| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm surprised that Lastwall Phalanx doesn't see more action. Do people just not know about it? Because it sure seems like the business. ^_^
It has the same problem of Shake it off, in that you have to be adjacent to your partner. That kills flanking, forces two characters (usually both of melees) to always focus on the same enemy, and makes you weak against all the AoEs in the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kindly note that 'two feats for one benefit to one person' is erroneous.
It's 'two feats for a benefit to two people.' i.e. teamwork feats benefit both people involved, not just one of them.
Not really, there are a lot of them that don't work like that.
For example, enfilading fire
Others work for both, technically, but only for one in practice (for example, Lookout. It works for the guy who missed the perception roll, if someone else didn't, so it's good for guys with bad perception skill, but a feat tax that guys with high perception skill pay so their teammates can act in surprise rounds)
Some others like combat medic benefit one of the PC activelly, and the other only passively (as in: people will have more incentives to heal you in combat, if for whatever reason that's ever needed, but the feat itself does nothing to you, is the healer the one who ignore AOO)Many other plainly suck.
Combat Medic implicitly means you can do the same back to the guy healing you, so its win-win.
Enfilading Fire, however...absolutely right, and its obviously a suckage feat that is only going to be used in squad combat by DM's, or people who can pop up feats on demand.
==Aelryinth
You can do the same, assuming he also falls unconscious or needs healing caltrops, which is not always happening.
The point is that the feats are situational, and when the situation arise, ONE guy can use it (the guy who is rolling heal and/or doesn't want to provoke an AOO), but TWO guys have to pay for it. That's a huge difference to a feat that could be named, for example "Underwhelming but not totally Sucking Combat Medic", requires Heal 5, and allows you to take 10 to stabilize or treat wounds and not provoke, but it's a general feat, not a teamwork feat. It would be an underwhelming feat that probably nobody would take anyways, but at least it cost ONE feat for an underwhelming effect, not TWO feats for an underwhelming effect.
Most of them are not really that good and they basically take up feat slots from two characters so being better than the average feat is not good enough.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just noticed that Combat Medic doesn't work with casting healing spells or using healing magic from devices.
}:(
Seriously?
==Aelryinth
|
In my experience, when players start a new campaign. They may talk to one another and say I'll take the caster roll, I'll be a melee guy, etc, but thats the extent of planning done together. Everyone writes up their character on their own time. Then as the game goes on, you usually level up between game sessions, so as not to take away from the time you're all together playing. So it's an extra step of communication that needs to be done to organize the teamwork feats.
For many characters, especially those without bonus feats, they want to take some feat chain and don't have enough to take all that they wanted anyway. Teamwork feats don't fulfil any prerequisites, so they are a dead end feat, not building towards something for higher level.
And then story wise, it means you trained extensively with the other PCs who share your teamwork feat. It means you need to collaborate on your character background together. It means having to spend more time and organization to write up your character.
So basically they just take more time and effort to use than normal feats, so naturally they are used less.
The positioning requirements are what ruin them for me.
Take Outflank for example. It seems like one of the better ones. But in order to get that flank bonus I have to be flanking with someone else who has the feat. The problem is that you almost never start the combat with 2 people who both have outflank actually flanking someone. You rarely even start out adjacent to a foe at all. So now you have to burn actions getting into position to use the feat at all. If you had both taken Weapon Focus instead you would still get +3 instead of +4 while flanking and a +1 all of the time, a much better deal that doesn't make flanking bad, just not necessary to get any benefit at all.
If in a game the PCs are rarely separated and characters are working with the same teammates for the entirety of their career then team work feats can look appealing.
If on the other hand solo challenges happen sometimes in your game or the campaign is so long term that the teammates you had at level one are 3 steps removed from the ones you hang with now then the bloom comes off that rose pretty quick.
I enter every game with the hope that it will become the latter. As such I don't even really look at teamwork feats.
To each their own though.
