[3.5] Adaptive Style makes no sense x.x;

[My Oh Myke]

Edit: Aw, heck...I thought I was under 3.5 and I was under 'RPG'. ><; I can't move it now T_T

I've already read through this: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143087 Which is closed. But it's still confusing to me, so it will be confusing to my DM, so he will be angry and not let me do what I"m supposed to do. XD

In The Book:


With just a short period of meditation, you can change your maneuvers and tactics to meet the threat you currently face. Prerequisite: Crusader, swordsage, or warblade level 1st. Benefit: You can change your readied maneuvers at any time by taking a full-round action. If you’re a crusader, your current granted maneuvers are lost and you gain new granted maneuvers as if you had just readied your maneuvers for the day. Normal: You can change maneuvers only by spending 5 minutes to do so.

Official Online errata has no changes tot his I can see. To me, this plainly reads that if I have set 3 Maneuvers as Swordsage, and they're all not going to help me with this battle, I can take a full-round action and get a new set of maneuvers. If I already spent Maneuver A, I can't trade my current set of A, B, and C to get A, D, and E, and use A again. I already used Maneuver A, and it's 1/encounter, and this doesn't say it changes that in the text. That means it sucks and I'm sad. =(

The FAQ however says this:


If a character uses the Adaptive Style feat (ToB 28)
after he has expended some of his readied maneuvers, does
he choose new readied maneuvers equal to the maximum
number he can ready, or equal to the number he hasn’t yet
expended?
Using the Adaptive Style feat completely resets the
character’s readied maneuvers, making them all available for
use. If you’re a crusader, you also reset your granted
maneuvers.

To me, this means that if I picked A, B, and C going in, and I 'run out of MP,' Adaptive Style lets me refresh my 'MP' and use A, B, and C again. It doesn't let me trade B and C for D and E. Which makes it less 'adaptive style' and more 'lolMP'.

The thread I linked to says this:


Also, I believe if you have multiclassed into multipe Martial Adept classes, Adaptive Style allows you to re-ready all of your maneuvers for every class at the same time.


Again...this really isn't anywhere. I'd feel better if it was at least covered in errata. =\ This makes no sense to me, but as I read it, and if I was DM, I'd play it that I can trade my abilities, but they don't refresh. I'd rather it go the other way around, but some of those abilities are really killer.

If you multi-class TOB classes, why can't I refresh both classes maneuvers using one classes' refresh tactic?

for Warblade:


You can recover all expended maneuvers with a single swift action, which must be immediately followed in the same round with a melee attack or using a standard action to do nothing else in the round (such as executing a quick, harmless flourish with your weapon). You cannot initiate a maneuver or change your stance while you are recovering your expended maneuvers, but you can remain in a stance in which you began your turn.

Doesn't that make more sense, for one? there's no limitation built in. Maybe the classes were meant to feed off of each other? The penalty for this for a Sword Sage is that a 3/3 character has initiate level 4...while a 6/0 Sword Sage has initiate level 6. Takes you a while longer to build up your IL this way. Adaptive Style would then be for just as its title says, adaptation. "Aw, heck, where did this T-Rex come from? Too bad I didn't take any giant-fighting maneuvers!" humminahumminahummina "There we go! Time to kick some butt!"

So...am I reading the thread wrong, the book wrong, the FAQ wrong, or is this all just plain wrong? (And for god's sakes, who the hell wrote this to begin with? Don't they know who plays these kinda games? The kinds of internet fights we can get into over one little paragraph? Yeesh!)

[gkathellar]

Adaptive Style is a recovery mechanic contained in a feat. It restores all your expended maneuvers and allows you to shuffle your readied maneuvers as a full round action. "Expended maneuvers" are still "readied maneuvers," and by shuffling readied maneuvers you are basically performing a hard reset. So it does both at the same time. Also — the FAQ is not a reliable source.

As to your Warblade quote ... possibly? I'm not sure if that's a valid RAW interpretation or not, and I'm AFB.

[Sebastrd]

Adaptive Style is a recovery mechanic contained in a feat. It restores all your expended maneuvers and allows you to shuffle your readied maneuvers as a full round action. "Expended maneuvers" are still "readied maneuvers," and by shuffling readied maneuvers you are basically performing a hard reset. So it does both at the same time.

I don't see where it says that anywhere in the feat. Is there an official source that clarifies it?

[Hiro Protagonest]

You recover all maneuvers as a full round action and can trade any readied maneuver for another maneuver you have.

