Stealth Synergy


Rules Questions


28 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.

How exactly does this feat work? It says " add all your modifiers to stealth". For a party of rogues w/ this feat, if those modifiers stack, those numbers are going to be sky high (like 50+). Seems OP; is the RAI that everybody simply takes the highest roll and adds their personal modifier?
More questions: does this work in combat? Say you roll a 5, hide, and your buddy rolls a 20. No what? Does his roll retroactively apply to you? Do you need a better perception than his stealth, even if he started his turn in plain sight of you?
Has anyone ever taken this? How did you houserule it?


Player A: Stealth modifier +10, Die roll= 15
Player B: Stealth modifier +5. Die roll= 5

Player A total= 15 (die) +10 (modifier)= 25

Player B total= 5 (modifier) +10 (die)= 15


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Player A: Stealth modifier +10, Die roll= 15

Player B: Stealth modifier +5. Die roll= 5

Player A total= 15 (die) +10 (modifier)= 25

Player B total= 5 (modifier) +10 (die)= 15

That's about what I thought.

What about the order, though? Say player A goes first (which is likely, because he has the higher modifier, so probably has the higher Initiative bonus). He rolls a 1. If A and B are intending to make use of the Feat this round, does B roll on A's turn, and now we take the better of the two rolls? If so, what if something happens after A's turn but before B's that precludes him making a stealth roll. Like, A has 1 HP and is about to get killed and B has 150 HP and wants to jump and take the hit for his friend. Or B falls down a trap door. Or gets killed by lightning. What happens to A's stealth roll if B doesn't make one or doesn't decide to make one? Is this feat only for non-combat?


If they're doing it in combat I'd make the two synch their initiatives to the lowest one.

Sovereign Court

I brought this up in an earlier thread, and while not many (if any) agreed with me I'm still conviced that it reads that you add all modifiers to the highest roll.

PRD wrote:
Stealth Synergy (Teamwork)
Working closely with an ally, you are able to move like twin shadows.

Benefit: While you can see one or more allies who also have this feat, whenever you and your allies make a Stealth check, you all take the highest roll and add all your modifiers to Stealth.

The key verbage is 'add all your modifiers'. That to me strongly implies it works like:

Player A: Stealth modifier +10, Die roll= 15
Player B: Stealth modifier +5. Die roll= 5

So both players take the highest roll (15) and add all modifiers (+10 and +5) for a result of 30 for both Players.

If they meant to add only one player's modifiers they should have left out 'all' in the verbage. You always add 'all' modifiers to a single roll, why specifiy it unless you mean 'all your' as in the plural form of your, as in 'all y'all's modifiers'.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

As far as i understood, all partymembers who share this feat can use the highest available stealth modifier.
In my group that would be mine, giving everyone +40 Stealth - individual Armor check penalty. Combat or initiative don´t matter.
Neither does death or whatever happens to the character providing the bonus as long as the others stay hidden.
When they come out of stealth or are detected, then the bonus is lost if the providing character is not there anymore.
I would say you need to be in the group, physically at least in close sight or somehow mentally linked, to have that bonus.
Also you could argue about applying it again in combat.
Perhaps if two characters are out of sight or have a distraction, but surely not in the heat of combat and plain sight.


Stealth Synergy:
Working closely with an ally, you are able to move like twin shadows.

Benefit: While you can see one or more allies who also have this feat, whenever you and your allies make a Stealth check, you all take the highest roll and add all your modifiers to Stealth.


Could this be used in combat?

The wording seems a little cumbersome in combat because of initiative order and the fact that its generally difficult to use stealth outside of the surprise round. Unless you have an ability such as Hide in Plain Sight, or a similar ability, you will probably be stuck without it.

I was thinking of suggesting this feat for my group's Shadow bloodline Sorcerer and my Shadowdancer who both [effectively] have HiPS. But lets look at the situation.

Initiative order:
Player A (Shadowdancer)
Monster I
Player B (Sorcerer)

Player A: uses HiPS as he spring attacks, trips then uses HiPS as he moves away.
Monster I: Gets up and picks his nose
Player B: Casts a spell, then uses HiPS as he scampers in a random direction.

