Why are teamwork feats so unpopular?


Advice

251 to 293 of 293 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

gustavo iglesias wrote:

But when answer isn't easy, it doesnt make the answer subjetive.

For example:
The chance to hit a free throw in basketball is pretty easy to know. And we know James Harden is much better than Dwight Howard, so if there is a technical foul, we give it to Harden.

The chance to hit a certain 3p shot is much harder to know. There are factors as distance, position, how far is the defender, how good is the defender, player accuracy, time remaining in the clock, accuracy of the shooter, fatigue and many others

So we can't be really sure about the real % of a 3p shoot from the top of the arc, coming off bounce, made by Harden, with Iguodala at 2', compared to a corner 3 shoot by Howard, without a defender close. But just because we are unsure of the real answer, that doesn't mean the answer is "it's subjetive". There IS an answer that is right. The models we use can be more ir less accurate, depending on how much variables we take, but the answer is not "it doesn't matter who shoots".

And the sky is, objectively, blue.

Neither one matters. Yes, somebody said that the answer wasn't objective. So what? They're wrong, move on. This point really does not merit anywhere near this much discussion, given that it has zero practical applications.


That was my point. Absolute answers which exist but are effectively unknowable save in retrospect are in practical terms nonexistent even if in real terms they do exist.


kestral287 wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:

But when answer isn't easy, it doesnt make the answer subjetive.

For example:
The chance to hit a free throw in basketball is pretty easy to know. And we know James Harden is much better than Dwight Howard, so if there is a technical foul, we give it to Harden.

The chance to hit a certain 3p shot is much harder to know. There are factors as distance, position, how far is the defender, how good is the defender, player accuracy, time remaining in the clock, accuracy of the shooter, fatigue and many others

So we can't be really sure about the real % of a 3p shoot from the top of the arc, coming off bounce, made by Harden, with Iguodala at 2', compared to a corner 3 shoot by Howard, without a defender close. But just because we are unsure of the real answer, that doesn't mean the answer is "it's subjetive". There IS an answer that is right. The models we use can be more ir less accurate, depending on how much variables we take, but the answer is not "it doesn't matter who shoots".

And the sky is, objectively, blue.

Neither one matters. Yes, somebody said that the answer wasn't objective. So what? They're wrong, move on. This point really does not merit anywhere near this much discussion, given that it has zero practical applications.

Sometimes the sky can be orange though.


RDM42 wrote:
That was my point. Absolute answers which exist but are effectively unknowable save in retrospect are in practical terms nonexistent even if in real terms they do exist.

If this were true the entire insurance industry would have failed.


RDM42 wrote:
That was my point. Absolute answers which exist but are effectively unknowable save in retrospect are in practical terms nonexistent even if in real terms they do exist.

But if your were the Houston Rocket's coach and your needed a 3p shoot to win a game... Would your give that shot to Dwight Howard?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
RDM42 wrote:
That was my point. Absolute answers which exist but are effectively unknowable save in retrospect are in practical terms nonexistent even if in real terms they do exist.

their only unknowable because they can't keep track of how often things happen. issuance companies, as has been said, rely on post-examinations. They have collected data over a very long time to get cultural trends on safety making the unknowable known. you just need enough time.


And are any of you going to be able to collect the sort of data set an insurance company has? Anybody?


gustavo iglesias wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
That was my point. Absolute answers which exist but are effectively unknowable save in retrospect are in practical terms nonexistent even if in real terms they do exist.
But if your were the Houston Rocket's coach and your needed a 3p shoot to win a game... Would your give that shot to Dwight Howard?

Talk about a bit of a straw man. That is going off on an irrelevant tangent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
And are any of you going to be able to collect the sort of data set an insurance company has?

We don't need to. The data we have are quite sufficient for our purposes. As a famous publisher once put it, "you don't need to eat a whole apple to know that it's rotten."


More relevant would be "the rockets need a basket to win the game. Which one, Dwight Howard or harden should take the shot?

And the answer would be "it depends"


RDM42 wrote:

More relevant would be "the rockets need a basket to win the game. Which one, Dwight Howard or harden should take the shot?

And the answer would be "it depends"

That's not an answer. That's an avoidance of an answer. I've never seen Mr. Depends on any team roster.