[MesiDoomstalker]

What Adaptive Style does: Lets you take a full round action to change your readied manuevers. Regardless of used or unused status. Now if you have used A and B out of your 3 available (A,B, and C) then a full-round to change it to A,D, and E. So why would A be still used? Your re-readying your manuevers, readying a manuever lets you use it as soon as your done readying it. So, indirectly, it resets your manuevers. Technically, you don't actually have to change your selection, just re-select your initial selection. Nothing in the feat specifcies you actually have to change it. But to avoid DMG's to the face, I'd change at least one manuever.

So, use it to quick refresh (and change a bit) of all your manuevers, from all classes as aplicable.

On the topic of recovering manuevers, if other class' recovery mechanic worked on all maunvers, they'd all dip Crusader. Auto-recovery every 4 (?) rounds is pretty swank.

[ThiefInTheNight]

With the feat, you ready maneuvers as a full-round action.

Your maneuvers are always available immediately after readying.

Adaptive Style is, by RAW and by apparent RAI, a feat-tax for the Swordsage to get a... well, a better recovery method, not that it's particularly good. Non-swordsages don't really need it.

[gkathellar]

I don't see where it says that anywhere in the feat. Is there an official source that clarifies it?

Look at the "Normal:" section under the main text. This makes it explicit that Adaptive Style mimics the effects of taking 5 minutes to ready a set of maneuvers.

[Keld Denar]

The reason refreshing your Warblade maneuvers doesn't refresh ALL of your maneuvers is context. The Warblade refresh mechanic is in the Warblade class description. Everything in that description is referenced WRT Warblades. Adaptive Style doesn't have that context, and doesn't require you apply it to a certain class or recovery mechanic, and thus would apply to all recovery mechanics.

[MesiDoomstalker]

With the feat, you ready maneuvers as a full-round action.

Your maneuvers are always available immediately after readying.

Adaptive Style is, by RAW and by apparent RAI, a feat-tax for the Swordsage to get a... well, a better recovery method, not that it's particularly good. Non-swordsages don't really need it.

Swordsage's recovery mechanic was a counterbalance for the insane number of manuevers they have and ready. Look at the ratio of known/readied to how quickly (or when it becomes neccesary to) recover maneuvers for other classes. Crusader auto-recovers, without an action, every 4 rounds and has the least known/readied. Warblade's spend a swift and then a standard action attacking (or doing nothing) and recover all their manuevers. So once every x round where x is manuevers readied. Which for Warblade is in between Swordsage's and Crusaders. Swordsages have a ton known and readied. If a Swordsage burns all of hismanuevers in an encounter past 6th level, I'd be very suprised.

[gkathellar]

Swordsage's recovery mechanic was a counterbalance for the insane number of manuevers they have and ready. Look at the ratio of known/readied to how quickly (or when it becomes neccesary to) recover maneuvers for other classes. Crusader auto-recovers, without an action, every 4 rounds and has the least known/readied. Warblade's spend a swift and then a standard action attacking (or doing nothing) and recover all their manuevers. So once every x round where x is manuevers readied. Which for Warblade is in between Swordsage's and Crusaders. Swordsages have a ton known and readied. If a Swordsage burns all of hismanuevers in an encounter past 6th level, I'd be very suprised.

That was certainly the intention, but along with other factors it leads to Swordsages being typically regarded as the "weakest" of the trio. Not that Swordsages are weak.

[ThiefInTheNight]

The three classes are very tightly balanced, but yes, the Swordsage's very-weak recovery mechanic (even after Adaptive Style) leaves them the worst of the three.

I have had many DMs make Adaptive Style a bonus feat for Swordsages; it nicely helps them out, while maintaining their 'weakness' that counterbalances their greater number of maneuvers readied (maneuvers known isn't so important usually), but even so they're probably still the weakest.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Swordsage's recovery mechanic was a counterbalance for the insane number of manuevers they have and ready. Look at the ratio of known/readied to how quickly (or when it becomes neccesary to) recover maneuvers for other classes. Crusader auto-recovers, without an action, every 4 rounds and has the least known/readied. Warblade's spend a swift and then a standard action attacking (or doing nothing) and recover all their manuevers. So once every x round where x is manuevers readied. Which for Warblade is in between Swordsage's and Crusaders. Swordsages have a ton known and readied. If a Swordsage burns all of hismanuevers in an encounter past 6th level, I'd be very suprised.

Swordsage also has 3/4 BAB and d8 hit die. They also don't get 2/3 of the best disciplines in the game, and the one they do get, Diamond Mind, can't be put to full effect since they're not optimal two-handed weapon wielders.