You have three instances where a character uses stealth. What happens?
A) Nothing. They didn't use stealth at the same time (see "and" in feat description) so they do not benefit from the feat.

B) Nothing in Character A's turn as Character B is flat footed and not stealthed. But during Character B's turn they both get to roll and take the best result.

C) They both get to roll stealth three times.

Is there an Errata on this?


Hayato Ken wrote:

As far as i understood, all partymembers who share this feat can use the highest available stealth modifier.

In my group that would be mine, giving everyone +40 Stealth - individual Armor check penalty. Combat or initiative don´t matter.
Neither does death or whatever happens to the character providing the bonus as long as the others stay hidden.
When they come out of stealth or are detected, then the bonus is lost if the providing character is not there anymore.
I would say you need to be in the group, physically at least in close sight or somehow mentally linked, to have that bonus.
Also you could argue about applying it again in combat.
Perhaps if two characters are out of sight or have a distraction, but surely not in the heat of combat and plain sight.

See, I would love for it to work like this, but it's just wishful thinking. How does a barbarian benefit because the goblin is small and has chameleon- like skin? How does a fighter benefit from a wizard being invisible (and not moving) just because he drank a see invisibility potion? To the tune of a +40 to stealth for both?

I would certainly hate for my DM to ambush us with a party of hill giants that we can't see hitting us because they work for a reduced, invisible tiny halfling alchemist who's provided them with See Invisibility potions. And he's the type to do it.
This feat looks like a great idea but I still really don't know how it works in practice. Can we get an official Paizo rep to weigh in?

Sovereign Court

6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
joeyfixit wrote:


See, I would love for it to work like this, but it's just wishful thinking. How does a barbarian benefit because the goblin is small and has chameleon- like skin? How does a fighter benefit from a wizard being invisible (and not moving) just because he drank a see invisibility potion? To the tune of a +40 to stealth for both?
I would certainly hate for my DM to ambush us with a party of hill giants that we can't see hitting us because they work for a reduced, invisible tiny halfling alchemist who's provided them with See Invisibility potions. And he's the type to do it.
This feat looks like a great idea but I still really don't know how it works in practice. Can we get an official Paizo rep to weigh in?

Well there's rules as written and rules as intended. (RAW vs RAI). I said how I thought it was RAW. As far as RAI, it's not just wishful thinking.

How else would a feat represent the ability of someone skilled in stealth to direct (and time) the moves of his less skilled comrades, to include providing distractions to compensate for glaring mistakes of Sir Clanks-alot? Surely something along this train of thought could be done, and it's not by any means a stretch to say it could be done. A feat worded the way I say it is (RAW) would do exactly this.

As far as the (yet unvoiced, but suspected to be harbored) opinion that it'd be overpowered... it doesn't even work unless all members pay the rather steep feat tax.. or be given out via a tactician (who are prone to be Sir-Clanks-Alots to begin with and unlikely to be giving it out anyway..)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

There is a lot of room for interpretations, so i FAQéd it.

Normally i look at things from a cheesy side and a very strict side.
I can´t see the halfling +4 and the Ring of Chameleon applying to the others either. Skill Focus stealth would be fine and all the ranks too.

Of course all need to have the feat or some Inquisitor (ours is thinking about it for that very reason).
Also be together and see each other. Clear thing.
Inside of combat though...
...don´t think last example with shadowdancer and sorcerer would be working. Maybe RAW yes, but RAI not.

I would say in combat it an only work if the characters are very close and all participating helped by a distraction (bluff/feint/smokebomb/darkness/whatever).

Come to think about it: "you all take the highest roll and add all your modifiers to Stealth".
That means all dice and all can share the highest roll. Ok.
But add all your modifiers?
Add the individual modifiers to that roll?
Add the modifiers of all participating chars to that roll?
Guess the clearance needs to be in this part of the sentence.
I would say add the highest modifier, not add up the modifiers of the group, but thats how its written i guess.
What is a modifier then?
On the official Paizo character sheet i can read Total bonus, ability modifier, ranks and misc modifier. So add ability and misc modifiers?
And what about Armor check Penalty? Add that up too?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dessio wrote:


Well there's rules as written and rules as intended. (RAW vs RAI). I said how I thought it was RAW. As far as RAI, it's not just wishful thinking.