Because without more data there isn't an absolute answer.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
RDM42 wrote:
And are any of you going to be able to collect the sort of data set an insurance company has? Anybody?

don't have the power or authority to collect extensive information of enemy compositions over all campaigns.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

If only i knew anything about basketball i might actually follow this analogy.


"With a game on the line should Michael Jordan or Steve Kerr take the final shot?"


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
RDM42 wrote:
"With a game on the line should Michael Jordan or Steve Kerr take the final shot?"

still lost

you assume i have a TV or that i read the sport section of the news, i do neither.


RDM42 wrote:
"With a game on the line should Michael Jordan or Steve Kerr take the final shot?"

wide open kerr over double teamed Jordan. As Jordan wisely knew, and contrary to "common knowledge"

But the answer between a Wide open Howard 3p and contested Harden is not "it's unknown the exact % of each ones as there are a lot of variables, therefore we shouldn't care". Even between a harden 3p por a Howard's dunk, the answer is not "we shouldn't care because it's not preciselly known".


RDM42 wrote:
And are any of you going to be able to collect the sort of data set an insurance company has? Anybody?

Honestly?

Yeah. Not hard on the scale that it matters.

See, the thing is that a lot of it comes down to things like GM and party styles. In order to find the objective answer at my table, I don't need to know all GMs, all party compositions. I just need to know what my table does.

If I'm debating Paired Opportunists versus Weapon Focus, ultimately it largely comes down to "how consistently does my party flank a target".

I have access to logs of all of the games in our campaign. I can tell you that in our last four fights we had two flanks, against a total of 26 enemies (median and mode of 4 enemies/encounter, with one outlier that was an enormous 17). I can further that by noting that my table does not go out of our way to flank-- if we have an available 5' step or movement we'll use it to flank, but thus far we have never actually made a move action solely to flank. The GM also tends to put us in terrain where flanking is plausible but does require additional effort, and is fond of the numbers approach rather than single tough bosses, which means we tend to rack up high body counts and the flanking situations we did have didn't last long. Even in his end-dungeon encounter (that big 17), we had two mini-bosses (who both got chumped, honestly) and one real boss, who was tough because the GM was smart with positioning and because the other fourteen mooks kept the full party from swinging at him at once.

That's all objective information of the sort that is being talked about. I can use that information to conclude that flanks will not hit the 50% threshold that I need to maintain parity on bonuses between Paired Opportunists and Weapon Focus, and that the AoO gained from Paired Opportunists is of negligible benefit. Hence, Weapon Focus is objectively better.

If I really cared, upon completion of this campaign I could do that on a grander scale, calculating the exact number of times that flanks occurred, plus how many 'easy' missed flanking opportunities occurred, how many relevant AoOs were missed due to not having Paired Opportunists, etc. And then I would have exactly the information that I need to make the objective decision.

Now, can I do that against all Pathfinder campaigns being played everywhere? No, of course not. But I don't need to. All I need to do is determine what works at my table.

Insurers do the same thing. A regional Auto insurance company operating in Atlanta, Georgia doesn't care about the average annual property damage to homes due to flooding in Las Vegas, Nevada-- to their table, that's irrelevant information.

Which is a lot of why trying to calculate such a thing on a universal scale is like talking about the sky being blue-- it's irrelevant. It's extraneous information that can easily lead to a bad decision.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is nothing about teamwork feats for quite a while. I think we're done here.

EDIT: and this is why you hit refresh before you post, we actually got back on topic


RDM42 wrote:
And are any of you going to be able to collect the sort of data set an insurance company has? Anybody?

You only need it to get to an accurate, exact, perfect measure. Which is only needed assuming the starting things you need to compare are close enough. If that's not true, it might not be needed.

So, let's do a quick survey, based on your own experience. How long does, on average, a pathfinder combat last in your games?

Give me an average number of rounds you think your characters spend, on average, going into position to flank, and how many enemies you fight on average per combat (ie: how many times you need to position yourself)

Let's take an average damage per round.