[ThiefInTheNight]

Shadow Hand is better than Diamond Mind, IMO, though Diamond Mind, Iron Heart, and Shadow Hand are very, very close in power. I agree about Devoted Spirit and White Raven, though.

[Eldariel]

Swordsage's recovery mechanic was a counterbalance for the insane number of manuevers they have and ready. Look at the ratio of known/readied to how quickly (or when it becomes neccesary to) recover maneuvers for other classes. Crusader auto-recovers, without an action, every 4 rounds and has the least known/readied. Warblade's spend a swift and then a standard action attacking (or doing nothing) and recover all their manuevers. So once every x round where x is manuevers readied. Which for Warblade is in between Swordsage's and Crusaders. Swordsages have a ton known and readied. If a Swordsage burns all of hismanuevers in an encounter past 6th level, I'd be very suprised.

Small nitpick but Warblades can use standard action to do nothing or they can attack after recovering; full attack is just as valid as a standard attack.


Shadow Hand is better than Diamond Mind, IMO, though Diamond Mind, Iron Heart, and Shadow Hand are very, very close in power. I agree about Devoted Spirit and White Raven, though.

Hm, Shadow Hand's strongest maneuvers are probably the Teleports. There's some decent stuff there but if you aren't completely Wis-focused, I really don't think the offensive stuff holds a candle to Diamond Mind.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Hm, Shadow Hand's strongest maneuvers are probably the Teleports. There's some decent stuff there but if you aren't completely Wis-focused, I really don't think the offensive stuff holds a candle to Diamond Mind.

Yeah, Shadow Hand's best trick is to use Shadow Stride + Shadow Blink + standard action strike or attack. Just make sure you have a Ring of Feather Fall.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Swordsage also has 3/4 BAB and d8 hit die. They also don't get 2/3 of the best disciplines in the game, and the one they do get, Diamond Mind, can't be put to full effect since they're not optimal two-handed weapon wielders.

I said it was a balance against maneuvers known/readied, not against the manuevers they actually know or anything else for that matter.

[My Oh Myke]

Thanks for the input guys, it does clear it up a little bit, even if its still a little vague to me. Knowing how it works though, I'll have to keep in mind which class I'm leveling when I go to pick new maneuvers, maybe pick the good counter ones under Warblade if I can so that when we fight something that keeps throwing me, say, Will Saves, I'm always ready to counter it, even if it means I have to trade a full round to get my pew-pews back.

[Godskook]

@OP, Adaptive style is clearly 'readying' as if you took 5 minutes to do so, but as a full-round action. You gain all the benefits associated with the 5-minute action.

@Anyone saying "Swordsages are the weak ones":

1.Early-combat action economy, especially in round 1, is more important than late-combat or 'endurance' action economy. Swordsages can saturate their early turns with more maneuvers and/or do so earlier than the other martial adepts.

2.Attribute dependency matters, and Swordsages have better attribute dependency than Warblades or Crusaders.

3.While its true that Swordsage only schools aren't in the top 3 schools, they get a whopping 6 schools, and can bring more maneuvers from their schools to bear within any single encounter. Warblades and Crusaders needed stronger schools just to keep up.

[Big Fau]

@OP: You may wish to read this. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=13292.0)

[navar100]

With the feat, you ready maneuvers as a full-round action.

Your maneuvers are always available immediately after readying.

Adaptive Style is, by RAW and by apparent RAI, a feat-tax for the Swordsage to get a... well, a better recovery method, not that it's particularly good. Non-swordsages don't really need it.

True, but Warblades have semi-interest in it. They quickly know a lot more maneuvers than they can ready and not be obsolete. It's difficult to choose what good ones not to ready. Adaptive Style helps in case they choose wrongly. Crusaders certainly don't need it. They start off readying all maneuvers they know. As better ones come along, those not readied while might still be good are quickly not really needed and soon obsolete.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Swordsage's recovery mechanic was a counterbalance for the insane number of manuevers they have and ready. Look at the ratio of known/readied to how quickly (or when it becomes neccesary to) recover maneuvers for other classes. Crusader auto-recovers, without an action, every 4 rounds and has the least known/readied. Warblade's spend a swift and then a standard action attacking (or doing nothing) and recover all their manuevers. So once every x round where x is manuevers readied. Which for Warblade is in between Swordsage's and Crusaders. Swordsages have a ton known and readied. If a Swordsage burns all of hismanuevers in an encounter past 6th level, I'd be very suprised.

It is possible if you are constantly using both boosts and strikes on the same round, heck it is even possible to use a boost, a counter and an strike on the same round, so it is perfectly possible and maybe even expected for a Swordsage to blow through their maneuvers quickly.

