[3.5] Is it a good idea to increase the Feat pace?

[Firechanter]

I am thinking about instituting (i.e. proposing, but what player would refuse?) an increased feat progression à la Pathfinder, i.e. handing out a character feat at every odd-numbered level. This scores 1 extra feat in the first half of the game (i.e. until level 10) and 2 more extra feats in the second half.

However, I would leave the feats as they are, and not split them up in the PF manner (which de-feats the purpose, imho).

Is that a good idea to cure the feat-starvation typical of many 3.X builds, or is it asking for trouble in some way?

FWIW, the group is going to be 3 PCs, probably 1 Crusader, 1 Cleric and 1 something else (maybe Factotum).

[Hirax]

If it doesn't imbalance party optimization levels I don't see a problem with it. It's going to affect some characters much more than others. It shouldn't be a problem with the 3 classes you named.

[Coidzor]

Well, no, I'd say you're not asking for your players to come up with abusive combos. You can do abusive feat combos just fine with the current set up anyway.

It makes it so one has some breathing room for non-shtick essential feats or that one can focus on one's chosen shtick a bit more closely though.

[Otherworld Odd]

Personally, I love how PF does their feats at every odd numbered levels. Sometimes it kills completely dead levels and it definitely makes a more interesting character when you have a feat or so to spare and you're not absolutely starving of feats. It definitely doesn't break the game at all. Go for it.

[Dsurion]

I don't generally play a game beyond level 6, but we give out feats every level. It's just strongly suggested that you should take some of the less good feats (Weapon Focus, Dodge, Stealthy et al) on occasions you wouldn't normally get a feat under the standard system, mostly just to promote some small degree of well-roundedness.

Haven't had a problem, and no player is going to refuse free stuff.

[Godskook]

Personally, I allow my players to spend xp to:

-Buy extra feats, at the cost of x thousand xp, where x is the number of feats previously purchased plus 1. (Capped at 10 total)
-Increase their point-buy, at the cost of current point-buy squared. (Capped at 30+lvl)
-Maximize their HD, at the cost of (lvl - 1)*250

So far, my players all like the system, and the only thing that has been 'unbalanced' is the MM, but no surprise there.

I also use the above to reward attendance and survival. New characters roll 3d6 for stats and are not allowed to spend creation xp on any of the above.

[Coidzor]

So far, my players all like the system, and the only thing that has been 'unbalanced' is the MM, but no surprise there.

The Monster Manual? :smallconfused:


I don't generally play a game beyond level 6, but we give out feats every level. It's just strongly suggested that you should take some of the less good feats (Weapon Focus, Dodge, Stealthy et al) on occasions you wouldn't normally get a feat under the standard system, mostly just to promote some small degree of well-roundedness.

...How are Weapon Focus and Dodge conducive to well-roundedness? :smallconfused: I can at least see an argument for skill check enhancing feats like Stealthy even if the extent to which they round out a character could be argued to not approach "well," but I can't see either of those others as helping make a character rounded to even a marginal extent.

[Godskook]

The Monster Manual? :smallconfused:

1.As in, I can no longer grab a CR 3 monster and expect it to be a CR 3 threat to these enhanced PCs.

2.I wrote that tongue-in-cheek, as if the MM was balanced to begin with.

[Eldan]

I'm not entirely sure how good the idea is:

Especially the fighter, but also a few other close combat classes, tend to run out of useful feats to take already, while the wizard can just keep buying more Arcane Thesis and Metamagic feats, which he can all stack on his already known spells. The fighter, on the other hand, just only has so many trip feats.

So, I'd say, good idea, if there are enough worthwhile feats for every class.

[Firechanter]

Thanks for the comments and suggestions so far.
I might consider restricting the extra feat slots to a limited list. I.e. at levels 7, 13, 19 you can't just pick any feat you might want, but are restricted to a list of "weaker" feats, such as Iron Will, Quick Draw etc. Or to minimize micromanaging, I might just say "only General feats" for these levels. No Metamagic, no Divine etc.

In return, feats that have an effective level 6 requirement (such as BAB 6+) are changed so you can actually take them at level 5.

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I think it's a good change. In my games, I combine it with Conan stat increases so you get something every level. (Except 2nd. Hmm.)

[Ernir]

What I've been doing lately is to increase the feat progression to what you're suggesting, but banning flaws. The net result is a gain of 1 feat, but what I was really after was making the characters less lopsided.