Let's see the average effect of outflank, vs, say, weapon focus (or Big Game Hunter, using another assumption of average % of enemies that are large in your character's campaign)

Let's see how close it is in this very broad level. If it ends being close to 50-50 (ie: "open wide Trevor Ariza vs contesded James Harden") then yes, we'll need more data. If it ends being closer to 80-20 (ie: "open wide Dwight Howard vs contested James Harden"), then we can say confidently which one is better, because it's not really important if the real anser is 74-26 or 82-18 or 80.001-19.999

EDIT: Kestral very informative and good post ninja'ed me. But we can get a different answer for your table, so, we can do it regardless with whatever the average numbers you think it is in your games, based on your own estimated averages


All this comes back around to the same thing: some people like team work feats (for whatever reason) and some people dislike team work feats (for whatever reason.)

If you want to work out the math and keep spreadsheets for each game of each hit, damage done, which feats were used and so on in order to come up with your decision, then cool. If you look at the book and say "I don't like the way that one is worded, it looks bad," then that is a valid way to come up with your decision too.

Team work feats are, to get back to the OP, unpopular for a number of reasons, ranging from people who prefer to build independent characters rather than needing to rely on others to accomplish a task, players who dislike feat taxes, people on a tight build schedule without any give for extraneous feats, people who don't like how the math plays out, and many many more reasons.

None of them are any more or less valid, nor are the reasons to use them. If you just plain like team work feats, no one is going to convince you otherwise. Not math, not spreadsheets, not anecdotal evidence, etc.


knightnday wrote:


If you want to work out the math and keep spreadsheets for each game of each hit, damage done, which feats were used and so on in order to come up with your decision, then cool. If you look at the book and say "I don't like the way that one is worded, it looks bad," then that is a valid way to come up with your decision too.

That's true, and has been acknowledged already ("it's more fun"). Your can have a lot of reasons to like or diskike TW feats, many of them unrelated to maths

But, if your reason to take (or not) a feat is "it is the feat that gives me more damage", and it is not (or it is), then that spreadsheet might be helpful


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cool, we are all on the same page!

...

So what are we arguing about? :)


knightnday wrote:

Cool, we are all on the same page!

...

So what are we arguing about? :)

We aren't doing anything as crude as arguing. We are debating. If you can't even understand that obvious difference then you are on no page of mine, friend!


knightnday wrote:

So what are we arguing about? :)

I guess that we are arguing (edit: or debating :) )because the subgroup of people that take combate feats for their math effect, can't get an agreement about the real effect of said math effect


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
knightnday wrote:


If you want to work out the math and keep spreadsheets for each game of each hit, damage done, which feats were used and so on in order to come up with your decision, then cool. If you look at the book and say "I don't like the way that one is worded, it looks bad," then that is a valid way to come up with your decision too.
That's true, and has been acknowledged already ("it's more fun").

Are teamwork feats fun or is having a team fun? Because there are lots of forms of teamwork that don't use teamwork feats.

There's the anvil wizard rearranging the battlefield to benefit his team.

There are feat synergies outside the teamwork category such as a cornugan smash barbarian feeding a shatter defenses rogue.

There's the cornugan smash barbarian or shatter defenses rogue applying shaken to apply a -2 penalty to saving throws for the wizard to exploit.

There's using squishy wizards to lure melee enemies into reach of lockdown builds and using lockdown builds to protect squishy wizards.

There's positioning to keep the archer's lines of fire open.

There's just plain buffing.

There are plenty of forms of teamwork that don't involve teamwork feats. Are you sure the feats are where the fun comes from?


Atarlost wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
knightnday wrote:


If you want to work out the math and keep spreadsheets for each game of each hit, damage done, which feats were used and so on in order to come up with your decision, then cool. If you look at the book and say "I don't like the way that one is worded, it looks bad," then that is a valid way to come up with your decision too.
That's true, and has been acknowledged already ("it's more fun").
Are teamwork feats fun or is having a team fun?

Depends on the person. That's a classic question to which there is no objective answer.


Mark Hoover was looking for teamwork feats for a Valet familiar. Shake It Off seems like a decent deal for a caster with a Valet familiar if you feel that +1 to all three saves seems at least roughly on par with a +2 to one of the 3 saves.

I’m also considering the Lookout feat since it would allow my Viking’s Skald cohort to cast a spell as a Standard action and then start a performance as a Move action - unless the familiar fails the Perception check or the DM declares surprise by fiat without a check. Not being sure how often the benefit would come up makes me reluctant to choose this feat. With Shake It Off at least I'm mostly in control of when I get the benefit.