[MesiDoomstalker]

It is possible if you are constantly using both boosts and strikes on the same round, heck it is even possible to use a boost, a counter and an strike on the same round, so it is perfectly possible and maybe even expected for a Swordsage to blow through their maneuvers quickly.

Possible, yes. But practical no. Regardless of your mechanic (besides no-action Crusaders) you shouldn't just spam manuevers unless your confident that you will end the encounter before you run out. First 2 rounds of combat may be a bit early to recongize if you should start spamming or not.

[Big Fau]

Possible, yes. But practical no. Regardless of your mechanic (besides no-action Crusaders) you shouldn't just spam manuevers unless your confident that you will end the encounter before you run out. First 2 rounds of combat may be a bit early to recongize if you should start spamming or not.

Speaking from personal experience, the best time for any martial adept to use a maneuver is the first round of combat. It is also a good idea to use one in any round you have to take a move action to get to your opponent.

Spamming should be done against singular enemies, and only if you can't full attack for some reason (at least at the mid-levels).

[Runestar]

Swordsage's recovery mechanic was a counterbalance for the insane number of manuevers they have and ready. Look at the ratio of known/readied to how quickly (or when it becomes neccesary to) recover maneuvers for other classes. Crusader auto-recovers, without an action, every 4 rounds and has the least known/readied. Warblade's spend a swift and then a standard action attacking (or doing nothing) and recover all their manuevers. So once every x round where x is manuevers readied. Which for Warblade is in between Swordsage's and Crusaders. Swordsages have a ton known and readied. If a Swordsage burns all of hismanuevers in an encounter past 6th level, I'd be very suprised.

The problem is that for a swordsage, you typically ready a few more useful/powerful maneuvers, and the remainder are likely weaker or less useful ones. Or not all of them may be that relevant to that encounter at hand.

So the issue is not a swordsage running out of maneuvers, but rather, running out of viable maneuvers to use in combat. In this respect, he may be little better off than a warblade, who at least has the advantage of a superior full-attack routine in place of expending a maneuver.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Possible, yes. But practical no. Regardless of your mechanic (besides no-action Crusaders) you shouldn't just spam manuevers unless your confident that you will end the encounter before you run out. First 2 rounds of combat may be a bit early to recongize if you should start spamming or not.

Yes, you should use as many as possible. Swordsage's strength is not endurance. Warblades and crusaders are much better at that.

[MesiDoomstalker]

For everyone bashing me for my statments about Swordsages, I'm going simply off of what is printed and the probable reasoning for why a specific class has a feature versus another class. We all know how much WotC play test 3.5. I admit I may be wrong in my assumptions but they all I have (my group is firmly in the "melee can't have nice things" camp)

[ThiefInTheNight]

A Swordsage can blow through all their maneuvers very, very quickly. How meaningful that is depends on how much your game looks like rocket-tag.


True, but Warblades have semi-interest in it. They quickly know a lot more maneuvers than they can ready and not be obsolete. It's difficult to choose what good ones not to ready.
I disagree; martial maneuvers are rarely so specific that you go "Oh no, I don't need this one, I need that one!" As long as it's level-appropriate, it will probably be awesome. This is one of the major strengths of the system.

[Runestar]

Also note that adaptive style doesn't really refresh maneuvers. It technically lets you choose a new set, which is then made available to you.

The distinction is really fine, and for most part, has the same result, but would not work with abilities that trigger when you refresh maneuvers (to my knowledge, there is only one in ToB, that feat that lets you regain hp when you refresh your maneuvers).

[Hecuba]

Adaptive Style is, by RAW and by apparent RAI, a feat-tax for the Swordsage to get a... well, a better recovery method, not that it's particularly good. Non-swordsages don't really need it.

I do actually like using the more popular (and 'Ask Wizard' supported) reading of Adaptive Style as a quick and effective patch for Swordsage recovery. But I can't agree that it's RAW or RAI.


Your maneuvers are always available immediately after readying.

I don't actually recall that being true. I am, admittedly, away from book right now, but if I recall correctly, the rules for maneuvers being switched to unexpended are governed by:

1) Explicit recovery mechanics
2) The Beginning of encounter (with a caveat later in the book that there needs to be at least a 1 minute gap between encounters).

Thus, I'm of the (clearly minority) opinion that, by RAW, maneuvers you switch to with Adaptive Style keep the expended/unexpended state of the maneuver you switch it out for.