How else would a feat represent the ability of someone skilled in stealth to direct (and time) the moves of his less skilled comrades, to include providing distractions to compensate for glaring mistakes of Sir Clanks-alot? Surely something along this train of thought could be done, and it's not by any means a stretch to say it could be done. A feat worded the way I say it is (RAW) would do exactly this.

As far as the (yet unvoiced, but suspected to be harbored) opinion that it'd be overpowered... it doesn't even work unless all members pay the rather steep feat tax.. or be given out via a tactician (who are prone to be Sir-Clanks-Alots to begin with and unlikely to be giving it out anyway..)

It's not meant to be allow non-stealthers to magically be as amazing as the rogue with full ranks and a ring of chameleon. It allows two (or more) stealthies to help each other go unnoticed by lowering the chances one will roll low and ruin it for everyone. As far as RAW its not saying what you think it is.

"... you all take the highest roll and add all your modifiers to Stealth."
Part I: "...you all take the highest roll"
Every character with this feat rolls and the highest one goes for everyone.

Part II: "add all your modifiers to Stealth."
"your" here is not plural, its singular. Quite opposite to what you mean, and the limiter to prevent what you're trying to do.

Of course, if your DM lets you get away with that more power to you. But when he starts using it against you, good luck.

Sovereign Court

Alwaysafk wrote:

As far as RAW its not saying what you think it is.

Not to be overly contrary but I have to disagree. Shall we fishbone diagram the sentance? I'm not good enough at teh internets to import a slick graph but I'll try to walk through it as concisely as possible.

While you can see one or more allies who also have this feat, whenever you and your allies make a Stealth check, you all take the highest roll and add all your modifiers to Stealth.

For the purposes of this discussion we can leave the clause in italics out as it's not under any sort of disagreement.

The disagreement falls under the worlds in bold. An unfortunate feature of the english language is that the possessive singluar pronoun is the exact same word as the possessive plural pronoun (Your).

So when you see the word 'your' in a sentance, it in of itself does not denote whether it means plural or singular, and you have to look at the rest of the sentance (or clause) to determine which is intended. The way this is done is to look at the subject of the clause (in this case, 'you all', and is unmistakenly plural with the addition of 'all'). Since in this sentance clause, 'you' was clearly meant to mean plural, 'your' used later in the same clause will also mean plural.

Now I'll agree it's certainly possible Paizo's writers intended for 'all your' to mean singular, but if so they were fail on English 101 and that's not what they technically wrote.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dessio wrote:
Now I'll agree it's certainly possible Paizo's writers intended for 'all your' to mean singular, but if so they were fail on English 101 and that's not what they technically wrote.

It *is* what they technically wrote. As you pointed out yourself, they technically wrote it both ways.

A clearer way would be:
"you all take the highest roll and each add all your modifiers to Stealth."

The idea that all the modifiers from each participant stack together is a bit far-fetched. A group of 5 1st level goblin rogues could make well over a 100 DC stealth check. Paizo simply does not design anything to create such impossibly high checks.

Player A: Stealth modifier +10, Die roll= 15
Player B: Stealth modifier +5. Die roll= 5

So both players take the highest roll (15) and each add all modifiers (+10 and +5) for a result of 25 and 20 for A & B respectively.

Sovereign Court

Majuba wrote:

It *is* what they technically wrote. As you pointed out yourself, they technically wrote it both ways.

No, what they wrote is arguable, and when arguable (or ambiguous) you can always revert to the rules of grammar for final ultimate say so (barring a FAQ or Paizo ruling).

Let's use the another sentance structured the same way in an illustrative example:

You all find the biggest cupcake, and add all your sprinkles to the icing.