- Torger
*edit* in response to your fourth example in particular I'll take an unconditional +2 on a save or a conditional +3 any day of the week. Especially when getting the +3 would require me to influence someone else's character build.
doesn't outflank require like 3 or so people to be attacking the same guy to even work?
i don't like teamwork feats because they hamstring you into one tactic and cause you to lose a feat's worth of power all other times. I like to be versatile, look out and stealth synergy are obvious exceptions, anything with wide generic capability is great.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
doesn't outflank require like 3 or so people to be attacking the same guy to even work?
i don't like teamwork feats because they hamstring you into one tactic and cause you to lose a feat's worth of power all other times. I like to be versatile, look out and stealth synergy are obvious exceptions, anything with wide generic capability is great.
It only takes 2 to flank.
Since flanking is a good tactic in and of itself, any of the flank-based teamwork feats will be good. Are they better than all other choices in all circumstances? Of course not (but then nothing is 100%, always the best choice all the time).
Flanking feats example:
My husband and I played paired two-weapon fighters (varying mixes of rogue, fighter, and barbarian) with Precise Strike and Outflank. The extra d6 sneak attack and +4 on each attack was devastating once Improved Two-weapon Fighting kicked in. My character had more fighter levels, so she picked up Improved Critical and wielded dual wakizashis. At 11th level, with four attacks a round with a crit threat of 15-20 and Bless Weapon for an auto-confirm against evil critters, she could reliably count on one confirmed crit a round, which gave her partner a free attack. He had more rogue levels, so he only had three attacks a round, but he did more sneak attack damage. (We also each took Gang Up individually, also, so we could count as flanking more often.) Even with the common class levels and shared feats (and matching outfits!), they were still very different builds.
Side note:
Of the feats you mentioned, I think Lookout is the least useful, because you must be adjacent at the exact second combat starts. That almost never happens in the games I've played--my Holy Tactician retrained Lookout into Shake It Off, and it's been much more useful. Since tactician gives the feat to all allies within 30 feet, you just have to be adjacent to one other ally to get a +1, and often, the terrain forces you to be adjacent to more than one anyway.
I'm playing a class that gets a bonus teamwork feat on level 3. I'm in a party with a blaster arcanist, controller Spirit Seeker oracle, and a bladebound kensai magus. The conversation went a bit like this:
Me: Hey magus player, how about picking up a teamwork feat like Outflank or Precise strike? We're flanking most of the time anyway.
Magus player: Sure, as soon as I have a free feat in my build!
Me: When do you think that'll be?
Magus player: "Level 11!"
Me: ...
A great many TW feats are underwhelming, extremely niche, and/or clearly balanced around the teamwork classes classes (cavalier, inquisitor, hunter etc) rather than being good options in their own right. There are some that are break the mold, but they tend to be nice extras rather than something you genuinely need in your build. Feats are precious, especially at low level. TW feats tend to be the feats that people consider after they've crossed everything they really want off the list, and can start to relax and look a bit beyond the 'mandatory' options.
1. It costs two people a feat slot for a benefit it's not always likely both will be using all the time. And those players have to really work at joint character-building.
2. It's too easy for it to be taken away. God forbid the other PC dies, then you're jacked for life, but just if they are held or on the other side of the battlefield or otherwise engaged you are deprived of the feat. Doesn't happen with a "real" feat.
Or in the case you provided, if we can flank with regularity then a rogue would be ideal. And based on how much hate the rogue gets I'd say flanking is somewhat difficult to attain.The positioning requirements are what ruin them for me.
Take Outflank for example. It seems like one of the better ones. But in order to get that flank bonus I have to be flanking with someone else who has the feat. The problem is that you almost never start the combat with 2 people who both have outflank actually flanking someone. You rarely even start out adjacent to a foe at all. So now you have to burn actions getting into position to use the feat at all. If you had both taken Weapon Focus instead you would still get +3 instead of +4 while flanking and a +1 all of the time, a much better deal that doesn't make flanking bad, just not necessary to get any benefit at all.
Even then, it could create perverse incentives. For example, if only the party's rogue and fighter have outflank, the rogue might try harder tumble checks and put himself in worse tactical positions to flank with the fighter, while he maybe could have an easier flanking buddy with the ranger's pet, the wizzard's summon monster, or the party's druid, none of whom have outflank.