On the RAI front, it's important to distinguish design failures from design insanity. There are actually examples of feats in 3.5 where fairly fundamental class mechanics were substantially changed by a feat to address problems with a class. The poster child for this is Battle Blessing.

The difference is that Battle Blessing came years after the Paladin was introduced. The problem that it solved was apparent to the designers when they were developing Battle Blessing, not (presumably) when they were developing the Paladin. Battle Blessing was designed to solve (or at least partially redress) a problem that became apparent thru emergent play.

In contrast, Adaptive Style came out at the exact same time as the Swordsage. There was no differential in emergent game play, and no strong reason for such a patch to be presented as a feat (much less a feat that doesn't even mention the class in question).

A more realistic explanation, in my opinion, is that the authors merely underestimated how difficult they were making the Swordsage recovery mechanic. From the thousand foot view, the recovery mechanics and readied maneuvers are balanced in a fairly straightforward manner: the more maneuvers you have available from the start, the harder it is to recover them. It's an understandable and attractive balance paradigm (it’s the implementation, relative to the action economy, where it falls apart).

From another angle, while there are clearly intentional feat taxes in the game (as opposed to feat taxes whose value comes from elements of emergent play, like Power Attack), they are (by an inordinate degree) usually chains. A first level, self-terminating feat as an explicitly intended feat tax would be anomalous in the extreme.

[Runestar]

It is possible that adaptive style wasn't designed with the swordsage in mind. The way I see it, it might have been an alternative for warblades, what with their small roster of maneuvers readied.

In fact, I find that adaptive style is quite useful for warblades as well, ensuring they always have that 'ideal' selection of maneuvers for any given encounter.

For example, in a combat, delay initiative to go last, initiate moment of alacrity as swift action, then adaptive style to swap out moment of alacrity (and rearrange your maneuvers as you deem fit). In the 2nd round, your boost to initiative means you likely go first, somewhat compensating for the round lost earlier.:smallsmile:

[Basket Burner]

From another angle, while there are clearly intentional feat taxes in the game (as opposed to feat taxes whose value comes from elements of emergent play, like Power Attack), they are (by an inordinate degree) usually chains. A first level, self-terminating feat as an explicitly intended feat tax would be anomalous in the extreme.

PRC prerequisites. Many of them are things that no one, even those interested in the concepts of the PRC would take otherwise.

[Amphetryon]

In contrast, Adaptive Style came out at the exact same time as the Swordsage. There was no differential in emergent game play, and no strong reason for such a patch to be presented as a feat (much less a feat that doesn't even mention the class in question).
Adaptive Style and Swordsage also came out years after the initial 3.0 and 3.5 releases, where - to borrow a phrase - emergent gameplay had given designers who chose to pay attention the ability to see beyond the theoretical into how most gamers (at least those who post to forums or go to Cons) actually approach the system. Such insights would be good indicators that Swordsages and, possibly, Warblades could make better use of their abilities with a feat like Adaptive Style.


Thus, I'm of the (clearly minority) opinion that, by RAW, maneuvers you switch to with Adaptive Style keep the expended/unexpended state of the maneuver you switch it out for.Given that the text as quoted contains no verbiage specifically pertaining to 'expended/unexpended state' and merely says "change your readied maneuvers", I'd say that's definitely a minority opinion.

[Hecuba]

Given that the text as quoted contains no verbiage specifically pertaining to 'expended/unexpended state' and merely says "change your readied maneuvers", I'd say that's definitely a minority opinion.

The fact that that verbage is missing is my point. A maneuver being readied is necessary for it to be usable, but not sufficient. The act of reading a maneuver-- even baseline standard 5 minite version-- pointedly isn't noted as changing whether or not a maneuver is expended. The things that are:

1) Begining of encounter (with at least 1 minute since last encounter).
2) The class based recovery mechanics.


PRC prerequisites. Many of them are things that no one, even those interested in the concepts of the PRC would take otherwise.

I generally see those as that are well explained as purely thematic choices, but your point does have merit. Humm...

[Basket Burner]

I generally see those as that are well explained as purely thematic choices, but your point does have merit. Humm...

Dwarven Defender. Let's ignore that this class isn't worth taking regardless, and instead examine the prerequisites. Lawful Dwarf with at least 7 BAB? Fair enough.


Feats

Dodge, Endurance, Toughness.

Dodge: So you become slightly better defended against one target. When you would in all likelihood have plenty of defense already. Relatively speaking of course, enemies will still hit 95% of the time regardless.

Endurance: So you can sleep in medium armor. Such as Mithril Full Plate. Um, ok... But there are plenty of ways to model keeping on going that are better than this.