EDIT: You may want to keep in mind that DMM-Clerics (assuming Nightsticks don't stack or are not allowed) and FoI-Factotums reaaaally like their bonus feats.

[The Boz]

It's always a good idea to increase feat progressions. Especially if your group has Monks, Fighters, Rangers, Barbarians or other non-wtfpwnination classes.

[Eldan]

I'd actually claim the opposite: caster feats are usually just plain better than melee feats.

[The Boz]

Caster everything is better, and feats are no different... But Wizards get a boatload of feats as it is, and they also scale with spells... and non-casters scale with feats, which they don't get a boatload of, and they don't get spells...

[Firechanter]

Ah yes, the dear Conan stat increases... awesome rule for Conan, because you don't have magical stat boosters there. I'll consider porting these over to D&D, but we probably won't need them, starting with a 36 point buy.

Also, we don't use Flaws. Half of my group doesn't know they exist, and I don't like them. But very good point, considering many other groups allow Flaws and that does make for lopsided characters, just increasing the feat progression is probably a much healthier solution.

Moreover, we're going to be very careful about metamagic mitigation. I'm not sure if the Cleric player even knows DMM exists, and I ain't tellin'. If he does know, I'll try to come to an agreement with him what kind of technique is acceptable for DMM and what isn't. I'm pretty sure he doesn't know Persistent Spell at all.

[Curmudgeon]

Given there are hundreds of feats to choose among, and only a handful of feat slots, I don't think you're going to cause any significant problems except where metamagic is concerned. You've got to rein in that somehow.

[Godskook]

Moreover, we're going to be very careful about metamagic mitigation. I'm not sure if the Cleric player even knows DMM exists, and I ain't tellin'. If he does know, I'll try to come to an agreement with him what kind of technique is acceptable for DMM and what isn't. I'm pretty sure he doesn't know Persistent Spell at all.

I rule it simply:

"You can't mitigate what you can't cast unmitigated."

Thus, persistent spells don't show up until level 13+, and the good ones don't show up until 15+(2nd level is a really good level for buffs, oddly). This also changes mitigation into a resource saving system, rather than a "bypass rules" system.

[Gullintanni]

Given there are hundreds of feats to choose among, and only a handful of feat slots, I don't think you're going to cause any significant problems except where metamagic is concerned. You've got to rein in that somehow.

That seems simple enough. If you're houseruling anyway, "Excess feats gained as a result of the advanced progression must be used to purchase [General] feats."

This rules out Divine, Metamagic and Item Creation abuse...and it ultimately ends up benefiting melee more than casters this way IMO.

[Coidzor]

Given there are hundreds of feats to choose among, and only a handful of feat slots, I don't think you're going to cause any significant problems except where metamagic is concerned. You've got to rein in that somehow.

Well, the thing isn't taking the feats, it's using them there. So it seems quite easy to rein in with the same things that are used to limit it in other games.

[Firechanter]

Ah, I like the direction this thread is going.

I don't think we'll see usage of Item Creation feats in this game, as we're using a different system for gear. WBL is maintained in terms of gear value, but decoupled from actual monetary wealth.
In other words, I make sure that everyone is at WBL as much as possible. Even if a player took Item Creation he wouldn't be able to create more gear than his WBL would allow. Hence, I don't think anyone's going to take those feats.

Also, I like the other suggestion about limited MM mitigation, that seems to be a good compromise to settle for.

And I'll go with the previously mentioned idea that the extra feats have to be General ones.

[Curmudgeon]

That seems simple enough. If you're houseruling anyway, "Excess feats gained as a result of the advanced progression must be used to purchase [General] feats."
Is it really that simple? Extra Turning, used to fuel Divine Metamagic abuse, is a general feat. Augment Summoning and Spell Focus, entry requirements for many full casting prestige classes, are general feats. You're not reining in anything if there are general feats that a metamagic abuser also needs.

[Veyr]

I think it depends a lot on your level. By level 20, you probably have enough feats. If you're stopping play at level 8, though... 3 or 4 feats is really little.

So you should take that into consideration.

[Coidzor]

Is it really that simple? Extra Turning, used to fuel Divine Metamagic abuse, is a general feat. Augment Summoning and Spell Focus, entry requirements for many full casting prestige classes, are general feats. You're not reining in anything if there are general feats that a metamagic abuser also needs.