Now, lets assume you have 2 people looking for cupcakes and each has some sprinkles. Does it mean that one person makes sure to get all his sprinkles on the icing, or that both people apply their sprinkles?

TECHNICALLY, the latter. But the sentance could clearly be better written, but as is, it means both apply sprinkles (or in the original case, modifiers). Room for confusion for sure as both readings could be correct, but at the end of the day there is only one MOST correct reading.


Majuba wrote:

Player A: Stealth modifier +10, Die roll= 15

Player B: Stealth modifier +5. Die roll= 5

So both players take the highest roll (15) and each add all modifiers (+10 and +5) for a result of 25 and 20 for A & B respectively.

I agree. I think it reads basically like this:

Stealth Synergy (Teamwork)
Working closely with an ally, you are able to move like twin shadows.

Benefit: While you can see one or more allies who also have this feat, whenever you and your allies make a Stealth check, each participant uses the highest roll of any participant. They would still use their personal stealth modifier.

Sovereign Court

Majuba wrote:


A clearer way would be:
"you all take the highest roll and each add all your modifiers to Stealth."

We both agree here- whichever way Paizo meant the rule to be read, they could (or should) have written it better.

Indeed we also agree that at gaming tables the GM's opinion will be final say so, but in OP play GM doesn't get to make his own rulings, which is where there's room for argument about what is more correct.


Dessio wrote:
Majuba wrote:

It *is* what they technically wrote. As you pointed out yourself, they technically wrote it both ways.

No, what they wrote is arguable, and when arguable (or ambiguous) you can always revert to the rules of grammar for final ultimate say so (barring a FAQ or Paizo ruling).

Let's use the another sentance structured the same way in an illustrative example:

You all find the biggest cupcake, and add all your sprinkles to the icing.

Now, lets assume you have 2 people looking for cupcakes and each has some sprinkles. Does it mean that one person makes sure to get all his sprinkles on the icing, or that both people apply their sprinkles?

TECHNICALLY, the latter. But the sentance could clearly be better written, but as is, it means both apply sprinkles (or in the original case, modifiers). Room for confusion for sure as both readings could be correct, but at the end of the day there is only one MOST correct reading.

Either way, no DM in his right mind would allow your interpretation for reasons already stated. Imagine a group of level 10 rogues in a city with the HiPS advanced rogue talent and using this feat. Each has at least +20 to stealth. Outside of blindsight (or similar ability0 an equivalent level party would never be able to see them or mount a decent defense. I believe that this is a situation where the publishers wrote down what they were saying aloud without caring for grammar. Marked for FAQ as well.

Hayato Ken wrote:

don´t think last example with shadowdancer and sorcerer would be working. Maybe RAW yes, but RAI not.

I would say in combat it an only work if the characters are very close and all participating helped by a distraction (bluff/feint/smokebomb/darkness/whatever).

I don't see why it wouldn't work RAI, they did both take the teamwork feat. I'd assume they were doing something as part of the attack or movement to assist.


Dessio wrote:
joeyfixit wrote:


See, I would love for it to work like this, but it's just wishful thinking. How does a barbarian benefit because the goblin is small and has chameleon- like skin? How does a fighter benefit from a wizard being invisible (and not moving) just because he drank a see invisibility potion? To the tune of a +40 to stealth for both?
I would certainly hate for my DM to ambush us with a party of hill giants that we can't see hitting us because they work for a reduced, invisible tiny halfling alchemist who's provided them with See Invisibility potions. And he's the type to do it.
This feat looks like a great idea but I still really don't know how it works in practice. Can we get an official Paizo rep to weigh in?

Well there's rules as written and rules as intended. (RAW vs RAI). I said how I thought it was RAW. As far as RAI, it's not just wishful thinking.

How else would a feat represent the ability of someone skilled in stealth to direct (and time) the moves of his less skilled comrades, to include providing distractions to compensate for glaring mistakes of Sir Clanks-alot? Surely something along this train of thought could be done, and it's not by any means a stretch to say it could be done. A feat worded the way I say it is (RAW) would do exactly this.