Toughness: 3 HP! Put them with the other 300.

Anyone who was interested in the class conceptually would not only meet those conceptual requirements without those feats, but they would not take those feats at all as they do not meaningfully help them to achieve their goal, which apparently involves losing footraces to crawling infants.

[navar100]

Dwarven Defender. Let's ignore that this class isn't worth taking regardless, and instead examine the prerequisites. Lawful Dwarf with at least 7 BAB? Fair enough.



Dodge: So you become slightly better defended against one target. When you would in all likelihood have plenty of defense already. Relatively speaking of course, enemies will still hit 95% of the time regardless.

Endurance: So you can sleep in medium armor. Such as Mithril Full Plate. Um, ok... But there are plenty of ways to model keeping on going that are better than this.

Toughness: 3 HP! Put them with the other 300.

Anyone who was interested in the class conceptually would not only meet those conceptual requirements without those feats, but they would not take those feats at all as they do not meaningfully help them to achieve their goal, which apparently involves losing footraces to crawling infants.

I see your Dwarven Defender and call with Initiate of the Seven Fold Veil.
Spell Focus (Abjuration) and Greater Spell Focus (Abjuration). The school with the fewest spells that have a save. The first one in the PHB is Dismissal for banishing outsiders, a niche spell you wouldn't prepare every day unless campaign specific and has no relation to the concept of the prestige class. There are Prismatic Wall and Prismatic Sphere, if anyone is stupid enough to try to walk throug hthem (other than Prismatic Dragons :smallsmile: ), but those spells don't come in until 15th and 17th level respectively. Those two feats are absolutely worthless.

I think Spell Compendium offers one abjuration spell with a saving throw at 2nd level. Still not worth spending two feats on.

[Basket Burner]

Exactly. It's hardly the only example, just the first one that I thought of.

[Hecuba]

Dwarven Defender. Let's ignore that this class isn't worth taking regardless, and instead examine the prerequisites. Lawful Dwarf with at least 7 BAB? Fair enough.

Dodge: So you become slightly better defended against one target. When you would in all likelihood have plenty of defense already. Relatively speaking of course, enemies will still hit 95% of the time regardless.

Endurance: So you can sleep in medium armor. Such as Mithril Full Plate. Um, ok... But there are plenty of ways to model keeping on going that are better than this.

Toughness: 3 HP! Put them with the other 300.

Anyone who was interested in the class conceptually would not only meet those conceptual requirements without those feats, but they would not take those feats at all as they do not meaningfully help them to achieve their goal, which apparently involves losing footraces to crawling infants.

You're commenting there about the mechanical effectiveness of the feats. I've always thought of PRC entry requirements as something that's been designed fluff first-- it's not a matter of whether or not the IoSFV is concerned with their spells being saved against, but rather whether the art is learnable without extreme focus on the mechanics Abjuration (which as a result, makes the occasional spell harder to save against).

But like I said, your point has merit: if I remember correctly, harder entry requirements were explicitly encouraged for more powerful PRCs in the section where they encourage DMs to design their own.

I still don't believe, however, that it undermines my point about swordsage recovery and adaptive style.

Start with the swordsage class recovery mechanic. I could very well buy that they found it ineffective in playtesting and decided it needed a buff. But they would have had to notice before press. At that point they could change the core mechanic. And if you expect a core mechanic of a class to be replaced at level 1, why would you include it at all?

Moreover, regardless of whether or not you think, by RAW, Adaptive Style DOES recover maneuvers, it's presented in terms of maneuver selection, not recovery. It's also not presented in terms of Swordsages.

So what you're arguing to there is that the ToB design team:
1) Believed before press that the Swordsage recovery mechanic was insufficient.
2) Decided not to fix it.
3) Decided to provide an alternative recovery mechanic as a feat but

a) Not mention Swordsages in the feat
b) Not mention Recovery in the feat

Edit: spelling again and again ang again. Gods, I cannot type tonight.

[Amphetryon]

Start with the swordsage class recovery mechanic. I could very well buy that they found it ineffective in playtesting and decided it needed a buff. But they would have had to notice before press. At that point they could change the core mechanic. And if you expect a core mechanic of a class to be replaced at level 1, why would you include it at all?For the same reason that there are (in theory) Druids that do not take Natural Spell at 6th level, I'd say. Some players are (in theory) going to be fine with the as-written recovery mechanic, and want a different 1st level feat for their character concept.

