.
Battle Adaptation can't ever have more feats than you would ordinarily have. The situation you describe as a negative here can't exist, by my understanding.
Here is the text upon which I am basing these claims. The feat was altered after the original post, perhaps that is the source of confusion?
Anyway, that's why I wanted an example. You can't build any character with any/all of the battle adaptation feats that can't be replicated exactly without the battle adaptation feats.
Ooooh, I think I get it now.
You're saying that I could start out with a feat selection that worked at lower levels, and then replace those feats at a higher level...
So, you could actually generate a combination of feats that wouldn't normally be possible for a given level. It would be like "borrowing" feats from earlier character levels to overwrite.
Interesting.
Thanks for bringing that to my attention, Mort.
Yeah, that's what I meant. You're welcome.
Mercenario, it's not complicated, it need not be confusing, it's almost certainly not bad design and I did not use the term "game breaking" or anything equivalent.
I'm just concerned that this feat tree allows you to do things it wasn't intended to. As it's currently written, it makes characters who take it able to become very slightly more powerful than characters without. Evil Lincoln didn't know it did that and didn't want it to do that. Nobody seems to want it to do that.
If we're aiming for the same level of power as before, but with more options from day to day, lets not give in and say "Meh, maybe a little more power. It's not like it'll bring the whole campaign crashing down" over the prospect of adding half a sentence to each of three feats.