If outflank would give something when not pairing with another teamwork PC, that wouldn't happen. Say, Outflank gives you +3 when flanking, +4 if flanking with another outflanker. Then the rougue could flank happily with the archer's ranger pet, with the wildshaping druid, or with the wizard's summoned celestial lion, and get an extra bonus if (and when) he flanks with the party's fighter, who also have outflank
|
Four of the six PCs in my game (all the melee characters) just grabbed Outflank.
Two of them grabbed it because one's a TWF guy with Butterfly Sting and the other a Magus with a light pick and they're built as a team anyway. The other two melee characters followed suit to get in on the action, because when two people already have it, it's pretty much worth it.
So people use them if making teamwork oriented builds, or fighting alongside those who already have them.
doesn't outflank require like 3 or so people to be attacking the same guy to even work?
That's gang up
Which also require combat expertise and INT 13, so it's another good example of extremely niche, incredibly situational, never used teamwork feat that sucks greatly and is basically a waste of space, except for GM's minions.We lost a PC the other day in Giantslayer, against a bunch of rogues that had gang up and overwhelmed a caster. Other than that (a gimmick encounter tailored to use it), it's almost impossible to find a party that have THREE players that are melee, have INT 13, want to spend a feat in Combat Expertise, and have an extra feat to waste in a sucky teamwork feat that isn't even that good because it force you to gank a single enemy with 3 party members, and only kicks in if the first two guys attacking that enemy didn't kill him before the third guy actually came and benefit from it.
So, mostly, teamwork feats suck, badly. A few of them would be ok, if it wasn't for the requisite of adjacent, or attacking the same dude, but for the most part, I wouldn't take most of them even if they didn't force my party members to take them as well. I wouldn't take Combat Medic or Gang Up even if they weren't teamwork feats and I could use them without requiring a party member to have them as well.
That's gang up
Which also require combat expertise and INT 13, so it's another good example of extremely niche, incredibly situational, never used teamwork feat that sucks greatly and is basically a waste of space, except for GM's minions.
You are mistaken about Gang Up as it is NOT a Teamwork feat, so the person taking it can benefit even if his allies do not have it. I would say that makes it a lot more useful and potentially worthwhile depending on party composition. For instance it was a strong contender for a goblin Rogue build I was considering (but ultimately rejected because I had better methods for acquiring Sneak Attack alone) as another ally was a Cavalier; could have mounted up with him and between me, him, and his horse I would have always been flanking.
Contributor
|
You are mistaken about Gang Up as it is NOT a Teamwork feat, so the person taking it can benefit even if his allies do not have it. I would say that makes the feat niche instead of always bad. For instance it was a strong contender for a goblin Rogue build I was considering (but ultimately rejected because I had better methods for acquiring Sneak Attack alone) as another ally was a Cavalier; could have mounted up with him and between me, him, and his horse I would have always been flanking.That's gang up
Which also require combat expertise and INT 13, so it's another good example of extremely niche, incredibly situational, never used teamwork feat that sucks greatly and is basically a waste of space, except for GM's minions.
For the right rogue, it lets you flank from safety. One of the cohorts in my Carrion Crown group has it. Since she uses a whip, she can basically sneak attack from the safety of the second rank. ^_^
My players make use of the teamwork feats regularly.
They consider them extremely valuable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) There are feats that are as good or better (when in combination with other chain feats) than don't depend on someone else.This. Right there.
In fact, this is the great tragedy of Pathfinder: Gazillions of options but almost everybody "builds" within the same tiny subset, maybe about 10% of those options, and the other 90% are just not good enough to make the grade. Filler. Traps. Chaff we have to dig through to find the good ones.
This game would be so amazing if, say, we could use 40% or 60%, or dare I hope, 80% of the options available without feeling like we were creating failures.
Off-topic-ish a moment:
Wait, do people seriously follow all that Rules Discussion stuff outside of the rules discussion? Do they really refuse to take flavorful feats and classes to protect their build?