As far as the (yet unvoiced, but suspected to be harbored) opinion that it'd be overpowered... it doesn't even work unless all members pay the rather steep feat tax.. or be given out via a tactician (who are prone to be Sir-Clanks-Alots to begin with and unlikely to be giving it out anyway..)

Steep feat tax? It's one feat with no prereqs, no?

Sovereign Court

joeyfixit wrote:


Steep feat tax? It's one feat with no prereqs, no?

Maybe not so steep as some others, but still worse than you make it sound. One feat yes, no prereqs to have it, but it has a steep prereq to work.. that being everyone else also has to take it. The tax goes up the larger the group.. 3 feats to sneak a 3 man group, and so on.


Dessio wrote:
joeyfixit wrote:


Steep feat tax? It's one feat with no prereqs, no?
Maybe not so steep as some others, but still worse than you make it sound. One feat yes, no prereqs to have it, but it has a steep prereq to work.. that being everyone else also has to take it. The tax goes up the larger the group.. 3 feats to sneak a 3 man group, and so on.

So you want it... for free? Or you just disagree with the concept of teamwork feats altogether?


Dessio wrote:
joeyfixit wrote:


Steep feat tax? It's one feat with no prereqs, no?
Maybe not so steep as some others, but still worse than you make it sound. One feat yes, no prereqs to have it, but it has a steep prereq to work.. that being everyone else also has to take it. The tax goes up the larger the group.. 3 feats to sneak a 3 man group, and so on.

3 feats out of a group of three that would make them impossible to detect.

It's a teamwork feat. Other people taking it is kind of the point. Your interpretation would still make it completely nuts.

I'm still wondering if you can use it in combat at all. After all, two people don't make stealth checks on the same turn unless they are both hidden and someone is making a perception check to spot them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alwaysafk wrote:
Dessio wrote:
joeyfixit wrote:


Steep feat tax? It's one feat with no prereqs, no?
Maybe not so steep as some others, but still worse than you make it sound. One feat yes, no prereqs to have it, but it has a steep prereq to work.. that being everyone else also has to take it. The tax goes up the larger the group.. 3 feats to sneak a 3 man group, and so on.

3 feats out of a group of three that would make them impossible to detect.

It's a teamwork feat. Other people taking it is kind of the point. Your interpretation would still make it completely nuts.

I'm still wondering if you can use it in combat at all. After all, two people don't make stealth checks on the same turn unless they are both hidden and someone is making a perception check to spot them.

Another valid point - perception. If all the modifiers stack with each other and the highest roll, the stealth score is going to quickly outpace team synergy's perception.

So say we take three 1st level goblin rogues. Their combined stealth modifiers are 50 (16+18+16). They each roll a stealth and the highest roll is a 15. So they now each have a stealth DC of 65, by Dessio's RAW interpretation. How do they continue to see each other? Darkvision or no, stealth isn't selective; there isn't anything in the skill description about being able to be seen by teammates.

It strikes me as completely impossible for these gobs to have a perception score anywhere near +45 without significant magical help (which implies that they don't need the feat and/or it's not necessary for them to sneak around anyway). So how do they see each other? The feat requires the teammates to see each other, but provides no percep bonus to do so. And in all likelihood most stealthy characters will have a better stealth than perception, except maybe inquisitors. And even they are unlikely to be able to keep up with a stealth score boosted by the feat.

In or out of combat, this feat makes less and less sense when you try to scrutinize it. Has ANYONE out there ever used it? If so, how did it work?

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
joeyfixit wrote:


So say we take three 1st level goblin rogues. Their combined stealth modifiers are 50 (16+18+16). They each roll a stealth and the highest roll is a 15. So they now each have a stealth DC of 65, by Dessio's RAW interpretation.

Is that really such a bad thing? In this case it's 3 goblins who have no feat except Stealth Syngergy. There's only so much damage they can do.. and if we're talking about low level PC opposing these goblins, they'd likely have made their stealth anyway and had they not had stealth synergy they could have had any other feats to take advantage of their successful sneaks.