As Adaptive Style is also a prerequisite for Master of Nine, changing the recovery mechanic would have had a ripple effect on at least one PrC, as well, if we're working on the assumption that Adaptive Style would have simply replaced the default recovery mechanic of the Swordsage.

[ThiefInTheNight]

Also, Adaptive Style still serves a purpose — albeit a minor one, compared to its current role — if the Swordsage's recovery is changed to "full-round action to recover all current maneuvers."

At any rate, I maintain the concept that "readying" maneuvers does not make them "ready" to use is ... unlikely. I don't think that RAW supports that, at all, nor do I think it makes sense or was intended.

[Hecuba]

For the same reason that there are (in theory) Druids that do not take Natural Spell at 6th level, I'd say. Some players are (in theory) going to be fine with the as-written recovery mechanic, and want a different 1st level feat for their character concept.

As Adaptive Style is also a prerequisite for Master of Nine, changing the recovery mechanic would have had a ripple effect on at least one PrC, as well, if we're working on the assumption that Adaptive Style would have simply replaced the default recovery mechanic of the Swordsage.

There are a lot of non-theoretical druids that didn't take Natural Spell: specifically all druids that reached level 6 between the publication of the 3.0 PHB and the publication of Masters of the Wild. Like Battle Blessing, it was a responsive addition.

I'm not sure I follow your second paragraph: how would changing the swordsage recovery mechanic affect Adaptive Style's impact on MoN if Adaptive style just changes maneuvers without recovering them?



Also, Adaptive Style still serves a purpose — albeit a minor one, compared to its current role — if the Swordsage's recovery is changed to "full-round action to recover all current maneuvers."

At any rate, I maintain the concept that "readying" maneuvers does not make them "ready" to use is ... unlikely. I don't think that RAW supports that, at all, nor do I think it makes sense or was intended.

In a vaccum with just me, a character sheet, and an unknown mechanic called "ready," I would agree with you. But for ToB, it's quite clearly possible to have a maneuver that is both ready and expended.

It's also worth noting that Adaptive Style is the only time there would be a benefit to making readying also make everything unexpended: in the time it takes to ready maneuvers, be guaranteed have been out of combat long enough for the encounter based refresh rule to take effect. A rule saying "readying maneuvers makes them unexpended" would result in them being explicitly refreshed an extra (unnecessary) time for all situations except adaptive style.

[Acanous]

I'm reasonably sure they tossed in Adaptive Style to allow non-TOB melee classes the ability to refresh maneuvers.

Non-ToB Good BAB classes count as 1/2 initiator level, can take feats to gain strikes and stances respectively, and it's stated in the prestige class section that if you make the requisites, you still use the recovery methods from your base class.

TLDR: --Fighters prestiging into Bo9s classes have no recovery mechanic--
Adaptive style is a recovery mechanic.

[Amphetryon]

I'm not sure I follow your second paragraph: how would changing the swordsage recovery mechanic affect Adaptive Style's impact on MoN if Adaptive style just changes maneuvers without recovering them?It seems the difficulty following it stems from the fact that you don't read it as being a necessary feat to refresh maneuvers, or that it somehow doesn't do so. If the Swordsage's recovery mechanic were changed to mirror Adaptive Style, they'd have had no reason to include the feat. This would have eliminated one of the prerequisites to Mo9, changing its balance point from their design philosophy of paying for a PrC in (often badly approximated) proportion to how good it is. Clearer?

[Basket Burner]

You're commenting there about the mechanical effectiveness of the feats. I've always thought of PRC entry requirements as something that's been designed fluff first-- it's not a matter of whether or not the IoSFV is concerned with their spells being saved against, but rather whether the art is learnable without extreme focus on the mechanics Abjuration (which as a result, makes the occasional spell harder to save against).

But like I said, your point has merit: if I remember correctly, harder entry requirements were explicitly encouraged for more powerful PRCs in the section where they encourage DMs to design their own.

My point is that someone that is naturally focused on those sorts of things, Abjuration spells in this cases would manifest their focus in other ways, ones that make sense and that help them and that in many cases the prerequisites are often the exact opposite of what someone interested in those things would do. It is a feat tax. And often, it is not a feat tax that is part of a chain. Not that feat taxes that are part of chains are any better, quite the opposite.

And besides. The feat tax thing is far from universal. Dwarven Defender costs 3, and look where that got it. Many good PRCs either don't require any, or require one feat that you would be happy to take anyways.


I still don't believe, however, that it undermines my point about swordsage recovery and adaptive style.