Atarlost wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
knightnday wrote:


If you want to work out the math and keep spreadsheets for each game of each hit, damage done, which feats were used and so on in order to come up with your decision, then cool. If you look at the book and say "I don't like the way that one is worded, it looks bad," then that is a valid way to come up with your decision too.
That's true, and has been acknowledged already ("it's more fun").
Are teamwork feats fun or is having a team fun? Because there are lots of forms of teamwork that don't use teamwork feats.

Well, that's the thing, "fun" is subjetive, so what's fun or not vary from people to people.

Some people will find the "peak" random effect of the extra attack with a crit in outflank compared to a flat +1 bonus with focus, while other might find not fun being "forced" to flank. But that's really subjetive


gustavo iglesias wrote:
knightnday wrote:

So what are we arguing about? :)

I guess that we are arguing (edit: or debating :) )because the subgroup of people that take combate feats for their math effect, can't get an agreement about the real effect of said math effect

That's how I read it. If you are picking something up for its numeric effect, it is much better if you actually understand the numeric effect.

For example, how much does the rogue talent Charmer help you? It lets you roll twice and take the better one on a Diplomacy check; doing the math says that the average of roll-twice-and-take-the-better is 13.85, for a net 3.35 over the normal average of 10.5.

Skill Focus (Diplomacy) gives you a net +3, expanding to +6 later, very similar.

However, Charmer is a 1/day ability, SF(D) is an always-on ability.

Another example:

Powerful Sneak adds +1/6 to every sneak attack die, at a cost of -2 to your attack. Power Attack costs -2 and adds +4 to every attack, sneak attack or not. You'd need to roll 25 sneak attack dice to get more benefit from Powerful Sneak than from Power Attack.

If you are looking for bang-for-buck, analysis like this how you should make the decision.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, I wonder if it's possible to tweak Teamwork Feats to be both useful when you take them alone, *and* when you are teamed with someone else who has the feat.

Example;

Quote:

Outflank (Combat, Teamwork)

You look for every edge when flanking an enemy.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +4.
Benefit: Whenever you and an ally are flanking the same creature, your flanking bonus on attack rolls increases to +4.

In addition, whenever you score a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from your flanking ally, if they also possess this feat.

So, the +4 flanking bonus always applies to you, whether your flanking ally has the feat or not. But the extra attacks of opportunity triggered by a critical hit only apply if the flanking ally has Outflank as well.

It's not a 'trap' choice, and might even be halfway decent for a character that comes with their own flank-buddy, like a Hunter or Ranger or melee-happy Druid with a Companion.

This way the feat seems less like a 'waste' for the player who can't guarantee the builds (or presence, or situational requirements) of the other player characters. The player who took the feat is still getting a bonus to flanking, even if the rest of the table he just sat down with doesn't like Teamwork Feats, or built using Core book only, or whatever.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The one statement I keep coming back to from this thread is to the effect of: "why take a Teamwork Feat if you can do better with a General/Combat feat?" In the example of my familiar-focused wizard, why take, say, Lookout (I can act in a Surprise round if my familiar makes its Perception, or vice versa) when I could instead take Dazing Spell or Greater Spell Focus or another feat that allows me to end combats faster?

It seems in most instances that there are stronger options for feats than any of the Teamwork feats. The only exception I can find is Shake it Off which can deliver the effect of a constant Resistance spell, but even then you have to be adjacent.

Look again at my familiar-focused wizard. Let's say I take Escape Route and Shake it Off. My buddy needs to be on me/near me to benefit from either feat. If I'm going to focus on using the familiar proactively then the minute it leaves my side I lose those feats.

So then Teamwork feats are things with specific conditions that deliver a set benefit but only in specific instances. If you lowered the benefit they delivered, they might even make great Traits. Imagine if Shake it Off were a "Teamwork Trait"; all possessors of the trait simply get a static +1 on ALL saves when adjacent.

Anyway the point is there always seems to be a better use for feats than the Teamwork feats. If you get them free, then great, but if not why take them?


Pretty much. There are niche occasions where they're useful, and there are parties who certainly can take advantage of them-- if you have two melee Sneak Attackers in your group, then yes it does make sense for both of them to take the flanking-oriented teamwork feats. And they'll become exponentially better for taking Outflank than they would be for taking Weapon Focus, because it's rewarding behavior that they engage in anyway. If a Vivisectionist-Rogue tag team can't flank their targets consistently, they probably need to roll up new characters.

