Do Teamwork feats stack?

[Razz]

For example, four characters have the Shield Wall teamwork feat. A character increases their shield bonus if adjacent to an ally with a shield and the feat (+1 if light shield, +2 if heavy).

So, if 4 characters with heavy shields and one is adjacent to his 3 comrades, would his shield bonus increase by +6? (+2 for each ally) or does it not stack and remains at only an extra +2?

[Blave]

I'd say it's an additional +2 shield bonus to AC that specifically stacks with your shields normal bonus but NOT itself (i.e. other earby characters with the feat and a shield).
The wording is a bit wonky, though. However, all other teamwork feats that grant flat bonuses specify the kind of bonus they provide (mostly competence) which would mean they don't stack. So I think it's save to assume that shield wall isn't supposed to stack with itself either.

[Razz]

The way the wording sounds is that it doesn't "add" a shield bonus, it actually says the shield bonus "increases". Which means nothing's being stacked upon itself.

[Fatespinner]

I'd allow it, particularly as the Teamwork feats as a whole are generally viewed as underpowered to begin with. If you want your entire party (or most of it) to burn some feat slots on making this combo, I see no reason not to let it pay off.

[HappyDaze]

Fatespinner wrote:

I'd allow it, particularly as the Teamwork feats as a whole are generally viewed as underpowered to begin with. If you want your entire party (or most of it) to burn some feat slots on making this combo, I see no reason not to let it pay off.

So far as I can tell, the teamwork feats are best ignored if you're not playing an Inquisitor (and then you don't really need teamwork, just another warm body to stand there for most of the feats) or a Cavalier that grants the rest of the group the use of his teamwork feat(s).

[Cabe Tosscobbles]

Blave wrote:

I'd say it's an additional +2 shield bonus to AC that specifically stacks with your shields normal bonus but NOT itself (i.e. other nearby* characters with the feat and a shield).

The wording is a bit wonky, though. However, all other teamwork feats that grant flat bonuses specify the kind of bonus they provide (mostly competence) which would mean they don't stack. So I think it's safe* to assume that shield wall isn't supposed to stack with itself either.

Actually I think if a type is not mentioned, it is an untyped bonus. Untyped bonuses stack last I knew.... and gamewise it makes sense.... the feat basically means your allies are trained at using their shield to defend not only themselves, but their allies.

Also, the feat does not specify that only one ally can benefit from this ability, leaving reason to believe that the only parameter is that the ally must be adjacent.

[Daw]

I'd allow it.

Of course it had to say it increases, otherwise it wouldn't work at all. Gaining a plus 2 shield bonus from having Joe Medium-Shield next to you, would not stack with your own +2 bonus from your own medium shield, RAW. Increasing your shield bonus sidesteps that. So, fighting from second rank with a reach weapon makes you safe from non-reach attacks, and fairly well protected from reach attacks too. Feels right.

Of course I always felt that fighters should always count as having combat teamwork feats as long as an ally has it, since realistically, that is what they are trained to do.

[Artifix]

I wonder...

Does this mean because of Ratfolk's Swarming ability, you can get (assuming adjacent includes diagonal) an extra +17 AC?

[Deighton Thrane]

Or you could just be tiny, and gain +70 to AC, provided you're in a 36 man party.

[Artifix]

Deighton Thrane wrote:

Or you could just be tiny, and gain +70 to AC, provided you're in a 36 man party.

So what you're saying is we need to give a swarm this...

[Dave Justus]

Either you are adjacent to an ally with a shield and the feat or you are not. The condition is a yes/no.

Being adjacent to one ally makes it a yes. Being adjacent to a dozen allies still makes it a yes, but not any more of a yes than just with one.

If you satisfy the condition, you get the bonus.

[Claxon]

Nothing ever stacks with itself, so I'm inclined to say no.

Also Dave Justus has a point in which the functionality doesn't depend on number of creatures. It only depends on is there an ally present and what kind of shield do they have.

I think no matter what you can only end up getting the bonus once.

[James Risner]

Same source blocks two teamwork feats adding twice.

It doesn't matter that it says "increases" or "add".

[_Ozy_]

Claxon wrote:

Nothing ever stacks with itself, so I'm inclined to say no.

Also Dave Justus has a point in which the functionality doesn't depend on number of creatures. It only depends on is there an ally present and what kind of shield do they have.

I think no matter what you can only end up getting the bonus once.

Aid another stacks with itself.

[Claxon]

Sorry, I should have said the same type of bonus never stacks with itself except where specifically noted to (which is only Aid Another and Dodge bonuses as far as I know). Even then dodge bonuses from the same source wouldn't stack with itself because the same source isn't allowed to be applied twice.

Aid Another has a specific exemption for different characters providing an Aid Another bonus.

[James Risner]

_Ozy_ wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Nothing ever stacks with itself

Aid another stacks with itself.

I'm not sure how your post is helpful, especially considering you left out why it stacks:

Quote:

Multiple characters can aid the same friend, and similar bonuses stack.

So, again, nothing stacks with itself unless it says it does. Which Aid Another does.

[_Ozy_]

James Risner wrote:

_Ozy_ wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Nothing ever stacks with itself

Aid another stacks with itself.

I'm not sure how your post is helpful, especially considering you left out why it stacks:

Quote:

Multiple characters can aid the same friend, and similar bonuses stack.

So, again, nothing stacks with itself unless it says it does. Which Aid Another does.

You're not quite sure why my post is helpful when it was directly responding to a post that claimed that NOTHING stacks with itself?

I'll give you a hint. That post was wrong, and has since been corrected.

[James Risner]

I'll give you a hint, it's more clear and helpful to say nothing.

You'd be right 99.9999% of the time.

Your taking exception to the 0.0001% of the time, will lead people to think things stack with themselves.

Which is false, unless the specific thing says it does.

The whole reason we have people saying "does this stack?" is because they don't grok "nothing stacks" concept.

[_Ozy_]

James Risner wrote:

I'll give you a hint, it's more clear and helpful to say nothing.

You'd be right 99.9999% of the time.

Your taking exception to the 0.0001% of the time, will lead people to think things stack with themselves.

Which is false, unless the specific thing says it does.

The whole reason we have people saying "does this stack?" is because they don't grok "nothing stacks" concept.

Considering my post didn't say everything stacked, it was 100% correct.

Considering the post I responded to said nothing stacked, and was unqualified, it was 100% incorrect.

Considering how people already know the general rule that 'in general' like things don't stack, I fail to see how correcting an incorrect post is less clear and less helpful than letting is pass uncorrected.

Also, considering how many explanations there have been regarding stacking, and yet we still get people asking 'does this stack', I think you are completely inventing 'the whole reason' that people don't grok stacking.

The actual reason is that many things do stack, but generally like bonuses don't stack, unless they are untyped or dodge bonuses, unless those untyped or dodge bonuses are from the same source, unless the feat or ability says otherwise.

But sure, if you want to sum that up by saying "nothing stacks", feel free continue to be wrong.