Start with the swordsage class recovery mechanic. I could very well buy that they found it ineffective in playtesting and decided it needed a buff. But they would have had to notice before press. At that point they could change the core mechanic. And if you expect a core mechanic of a class to be replaced at level 1, why would you include it at all?

For the same reason that people planning for PRCs almost have to metagame their characters to meet requirements. Feat taxes. That is the point I was making.

[Hecuba]

It seems the difficulty following it stems from the fact that you don't read it as being a necessary feat to refresh maneuvers, or that it somehow doesn't do so. If the Swordsage's recovery mechanic were changed to mirror Adaptive Style, they'd have had no reason to include the feat. This would have eliminated one of the prerequisites to Mo9, changing its balance point from their design philosophy of paying for a PrC in (often badly approximated) proportion to how good it is. Clearer?

As ThiefintheNight noted above, Adaptive Style still serves a purpose even where it isn't used as a superior refresh mechanic-- specifically, it changes readied maneuvers. I don't see why that couldn't still function as a Mo9 entry requirement.

[Big Fau]

I'm reasonably sure they tossed in Adaptive Style to allow non-TOB melee classes the ability to refresh maneuvers.

Non-ToB Good BAB classes count as 1/2 initiator level, can take feats to gain strikes and stances respectively, and it's stated in the prestige class section that if you make the requisites, you still use the recovery methods from your base class.

TLDR: --Fighters prestiging into Bo9s classes have no recovery mechanic--
Adaptive style is a recovery mechanic.

Nope. The requirements of Adaptive Style are Crusader, Swordsage, or Warblade 1. They designed it to allow the classes to change their maneuvers readied in case they need something new to deal with a particularly difficult situation.

[Amphetryon]

Nope. The requirements of Adaptive Style are Crusader, Swordsage, or Warblade 1. They designed it to allow the classes to change their maneuvers readied in case they need something new to deal with a particularly difficult situation.

Won't work well for that purpose by Hecuba's reading of the RAW, though.

[Cieyrin]

So, from my gathering of Hecuba's reading, Adaptive Style is so you more quickly change maneuvers between combats, since you'll have all readied maneuvers actually ready when combat breaks again, since the beginning of an encounter specifies they're all good to go. That seems unnecessarily punitive, as time between encounters varies greatly to where that 5 minutes you'd normally take is not something anyone cares about unless the game institutes a pressing time limit on your accomplishing of a goal. Am I understanding that right? :smallconfused:

[Hecuba]

Won't work well for that purpose by Hecuba's reading of the RAW, though.

I don't see why not, since that's exactly what I read it to do.

My RAW point is that "readied" is necessary, but not sufficient to make a maneuver usable. "Unexpended" is also necessary, and only together do they become sufficient.

The 5 minute selection itself (and by extension Adaptive Style) are not noted as having any effect on whether or not a maneuver is expended.

Moreover, there is something (beginning of encounter) that is explicitly noted as making maneuvers unexpanded that (by simple chronological reasoning) would make such a feature unnecessary for the 5 minute option, but which does not provide similarly cover Adaptive Style.


So, from my gathering of Hecuba's reading [..]Am I understanding that right? :smallconfused:

Not quite. Reading a maneuver does not make it expended any more than it makes it unexpanded. It doesn't change that state at all. If you need a maneuver and don't have it readied, Adaptive Style will change that. What it will not change is whether or not the maneuver is expended.

So if you have Diamond Nightmare Strike readied and unexpended, and you need Wyrm's Flame, you can use Adaptive Style and then you can have Wyrm's Flame readied and unexpended. If you also have Salamander Charge readied but expended, that same use of Adaptive Style can also switch it to Avalanche of Blades, but it is still expended.

Or, to put it in M:tG terms (please, kill me now), it switches what is in the battlefield, but does not change whether things are tapped.

[Amphetryon]

I don't see why not, since that's exactly what I read it to do.

My RAW point is that "readied" is necessary, but not sufficient to make a maneuver usable. "Unexpended" is also necessary, and only together do they become sufficient.

The 5 minute selection itself (and by extension Adaptive Style) are not noted as having any effect on whether or not a maneuver is expended.

The distinction you're reading between "readied" and "refreshed" will, quite likely, render the question of which maneuvers are "readied" when facing with a new threat entirely moot, unless there's also opportunity to spend an additional action to "refresh" them. Forcing one of the party to spend part of the round "readying" maneuvers, and another to "refresh" maneuvers, effectively removes that combatant from the first round of combat, not considering any movement that may be necessary to engage once the initiative is rolled. So, first round of combat spent both "readying" and "refreshing" maneuvers, 2nd round spent moving to engage and hit once. . . .