Is it really too much to grant that a team of rogues, working together with well-practiced teamwork, can expect to be successful on a steath test? We're getting into opinion here rather than the reading of the words, but I think this is where the difference truly lies.

If we're talking about a case of rogues 'doing the impossible' such as sneaking across a brightly lit empty room whilst tireless sentinels are tasked with watching for people sneaking through the room, you also have to remember that a d20 roll doesn't 'grant the impossible' just because you roll a d20. A GM is fully within his rights to say that no, sorry, in certain situations that an attempted action has no chance of success, no matter what your mods and roll is, and stealth with stealth synergy is no exception. Indeed, this principle can be expanded upon. If these goblins wanted to sneak past the Queen's guard posted outside her bedchambers, there's no reason the GM can't give a hefty situational penalty to the stealth checks to sneak through the door (since that's what the guards are focusing on), rather than simply past the guards down the hallway.

Perceiving each other: That's a good point, but I think the way most tables play you don't need to roll perception checks on each other excepting invisibility or blindness shenanigans. I believe that in most people's opinions, party communication (if not prior coordination) allows for PCs to know what each other are up to. Since we're delving into what we who didn't write the rule are saying what those who wrote the rule were thinking, I'll throw out there that the caveat requireing participants to see each other is merely a restriction against using Invisibility magic with the feat (without also using see invisibility).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This came up in my game this past Saturday night. After some looking, I also agree that it should be FAQ'ed.

I also think that all it lets you do is take your d20 roll or an ally's d20 roll, whichever is greater. I don't think it means that you add everyone's Stealth modifier to the best roll and use that.

In this instance, I think the abbreviated description on the Feats Table describes what it does better than the full text:

"Take the highest roll made by you and your allies on Stealth checks"

That says it all, to me. It's like one of those feats that lets you roll twice and take the best result, only in this case, instead of you making both rolls you roll once and your ally rolls once, and you take the best result. In the case of the Solo Tactics class ability, you just have a wider range of rolls to choose from.


I've come up against the same issue. Some things to consider:

In the case where you DO get your buddies' modifiers (aka, the ridiculous example) don't forget that most same-type bonuses are not cumulative. E.g. You could only apply the +3 trained bonus once, the Dex bonus once, the Rank bonus once...

Even then, it's still suspiciously good, considering a level 3 inquisitor, or anyone enabled by a level 1 cavalier's tactician ability could be getting a +12 size bonus and a +4 racial bonus from a toad familiar.

joeyfixit's point about the fact you have to continue to be able to continuously perceive your ridiculously-well-hidden allies seems correct, and funny :)


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Looking for some understanding myself, since I'm considering taking this feat for my hunter. FAQ'd.


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

To me there is a clear interpretation and every other interpretation I have seen makes no sense.
It is You have 3 characters
A Stealth score +30
B Stealth score +10
C Stealth score -3 (No dex and full plate)

They all have the feat or are using a class ability which lets then fake having the feat
A rolls 1, B rolls 2, C Rolls 20

They all use C's dice roll as that is the highest

Totals are tehn
A 50
B 30
C 17

It is intended to avoid the natural tendency to disaster when a group of stealthy characters work together , the usual problem is that everyone has a decent stealth score (or would not be trying to sneak) and then because dice are like that one of the 4 of them rolls badly is seen and then, the whole exercise in sneaking is pointless. With this feat unless everyone rolls badly a stealthy group will not be blown by just one bad dice roll. If I was playing a group or subgroup which intended to sneak often this feat would be very valuable, obviously there is no point the Paladin with no skill ranks, Dex 10 and full plate armour taking the feat instead you put him in a portable hole.


Even without the adding up everyone's bonuses, this feat is more useful than you seem to want to credit. Solo scouting means that you have to stay close enough to your part to negate most of the value of scouting, or risk being caught alone and unsupported if you are spotted. Having two or more scouts adds to survivability if spotted, but multiplies the chances of a low roll, so it increases the chance of actually being spotted. The feat reduces the chance of poor rolls rather than multiplying the chance, making team scouting valuable. Yes it means you need to invest both in the feat and the skill, but, assuming scouting is valuable to your playstyle, it is worth it for at least some of your group. If you are playing a lot of recon or insertion-opp type adventures, it is invaluable for everyone to have the feat and ranks in stealth.