Fullcasting prestige classes aren't a problem vis a vis metamagic unless they're incantatrix, I had thought. Seems like it'd actually make things slightly less unfair to the Sorcerer, even, since they might be able to fix their class skills for qualifying on time for those PrCs that were made for them by people too lazy to check their class skill list.

DMM doesn't need extra turning, and, indeed, if you'd mind DMM getting an extra "Extra Turning" or two, why are you allowing it in the first place?

[Gullintanni]

Is it really that simple? Extra Turning, used to fuel Divine Metamagic abuse, is a general feat. Augment Summoning and Spell Focus, entry requirements for many full casting prestige classes, are general feats. You're not reining in anything if there are general feats that a metamagic abuser also needs.

Indeed you'll be able to fulfill pre-reqs more easily, but really, the most abusive caster builds won't have any trouble pulling out pre-reqs anyway. The problem is then not the additional feats, but the ease with which entering certain classes creates problematic class combinations.

Simply; approaching feats this way results in potentially dramatically stronger Melee, while making Casters lives admittedly easier, but not noticeably anymore powerful IMHO.

And you're correct that Extra Turning is still allowable in this case, but really, as Coidzor pointed out, if you're allowing DMM (Persist) to begin with, then the problematic aspect of DMM is not likely to be Extra Turning. If you consider DMM too powerful, then it will continue to be with or without Extra Turning.

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Ah yes, the dear Conan stat increases... awesome rule for Conan, because you don't have magical stat boosters there. I'll consider porting these over to D&D, but we probably won't need them, starting with a 36 point buy.

I really don't like magical stat boosters because they're not really optional. You either spend an inordinate portion of your ludicrous weeble on them, or you're incapable of holding up your ECL.

That, and I don't like large point buys. I don't want PCs to have superhuman stats until they're actually superhuman.


Also, we don't use Flaws. Half of my group doesn't know they exist, and I don't like them.

I don't like them, either. It isn't the extra feats that I mind, it's that they break the way the feat structure is supposed to function. That and they take what a character is already not good at and make him practically incapable of it; there's nothing wrong with having a weakness or two, but flaws make a character seem downright incompetent.


Moreover, we're going to be very careful about metamagic mitigation.

I like Godskook's rule.

[Veyr]

That, and I don't like large point buys. I don't want PCs to have superhuman stats until they're actually superhuman.
You mean like... at level 1? A level 1 Human Barbarian can break most world records for athletic feats, without even Raging, on a regular basis, while a Chain Shirt and brandishing a Greataxe.

[cfalcon]

Especially the fighter, but also a few other close combat classes, tend to run out of useful feats to take already, while the wizard can just keep buying more Arcane Thesis and Metamagic feats, which he can all stack on his already known spells. The fighter, on the other hand, just only has so many trip feats.

So, I'd say, good idea, if there are enough worthwhile feats for every class.

Pretty much this. Be sure you have feats for this. For instance, build a fighter 20 and see if he has to invest in too many entirely disparate things- if he does, then probably someone who can focus on one thing with the extra feats will be helped more.

Also, how much do your guys multiclass? If it's a lot, expect this to ramp that up even more.

I also like the odd number thing because it eliminates the "prime number, nothing to see here" issue.

At the end of the day, it's three extra feats over 20 levels. By 10th level, it's only one additional feat. Mostly, this is a high level tweak. I doubt you'll have big issues.

[Firechanter]

I really don't like magical stat boosters because they're not really optional. You either spend an inordinate portion of your ludicrous weeble on them, or you're incapable of holding up your ECL.


I'm with you there, but if you want to get rid of them and maintain ECL, you need a lot more than the Conan increases.

In D&D you are expected to acquire (over 20 levels):
+5 to primary stat from level
+6 to primary stat from item
+5 to primary stat via Tome
one to three more items for your secondary stats, +4 to +6
(or you get +6 to everything via belt)

In Conan, you get
+5 to primary stat from level
+4 to each stat (including primary) from level
not counting Wis increases from a certain dangerous spell

In other words, your primary stat falls 7 points short.
If you don't want ability gear, you need a whole new progression. The allround increases are fine, but the primary stat needs a better boost. Although the Tome +5 is usually acquired only at level 19 or 20.

