How exactly does Adaptive Style work?

[MilesTiden]

So, I often see Adaptive Style listed as a Must Use feat for Swordsages, but I'm wondering how exactly it's that much of a benefit? From what I can tell, you can't use Adaptive Style to refresh used maneuvers, as you're not actually changing them. So you can use it to gain access to as of yet unreadied maneuvers, and as per the section on recovering maneuvers they are unexpended, but you aren't readying your already used maneuvers, so I can't see how they would get refreshed? Could someone shed some light on the subject?

[OldTrees1]

Many people are biased towards more powerful interpretations as a general fact.

Thus many people concluded that adaptive style refreshes all your maneuvers despite it being no more valid than your interpretation.

[RoyVG]

I believe it's that Adaptive Style changes your entire set of readied maneuvers and this, by default, means that they are available to use a.k.a. readied and unexended. Even when you have maneuvers expended, these are open to change as well, and therefore you can ready them again using Adaptive Style, just pretend you put them in a different maneuver slot. I know it's a crappy explanation, but that's the best I can give.

Still, it is up to the ones reading it, how this feat can be interpreted. Yours is valid as well, and considering the sheer number of manuevers a Swordsage has available, it is still a decent feat to take with that interpretation.

[Red Fel]

So, I often see Adaptive Style listed as a Must Use feat for Swordsages, but I'm wondering how exactly it's that much of a benefit? From what I can tell, you can't use Adaptive Style to refresh used maneuvers, as you're not actually changing them. So you can use it to gain access to as of yet unreadied maneuvers, and as per the section on recovering maneuvers they are unexpended, but you aren't readying your already used maneuvers, so I can't see how they would get refreshed? Could someone shed some light on the subject?

Short version: The FAQ (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20070731a) (which is admittedly taken with a grain of salt) notes that the switched maneuvers are immediately readied. Specifically:
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.
This is supported by the feat text, which notes that a Crusader using this feat is treated as though he just readied his feats for the day.

In other words, you switch out all of your maneuvers for any maneuvers known - which could include the exact same maneuvers - and they are then readied for use.

Yes, it's bad editing. But it's bad editing that allows a Swordsage to recover all of his maneuvers, by switching them out for the exact same ones only readied, rather than just a single maneuver.

[tyckspoon]

Well, Swordsages already have the largest gap between Maneuvers Known and Maneuvers Readied; as early as level 7 they know twice as many maneuvers as they can ready. If we take your interpretation as correct, then they can still use it as a 'refresh' of sorts - they just can't refresh into the same maneuvers they had already selected. I don't see any real strong textual support for the claim that you can't ready the same set of maneuvers you already had, tho, and since you grant that a maneuver readied via Adaptive Style is immediately available to use then that would be the only objection to using Adaptive Style to "refresh" instead of alter your readied maneuvers.

(There is admittedly also not much support explicitly saying you *can* re-ready the exact same set of maneuvers, but it would be a bit odd if re-readying with the normal mechanics forced you to change out everything. Which would be implied if Adaptive Style forced you to change everything.)

[Zaq]

It's a poorly-written feat. There are two main ways of interpreting it. First, there's the way that you laid out—If you have 7 maneuvers readied at most, and you've used 3 of them, you can swap to whatever 4 maneuvers you want, but you only get 4, because you've only got 4 remaining. Then there's the more permissive reading of it, which basically states that changing your readied maneuvers refreshes them, so you've got all your maneuvers that you want ready to go. The errata (what little there was) did actually go past the page that Adaptive Style was on without touching it, so we'll never know what the devs intended. So really, it's a GM call as to whether it refreshes your maneuvers for you.

I personally think that the interpretation that it refreshes your maneuvers for you is based mostly on the cost analysis of the feat, rather than the RAW reading of it. A full-round action in the middle of combat is a huge cost—many encounters only last 3-6 rounds, after all, and a full-round action in the middle of it means that you're not attacking, you're not moving, you're not doing anything. Given that you had to pay a feat for the privilege of doing this at all (and again, most characters only get about 7-8 feats in their entire career—significantly fewer than that when you consider that most campaigns don't reach high levels), it makes sense that the feat would let you refresh your maneuvers, because a feat is a big cost and a full-round action is a big cost, so you should get something for your investment.

In terms of strict RAW, it's shaky (but not so shaky as to be completely untenable), but under the interpretation that it doesn't refresh your maneuvers, the feat's basically useless. I don't know a single character who would be willing to pay a feat for the ability to spend a huge amount of time doing nothing but shuffling maneuvers without refreshing them. Even if that ability were offered without the cost of a feat, I imagine that it would come up only very rarely—to charge a feat for the privilege is not a good deal in anyone's book.

Ultimately, it's up to your GM. The rules are ambiguous enough that a GM can be forgiven for picking either side, really.