For the hunter with a stealthy pet there really is no downside. If you are of the devil dinosaur mold, not so much.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Keep in mind that even when adding all the bonuses together, stacking rules likely still apply.

For example, one character has +2 competence bonus to Stealth, and the other has +5. When added together, the result is +5, not +7.


Agreed, wouldn't mind seeing the clarification.
Just pointing out, that in any game where stealth is useful or required, the feat is still pretty good even without any added benefit.

Now if you have players who just want to charge blindly into every combat....

Liberty's Edge

Ravingdork wrote:

Keep in mind that even when adding all the bonuses together, stacking rules likely still apply.

For example, one character has +2 competence bonus to Stealth, and the other has +5. When added together, the result is +5, not +7.

Even if that limits the maximum bonus you might get, it still doesn't make sense from a mechanics point of view. Why would you make a rule that force players to dissect possibly 5-6 different bonuses that all add up to your +20 in the middle of play to decide what would stack and what wouldn't. Having recently having played in a high level mythic game where our PCs briefly lost our mythic powers, it took longer to rebuild the characters without mythic powers than it did to overcome the obstacle that took them away in the first place. That's just bad game design.

And that's still doesn't address how you're receiving the bonus of another person's magic items. Or how it's easy to manufacture a +40 bonus out of second levels spells.

Not saying the feat couldn't be worded better, but I don't see how there's more than one reasonable answer to how it should be read.

EDIT - Also, I think it's worth keeping in mind what the developers usually think is within the power level of a feat. When gaining skill points, 3-6 is usually the norm for a feat. Reading it as gaining all possible bonuses that stack would likely be much more than either 3 or 6 at the appropriate levels. Gaining what is essentially a re-roll is more within the power level of a feat. But it's a teamwork feat, so in order to make up for multiple characters taking the feat, you get one re-roll per character, which is a pretty good investment when it comes to a skill feat.


It's better than a reroll, it is roll twice and take the best. Or 3 times...
You don't ever have to risk the extra rolls being lower than the first roll.


It's pretty interesting if you have a class feature that allows you to share your teamwork feats with your allies, like the vanguard slayer.


Daw wrote:

Even without the adding up everyone's bonuses, this feat is more useful than you seem to want to credit. Solo scouting means that you have to stay close enough to your part to negate most of the value of scouting, or risk being caught alone and unsupported if you are spotted. Having two or more scouts adds to survivability if spotted, but multiplies the chances of a low roll, so it increases the chance of actually being spotted. The feat reduces the chance of poor rolls rather than multiplying the chance, making team scouting valuable. Yes it means you need to invest both in the feat and the skill, but, assuming scouting is valuable to your playstyle, it is worth it for at least some of your group. If you are playing a lot of recon or insertion-opp type adventures, it is invaluable for everyone to have the feat and ranks in stealth.

For the hunter with a stealthy pet there really is no downside. If you are of the devil dinosaur mold, not so much.

100% agree with this. If only one person in the party is ultra sneaky, it creates super risky solo play. This makes it so a moderately sneaky pc, such as a witch with a cat familiar, can help out a rogue instead of just being a liability.

It's also worth noting that not all contributors to the teamwork feat need to be making a stealth check for the same thing, and can use it as long as there is at least a 1-way sight relationship. If the witch is down the dark hallway observing the rogue as she sneaks around a guard 70 feet away, they still both get to make the roll. The weaker sneaker doesn't have to jeopardize themselves in helping out because sometimes their stealth check is entirely unopposed.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I find it impressive that this thread has been necro'd 5 times.

I've always interpreted Stealth Synergy as "you all take the highest roll and add all your own modifiers to Stealth to your own result."

The feat is definitely poorly worded and it's a shame it never got a FAQ to formally clarify it, but this is a sane and simple ruling that I suspect is what was intended.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Stealth Synergy All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.