[Hirax]

Depending on the intent behind this, one thing you might ocnsider is just letting people ignore pre req feats 3 or so times. So if they want to become a shadowdancer for instance, they won't immediately ignore it as a possibility because it requires terrible feats.

[Boci]

I rule it simply:

"You can't mitigate what you can't cast unmitigated."

Thus, persistent spells don't show up until level 13+, and the good ones don't show up until 15+(2nd level is a really good level for buffs, oddly). This also changes mitigation into a resource saving system, rather than a "bypass rules" system.

That seems a bit harsh. I would prefer requiering that the caster be able to cast the base spell + half the level adjustment.

[Firechanter]

Harsh? That's _normal_. You still get what amounts to a bunch of free spell slots, you just aren't able to cast what you never were meant to cast in the first place.

[arguskos]

I'm not entirely sure how good the idea is:

Especially the fighter, but also a few other close combat classes, tend to run out of useful feats to take already, while the wizard can just keep buying more Arcane Thesis and Metamagic feats, which he can all stack on his already known spells. The fighter, on the other hand, just only has so many trip feats.

So, I'd say, good idea, if there are enough worthwhile feats for every class.
Actually, with all sources, giving more feats is GOOD for martialists, since it means they can diverge into more than 1 trick. More than enough feats exist to do this, after all.

Personally, I give feats at 1, 2, 4, and every even level thereafter. It's effective, and no one has complained yet. :smallwink:

[FMArthur]

While spellcasters still unfortunately wind up with some more powerful feats, melee classes generally depend on theirs as the driving force behind their fighting style and overall power more than their own class features. This inequality of design (which is also the key difference between regular melee and ToB) means that melee does see more relative benefit out of extra feats than casters.

But make no mistake: it does not narrow the gap between them. Adding 30 to 100 may gain 30% compared to the 20% that 200 + 40 gains, but the difference between them has not shortened. The 100s of D&D just see the gains more easily.

[Boci]

Harsh? That's _normal_.

Yes, but you've invested resources to make it not normal. Maybe I just play at a higher optimization level than Godskook (although I doubt the difference is that big, could be wrong though), but that houserule seems to be directed at the most powerful forms of MMM, not the manner lesser options.

[Firechanter]

As I said, you still get a pile of free spell slots, which is a very good return of investment.

Also, to reiterate, this is supposed to be a T3 game, so unrestricted MMM is definitely not going to work towards that goal.

[Boci]

As I said, you still get a pile of free spell slots, which is a very good return of investment.

Three feats to be able have a few 2nd level buffs up all day by level 15? Not a very good return.


Also, to reiterate, this is supposed to be a T3 game, so unrestricted MMM is definitely not going to work towards that goal.

I wasn't advocating unrestricted MMM, just less restircted.

[cfalcon]

I would dispute that you are "expected" to fork over the cash for the +5 inherent bonus, or even honestly the +6 bonus item. However, they are there, for gold, if you are playing in the sort of game with Magi*mart- but you might instead choose to spend that gold on something else.

[dark.sun.druid]

I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea, but imagine what would happen if, for example, a player decides to play a human fighter. This would quickly result in more feats than there is room to put on a sheet anyway. Besides this, the rules for flaws presented in Unearthed Arcana (page 91) would allow them to focus down their build and get even more feats (albeit with a cost). Keep this in mind and consider if you have the type of player in your group who would abuse this system before you implement the rule. In the end, the choice is up to you though. I, as a player, would be grateful for the extra feats.

[Firechanter]

Three feats to be able have a few 2nd level buffs up all day by level 15? Not a very good return.


Well, DMM Persist may not be the best choice in this case. If I understand you right and you are talking about Extend, Persist and DMM. Even then, Extend is hardly a feat tax.

But maybe it does get a bit too narrow indeed... well, I don't need to make a final call on this now. Don't even know yet if the player is going for any MMM.

@cfalcon: how you get the items, whether you buy, find, steal them or win them in a lottery, is irrelevant. WBL is part of ECL. Keeping the PCs short just hurts the noncasters, and the casters just point and laugh at the paupers while being relatively even more awesome.

[Firechanter]

I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea, but imagine what would happen if, for example, a player decides to play a human fighter.

Heaven forbid, I strongly advise my players against such crappy classes and point them toward ToB instead.

Also, as I said, we don't use flaws, so no worries there.