I get arguing about such feats and classes on a theoretical basis. We wish they were more useful. These arguments (like the one on this very thread) are good and healthy.
But I don't think that options being "not the best" really stops people from taking them in practice. Mind you, if the feat or class is legitimately bad, that's a whole other story. But most of these "not the best" feats and classes and spells are just that. They won't make a "failure", they'll just make a slightly un-optimized build. Same goes for taking feats that don't contribute to your primary build plan.
It's rare I see totally optimized parties. The one I'm running for now has an alchemist with 16 Charisma, for instance. She later took levels in Mysterious Stranger, but that in itself is a somewhat un-optimal multiclass.
tl;dr: We can use the vast majority of these options without feeling like failures. They won't be the "best build", but who here only plays "best builds"? There can't be that many of those. Sounds boring as s*%*.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
More on-topic: Amplified Rage is pretty awesome. I built a Mad Dog barbarian with a badger companion, both using Amplified Rage. They had a damn nice set of stats. I think it could work with two barbarian PCs, too. Basically, a party with more overlap is much more likely to benefit from these feats than the classic "cleric/fighter/rogue/wizard" team.
Mind you, the Mad Dog and his badger were NPCs and they went down pretty hard, but that was because they got scattered by create pit and hide from animals.
Yes, options not being "the best" do tend to stop me from taking them unless they contribute significantly to my theme. Teamwork feats generally don't contribute to a theme, unless the theme is "teamwork".
Feats that represent ties to NPC hierarchies, bonds to artifacts, special familiarity with a notorious dungeon, or devotion to a god? Those are cool, and I'll take them. Feats that represent how me and a buddy practice flanking so we're better at flanking? No thanks. I represent team cohesion and training with things like roleplaying and tactics.
The part that confuses me is the people who insist it boils down to selfishness without even thinking about whether teamwork feats are worth it or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) There are feats that are as good or better (when in combination with other chain feats) than don't depend on someone else.This. Right there.
In fact, this is the great tragedy of Pathfinder: Gazillions of options but almost everybody "builds" within the same tiny subset, maybe about 10% of those options, and the other 90% are just not good enough to make the grade. Filler. Traps. Chaff we have to dig through to find the good ones.
This game would be so amazing if, say, we could use 40% or 60%, or dare I hope, 80% of the options available without feeling like we were creating failures.
Off-topic-ish a moment:
Wait, do people seriously follow all that Rules Discussion stuff outside of the rules discussion? Do they really refuse to take flavorful feats and classes to protect their build?
I get arguing about such feats and classes on a theoretical basis. We wish they were more useful. These arguments (like the one on this very thread) are good and healthy.
But I don't think that options being "not the best" really stops people from taking them in practice. Mind you, if the feat or class is legitimately bad, that's a whole other story. But most of these "not the best" feats and classes and spells are just that. They won't make a "failure", they'll just make a slightly un-optimized build. Same goes for taking feats that don't contribute to your primary build plan.
It's rare I see totally optimized parties. The one I'm running for now has an alchemist with 16 Charisma, for instance. She later took levels in Mysterious Stranger, but that in itself is a somewhat un-optimal multiclass.
tl;dr: We can use the vast majority of these options without feeling like failures. They won't be the "best build", but who here only plays "best builds"? There can't be that many of those. Sounds boring as s+*#.
I endorse this message.
I love playing melee, and I almost never take Power Attack. I still have fun.
Everybody wants to be the baddest dude around, or the comic relief, or the party weirdo, rather than just wanting to be successful. I like horde charge and amplified rage. Your build will SEEM vulnerable until you and your fellow barbarian charge a guy from opposite sides and you get an extra +5 to damage and an extra +6 to hit on a guy that already took a falchion to the head. Pair that with the fact that your builds force you to stay together if you want to survive and you've got an unstoppable tidal wave of anger.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, options not being "the best" do tend to stop me from taking them unless they contribute significantly to my theme. Teamwork feats generally don't contribute to a theme, unless the theme is "teamwork".