But for my table, even though we have three to four melee characters in the group, Outflank is pretty terrible, because if we can't flank consistently we don't really care.


kestral287 wrote:

Pretty much. There are niche occasions where they're useful, and there are parties who certainly can take advantage of them-- if you have two melee Sneak Attackers in your group, then yes it does make sense for both of them to take the flanking-oriented teamwork feats. And they'll become exponentially better for taking Outflank than they would be for taking Weapon Focus, because it's rewarding behavior that they engage in anyway. If a Vivisectionist-Rogue tag team can't flank their targets consistently, they probably need to roll up new characters.

But for my table, even though we have three to four melee characters in the group, Outflank is pretty terrible, because if we can't flank consistently we don't really care.

I absolutely agree with what you said here.

The thing that started the thread was players who actually are in that niche situation (say your 2 melee sneak attackers that already intend to flank most of the time) and still refuse to even consider taking them.
Apparently a lot of people are so convinced that they are horrible, that they won't even think about it.

I just don't understand that. All the other niche and low powered options that are built so often even though they are univercially recognized as weak options, but this whole classification of them are practically anathema.


All these comparisons of teamwork feats to other feats fail to take into account the fact that, at its base, the game is already slanted heavily in the players favor.


Weslocke wrote:

All these comparisons of teamwork feats to other feats fail to take into account the fact that, at its base, the game is already slanted heavily in the players favor.

In a feat to feat comparison that knowledge is irrelevant. The game is weighted in favor or the PCs no matter which feat is chosen so it doesn't impact the choice.


Gronk de'Morcaine wrote:


I just don't understand that. All the other niche and low powered options that are built so often even though they are univercially recognized as weak options, but this whole classification of them are practically anathema.

I think that mostly depends on your group/local culture. Several posters here have said that their groups regularly take teamwork feats. On the other hand, I've never seen anyone even consider some of the more common weak feats like Vital Strike.

Weslocke wrote:


All these comparisons of teamwork feats to other feats fail to take into account the fact that, at its base, the game is already slanted heavily in the players favor.

The thing is, I've seen entire groups focus on weird builds that don't work well, or worse, think they're min/maxing but actually weakening their characters because they don't understand how the game works well enough, and end up losing the advantage. E.g. monks that think AC 26 is unhittable running around provoking AoOs from CR10 monsters so they can use Snake Style to do 1d8+3 damage with a counter AoO. Sorcerers who "specialize" in Burning Hands but don't metamagic it and run up within 15' cast a 5d4 fire spell on CR 8 enemies with fire resist when they're level 6.

There's a baseline level of competence your party needs in order to survive. If you don't hit that, all the cool options in the world turn out to not be so fun because you're not able to overcome challenges or not able to contribute as the rest of the group does all the work. If you meet that level of competence, go wild on trying new and different and weird things. If you aren't sure, then you should probably be sticking with the boring standbys. And don't judge your character's competence on how they performed in the first couple levels: As someone on another thread said, a Wizard can be just as effective as any 3/4 BAB character in melee at level 1-2, that doesn't mean it's a survivable strategy even at 5.


Mark Hoover wrote:


Look again at my familiar-focused wizard. Let's say I take Escape Route and Shake it Off. My buddy needs to be on me/near me to benefit from either feat. If I'm going to focus on using the familiar proactively then the minute it leaves my side I lose those feats.

So then Teamwork feats are things with specific conditions that deliver a set benefit but only in specific instances. If you lowered the benefit they delivered, they might even make great Traits. Imagine if Shake it Off were a "Teamwork Trait"; all possessors of the trait simply get a static +1 on ALL saves when adjacent.

Familiars are actually a good way to control teamwork feats. You can be always adjacent to your familiar, while your teammates might be busy doing watch, stealthing, tracking, cooking the party's meal, honing their weapons, taking care of the rear, etc


Weslocke wrote:

All these comparisons of teamwork feats to other feats fail to take into account the fact that, at its base, the game is already slanted heavily in the players favor.