---

Edit / Afterthought:

I forgot to mention, I am also thinking about giving _every_ character a choice of Domain according to their Patron Deity. (Clerics still only get 2 Domains, not 3.) The point is that also a noncaster character would gain the Domain power, where applicable.

Also, I wonder if there is a way to make Devotion feats, like Travel Devotion, more useful to characters without Turn Undead. Maybe give them a number of uses per day equal to the most associated ability? (Dex for Travel, Int for Knowledge etc.)

Thoughts on these?

[Rei_Jin]

Considering that the "Devotion" feats are powered by turning attempts, allowing non-turning PCs to power them by burning pseudo turn attempts would work... for example, if Kragnor the destroyer has a 16 charisma and wants to take chaos devotion, he'd be treated as having 6 turn attempts a day, so he could use the devotion ability 3 times per day (base 1, then each three turning attempts equals 1 use, so 2 extra).

Alternatively, you could make them basically Stances like they have in ToB, and you can use them in every combat, but you can't use more than one at a time.

[Metahuman1]

That would be a fine rule so long as you tweak the encounters a bit as needed too keep them challenging but not over whelming. I'm all for it.

[Coidzor]

Also, I wonder if there is a way to make Devotion feats, like Travel Devotion, more useful to characters without Turn Undead. Maybe give them a number of uses per day equal to the most associated ability? (Dex for Travel, Int for Knowledge etc.)

Hmm? Don't think Knowledge Devotion uses Turn Undead uses, and is just a skill check, which is why it's one of the more widely talked about ones for non-clerics, especially skillful ones. Don't really see any reason to put a per day limitation on knowledge devotion

[Godskook]

That seems a bit harsh. I would prefer requiering that the caster be able to cast the base spell + half the level adjustment.

And yet it is the loosest system I've ever heard proposed when I came up with it.


Yes, but you've invested resources to make it not normal. Maybe I just play at a higher optimization level than Godskook (although I doubt the difference is that big, could be wrong though), but that houserule seems to be directed at the most powerful forms of MMM, not the manner lesser options.

I came up with that rule *here*, on the playground. I doubt you've got a higher optimization level in your local group than what is provided in the home of the ToS. I kept it when I started my local game because I thought it worked so well.


Three feats to be able have a few 2nd level buffs up all day by level 15? Not a very good return.

You're marginalizing the benefit of the 2nd level spells, which is exactly when persist spell starts becoming overpowered.

[Boci]

And yet it is the loosest system I've ever heard proposed when I came up with it.

Yours or mine?


I came up with that rule *here*, on the playground. I doubt you've got a higher optimization level in your local group than what is provided in the home of the ToS. I kept it when I started my local game because I thought it worked so well.

Thats what I thought.


You're marginalizing the benefit of the 2nd level spells, which is exactly when persist spell starts becoming overpowered.

What ones are you thinking of?

[Firechanter]

Hmm? Don't think Knowledge Devotion uses Turn Undead uses

Duh. Sorry, brainfart. Was a bit late at my place when I wrote that.

[Godskook]

Yours or mine?

Mine, way back in the day.


What ones are you thinking of?

-Wraithstrike
-Mirror move
-Heroics
-Cloud of Knives
-X strike(vine, golem, grave)

To name a few.

[Boci]

-Wraithstrike

I'd just add a "No more than 5 attacks" clause.


-Mirror move
-Heroics

Those are powerful options, but heroics is limited to a bonus fighter feat whilst for mirror move you are limited to what those around you can do, so how does it compare to what you spent to get the MMM.


-Cloud of Knives

Seems's like a poor man's reserve feat.


-X strike(vine, golem, grave)

That's really not that powerful at all. If the party's caster wants to do that for the rogue I would probably give them a reward.

[Taelas]

Persisted Cloud of Knives is CL + key ability modifier to attack, dealing 1d6 damage + 1 every 3 levels every round, for free, for 24 hours.

Power Word: Pain, eat your heart out.

[Draz74]

Minor note: Factotum has two very boring dead levels in its otherwise-steady progression, 6 and 18. Normally, without multiclassing, it at least gains Feats at those levels. With the modified feat progression, they'll be even more boring.

[Firechanter]

Yah well, I'd mark that up as collateral damage. Some class will always have dead levels, some more, some less. Ever tried playing a 3.0 Ranger? :O
2 Levels out of 20 isn't so bad. Especially as I hear the Factotum is notoriously feat-starved, so the player should be thankful to have 2 dead levels in return for 3 extra feats. Thankful!