I actually see one of the few themes of Pathfinder that really holds true for almost all campaigns is the importance of friendship/teamwork/togetherness, so I'm okay with this. ;)
|
I am thinking of giving a free teamwork bonus feat at levels 3, 11, and 19 in my game chosen as a group so that they will take them more. The only teamwork feat that is being taken currently is wounded paw gambit, and that's because I'm using the stamina system so no one else in the party is taking it.
I dont think the best build is needed but avoiding subpar feats is a reasonable goal. How far you take this also depends on your table. Some GM's will never kill you. Others might not be killer GM's but they wont go out of their way to save you either. Sitting at the table not playing is not fun.
because like 97.83% of them suck, the other 2.17% are situational(in that you need another guy with the feat, like look out or stealth synergy).
Boooo. Racial requirements. Booooooo.
*Shoots spitballs at cnetarian*
My girlfriend and I play a couple of orcs who plan to take Amplified Rage, but we probably won’t get the feat until 15th or even 17th level since both PCs are busy developing other areas first (hexes and grappling for hers, dirty tricks and mutant wings for mine). My PC is Lawful, so I didn't expect to have Rage until ACG came out and I saw the Bloodrager.
I figure that Teamwork feats might get used more in games where Leadership is common though honestly the Mythic game where most of us have cohorts doesn't have any teamwork feats beyond Shield Wall, which the girlfriend and I both took at low levels since we'd been watching Vikings. Another player had his cohort take it too so she can get in on the +2 AC. I'd say it is an OK feat overall, but we really took it for the Viking theme more than the mechanical benefit.
I guess another strike against teamwork feats is that to enjoy the benefit you generally need to have two PCs of the same general type (melee, caster, crafter, etc) working together. A lot of time parties prefer to have a variety of abilities.
Even considering all of that I think teamwork feats are a nifty concept and have some good potential for PCs as well as monsters. Maybe I'll try to team up with somebody in a future campaign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They just aren't worth the investment.
Even a group that PLANS for it sucks hard.
Mixed groups can't use them.
Works okay if given for free, but then they are basically just class abilities... (Hunters).
They aren't good enough to take. If the bonuses doubled, people might consider them.
As is, blech.
Cavalry Formation is actually pretty good...if there's a bizarre number of lancing cavaliers in the party. You can basically focus charge on a single enemy and wipe them clean off the map.
Fun for NPCs if you really hate a particular player, I guess.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, options not being "the best" do tend to stop me from taking them unless they contribute significantly to my theme. Teamwork feats generally don't contribute to a theme, unless the theme is "teamwork".I actually see one of the few themes of Pathfinder that really holds true for almost all campaigns is the importance of friendship/teamwork/togetherness, so I'm okay with this. ;)
I wouldn't even describe it as "teamwork".
Teamwork is the Wizard dropping a wall to cut off half the encounter while the barbarian and the druid's pet mulch dangerous targets(flanking when worth it, but by no means desperate for it) and the cleric slaps the druid with a Protection/evil to suppress a Charm Person cast in the surprise round that the druid rolled a 3 on.
The Archer Fighter and the Wizard stand side by side because the archer's saves against charm spells suck and needs every bonus he can get despite other allies giving cover bonuses to his targets(the wizard is too busy flaming sphereing to move to the side and the allies will lose a full attack and flank by shifting) while the Reach Cleric gives her target the opportunity to full attack her instead of ready action+AoOing because the rogue needs that flanking bonus and they both picked Outflank instead of Weapon Focus reads disturbingly like "Crippling Dependency on Others".
Shockingly enough, while players are happy with "I kick ass, and kick ass slightly more when my buddy is nearby", the same players generally don't like themes like "I am much weaker unless I have others helping".
Then there is the issue that Teamwork Feats usually encourage characters to do the same thing together when this is exactly what they should *not* be doing in many circumstances. The bard should not be going into a flank with the fighter against half a dozen melee brutes. The bard should be dropping confusion. The bard probably shouldn't go into flank at all - The fighter is more than capable of killing one of them on a full attack, flank or no. Teamwork feats tend to end up forcing an extremely narrow range of behavior in order to get their benefit, and this painful lack of flexibility makes them extremely undesirable.