And yet the Obituary thread in Rise of Runelords is quite long


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To be fair, more than a few DMs fiddle with the encounters in APs like RotRL to make them deadlier since they feel that the group needs more challenge. Sometimes DMs alter the encounters to account for larger parties, and that too can create deaths when more powerful or numerous monsters happen to concentrate their attacks on a particular PC. Other times a player (usually me in our groups) will make a PC who focuses "too much" on AC or other defenses and this "forces" the DM to kill other PCs "by accident".


gustavo iglesias wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
That was my point. Absolute answers which exist but are effectively unknowable save in retrospect are in practical terms nonexistent even if in real terms they do exist.
But if your were the Houston Rocket's coach and your needed a 3p shoot to win a game... Would your give that shot to Dwight Howard?

Depends. How has his day been?

Serious answer. If his head isn't in the game, if it's an off day, if he's suffered even a minor injury, that makes all the difference.

Which is better? Cone of Cold or Fireball? Depends on what we're fighting, and at what range. Humans who are totally unprepared for elemental damage? Devils? Kytons? Are we in close quarters or at long range? Are there other environmental factors to take into consideration, such as flammable structures, water, or magic fields?
Obviously, Cone of Cold is mathematically superior to Fireball as far as damage potential, but Fireball is still better in given situations.

I've seen teamwork feats work. Yes, they require a specific situation but when that situation pops up, it is a glorious one.

In PFS I sat at a table where everyone else played together on the regular. They all had Lookout and Escape Route, meaning that in combat they were a highly mobile, quick acting force. They were able to slingshot the wizard out of melee and rush the fighter into it, all without provoking a single AoO. It was an impressive sight to see.

Would the Wizard have been better off taking Spell Focus or a metamagic feat? Maybe. In strait out combats, yes, he'd be stronger. However, when the opponents are Tengu ninja who broke in through the windows and are now directly beside the squishy wizard, using the party's own Ninja's perception check to act in the surprise round and having a clear path to the back of the line is a life saver.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

This may or not be a solution: I 'scale' a number of teamwork feats. A simple ally gains X from a feat, while one that has the actual feat gains something more. E.G.: in my game, Elven Fighters use an ancient fighting style that emphasizes defensive moves and intimate knowledge of Elven fighting techniques. They even learn to recognize and use the clumsy actions of allied races to the advantage of both. A crude example (as I am away atm) might be the plus 2 flanking bonus with anyone, followed by being able to gain a flanking bonus if not perfectly arrayed against the foe, then giving the ally the same benefit, etc.


Lord Twitchiopolis wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
That was my point. Absolute answers which exist but are effectively unknowable save in retrospect are in practical terms nonexistent even if in real terms they do exist.
But if your were the Houston Rocket's coach and your needed a 3p shoot to win a game... Would your give that shot to Dwight Howard?

Depends. How has his day been?

Serious answer. If his head isn't in the game, if it's an off day, if he's suffered even a minor injury, that makes all the difference.

Which is better? Cone of Cold or Fireball? Depends on what we're fighting, and at what range. Humans who are totally unprepared for elemental damage? Devils? Kytons? Are we in close quarters or at long range? Are there other environmental factors to take into consideration, such as flammable structures, water, or magic fields?
Obviously, Cone of Cold is mathematically superior to Fireball as far as damage potential, but Fireball is still better in given situations.

I've seen teamwork feats work. Yes, they require a specific situation but when that situation pops up, it is a glorious one.

In PFS I sat at a table where everyone else played together on the regular. They all had Lookout and Escape Route, meaning that in combat they were a highly mobile, quick acting force. They were able to slingshot the wizard out of melee and rush the fighter into it, all without provoking a single AoO. It was an impressive sight to see.

Would the Wizard have been better off taking Spell Focus or a metamagic feat? Maybe. In strait out combats, yes, he'd be stronger. However, when the opponents are Tengu ninja who broke in through the windows and are now directly beside the squishy wizard, using the party's own Ninja's perception check to act in the surprise round and having a clear path to the back of the line is a life saver.

Who takes the shot is the wrong question. The question is who do you sign on. And there are definitely people you don't want to sign on. Someone from a college team that won less than 20% of its games you probably don't want on a professional team. Someone who is good at something that rarely comes up and otherwise unimpressive you probably don't want to sign on either. Remember, there's no back bench for feats. You can afford to take situational spells, but for feats you only get one player for each position. Can you really afford a guy who only does field goals when it means you have someone useless on the field whenever you aren't doing a field goal?

251 to 293 of 293 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Why are teamwork feats so unpopular? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.