[Hirax]

Level 6 almost seems to consistently be a target dead level. I think the designers initially thought to themselves, 'wow! every class in the game has all 3 saves and their BAB go up at level 6, we totally can skip out on putting a class feature there.' That trait carried on to the end of 3.5.

[Veyr]

Note that this is in no way, shape, or form good design. That's also the level where PrCs start, and multiclassing means that class level 6 doesn't necessarily happen on character level 6. Pretending level 6 is not "dead" because of the character-level-based features at that level is poor design.

[Curmudgeon]

Minor note: Factotum has two very boring dead levels
Well, Rogue has two very boring dead levels, and you still don't get a feat at those levels in either system. :smallmad:

[Gullintanni]

Level 6 almost seems to consistently be a target dead level. I think the designers initially thought to themselves, 'wow! every class in the game has all 3 saves and their BAB go up at level 6, we totally can skip out on putting a class feature there.' That trait carried on to the end of 3.5.

Nah. The designers just had E6 figured out before the rest of us. They thought making 6 a dead level and tacking on 14 more pre-epic levels was a good way to screw with us. Y'know for teh lulz :smalltongue:

[Coidzor]

Minor note: Factotum has two very boring dead levels in its otherwise-steady progression, 6 and 18. Normally, without multiclassing, it at least gains Feats at those levels. With the modified feat progression, they'll be even more boring.

Feats don't change whether a class level is dead or not. This erroneous belief that they did is part of the reason for the problem in the first place.

[Godskook]

I'd just add a "No more than 5 attacks" clause.

Huh? That has nothing to do with the issues Wraithstrike causes.


Those are powerful options, but heroics is limited to a bonus fighter feat whilst for mirror move you are limited to what those around you can do, so how does it compare to what you spent to get the MMM.

Mirror Move is limited only by your DM's tolerance and Heroics. Also note that Heroics stacks with itself.


Seems's like a poor man's reserve feat.

For a master spell thief, its a free-action steal attempt. For other rogues(including arcane varieties with Hunter's Eye), its a free action attack with all the SA he has.

Essentially, it gives the equivalent of spring attack to anyone with bonus damage(PA PCs excepted, since they have to actually attack for theirs).


That's really not that powerful at all. If the party's caster wants to do that for the rogue I would probably give them a reward.

You misunderstood, this wasn't a list of separate spells for different occasions, it was a short list of buffs you could stack on the same person. Also:

-Hunter's Eye
-Alter Self

I really don't feel like going through the source books to find other spells, though.

[dextercorvia]

@Godskook

Most of those are Arcane spells. You mentioned DMM, which only works on divine spells. Only through Anyspell or similar are you going to get those DMM'd. That'g going to set you back two more levels, and tie down one of your domains, and still take an ACF.

[Godskook]

@Godskook

Most of those are Arcane spells. You mentioned DMM, which only works on divine spells. Only through Anyspell or similar are you going to get those DMM'd. That'g going to set you back two more levels, and tie down one of your domains, and still take an ACF.

1.I did no such thing.

2.Persist mitigation is available to arcane casters too.

3.Alternate source spell exists, in all its cheesy glory.

[dextercorvia]

1.I did no such thing.

2.Persist mitigation is available to arcane casters too.

3.Alternate source spell exists, in all its cheesy glory.

1. So you didn't. I was lumping your post in with the ones you were responding to.

2. Absolutely.

3. Unless I'm missing something, it is almost certainly going to cost a casting level. Southern Magician +Sacred Exorcist works though.

[balistafreak]

Responding to the OP, keep in mind that putting feats at different places can screw up feat prereqs. For example, one game I played in started at 6th level. I wrote up a ToB Warblade that used Snap Kick, which I took at 6th level and requires BAB +6. Then I found out that he wanted feats at every odd level, so I would have to take it at 5th level - but see, then I would only have BAB +5, and would be unable to take it.

I flailed around in irritation the entire day.

[Firechanter]

I flailed around in irritation the entire day.

Hilarious mental image. ^^

You're right, we don't want to delay progressions but improve them. So no worries, I'm taking care of that.
Feats with specific prereqs like BAB +6 or similar automatically get treated as if their prereqs were 1 step lower. So BAB +6 becomes BAB +5. This applies to all feats that can normally be taken only at levels 6, 12 or 18.