This is from someone who yesterday watched a Sacred Huntmaster and their Roc drop an equal CR magus into single digits thanks to flank+precise strike. I also watched the Sacred Huntmaster fail to get flanking in the last 3 fights before that, and in all them the Sacred Huntmaster *shouldn't* have been getting flanking, because the conditions of the encounter weren't flanking friendly (plague zombies, a flying caster, weak enemies that barely survive a double charge and die at about the same speed regardless of flank). Even in the most recent fight the Inquisitor only got flank twice, because the Roc was better used on slumber coup de grace duty and archer harassment(across a river) than flanking targets that would die to two greatsword whacks.
You are mistaken about Gang Up as it is NOT a Teamwork feat, so the person taking it can benefit even if his allies do not have it. I would say that makes it a lot more useful and potentially worthwhile depending on party composition. For instance it was a strong contender for a goblin Rogue build I was considering (but ultimately rejected because I had better methods for acquiring Sneak Attack alone) as another ally was a Cavalier; could have mounted up with him and between me, him, and his horse I would have always been flanking.That's gang up
Which also require combat expertise and INT 13, so it's another good example of extremely niche, incredibly situational, never used teamwork feat that sucks greatly and is basically a waste of space, except for GM's minions.
I stand corrected, then
Everybody wants to be the baddest dude around, or the comic relief, or the party weirdo, rather than just wanting to be successful. I like horde charge and amplified rage. Your build will SEEM vulnerable until you and your fellow barbarian charge a guy from opposite sides and you get an extra +5 to damage and an extra +6 to hit on a guy that already took a falchion to the head. Pair that with the fact that your builds force you to stay together if you want to survive and you've got an unstoppable tidal wave of anger.
How many times you and your fellow barbarain can charge someone from opposite sides? I don't know, we could try and check the encounters from book 1 of Rise of Runelords, to take a written, neutral example.
That's the problem. THey look fine, in theorycrafting. They aren't that much, in real gaming, because the theory isn't always easy to apply. And that's when you are even ABLE to take the feats, as you need a couple of half orcs, both melee, one of them with rage. How many parties you have played recently that were like that? I'm right now playing in Giantslayer. We have a bunch of half-orcs, because of the way the campaign is. And yet, we don't have 2 of them that go to melee (one is a ranger archer). Unless you *build* the entire group to make this work, it won't work. And I'd never advocate to force the players to build characters with an specific feat in mind: if you *want* to play a drunken dwarf monk, go play a drunken dwarf monk. You shouldn't have to play a drunken half-orc monk only to let someother player's concept work or be able to use a certain teamwork feat.
Amplified rage is another good example of why the whole teamwork concept sucks greatly. It's a totally overpowered feat, if you can *cheat* your way into it (hunter-barbarian riding a pet) and totally useless if you aren't cheating into it (heck, most parties wouldn't even qualify for it)
Same goes for Cavalry Formation. It's a terrific effect, IF your party consist in a big number of lancers. Which isn't going to happen unless you are playing some specific campaign (like "let's play with knights of the roun table!"), or you are a GM building a Gimmick encounter with a bunch of guys who took cavalry formation as a feat at lvl 1, when they didn't even know themselves yet, just to be able to do a frightening charge in this specific encounter 15 years later.
They are narrow, they are circumstantial, they have a lot of prerequisites, their effect is minor compared to some other feat, and they only work in the theorycrafted situation they were built for. Many of them are a waste for one of the players (like Lookout for the PC that rarely gets surprised and works as an "anchor" for those who do), they reward silly behaviour (like being adjacent to your teammates all the time or overreaching for a flanking bonus with a certain teammate when other flankers are easier), and on top of that, they become strongly abusable in certain builds for characters that cheat the "team" aspect of "teamwork feat", like Inquisitors or hunters. +4STR and CON for a feat when you rage mounting your pet is pretty OP, and it involves exactly zero "teamwork", which is what the ardent defenders of Teamwork feats say it's the biggest draw of those feats.