| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, I can see why in PFS they would be unpopular. Unless you have a very small pool of players, you won’t know who you are going to be with at the table so they probably won’t have the matching abilities.
But as far as I can tell, most home groups never use them (unless free from the class abilities). Even when they are pretty obviously mathematically superior, people don’t use them. I’ve demonstrated it with the opposition forces (when I was GM) and with a short term demo with a 1 shot. Every single player and GM was amazed at how great they worked. But still no one was willing to take them next time they were making characters. Even ‘optimizers’ making teams to work together will only rarely consider using them.
Small group had 2 players making pet builds. A summoner and a druid. Both actively planned to provide flanking for their melee pets as much as possible. Plus there would be 2 pets usually in melee. One of which was intelligent and could work toward flanking with the other. The summoner was also working toward a reach eidolon (for attacks of opportunity) and was himself using a long spear.
Flanking and weapon focus claws (and PC weapon) gives a +3 to the claw attacks (and the PC’s weapon attacks). The bite and gore attacks are only at +2.
Flanking and outflank gives a +4 to the claws, weapon, bite, and gore attacks and an extra AoO when a critical is scored.
Besides you could still take weapon focus and they stack just fine.
Four melee creatures with outflank should be able to provide flanking most of the time. Yet neither player was willing to seriously consider taking outflank.
Players all said they really wanted to make a sneaky group kinda like a magical special forces unit. Complained the system doesn’t allow it. They made builds with a whole bunch of feats and traits devoted to max stealth. With the 5 players, familiar, and animal companion someone would be rolling low and blowing the sneak most of the time. I showed them how replacing one of the feats with Stealth Synergy makes it work just fine. With 7 creatures rolling and always taking the highest die rolled, you will almost never blow the stealth. I both worked out the probability and used computer generated example rolls for 1000 times. Then we even all rolled dice at the table about 10 times. I don’t remember the percentage off the top of my head any more, but it is pretty dang rare to get 7 rolls to all be around 4-5 or less and the average was like +8 (much better than the stealth feat they were replacing).
They talked about how many possibilities this opened up and how much better the sneaky force would be. First session, other than me, they all brought characters without Stealth Synergy.
Next campaign was going to be the PC’s were from a nomad tribe of Halfling dinosaur riders (Eberron & PF). They weren’t sure if mounted combat could be made to work with the way initiative rolls unless everyone delayed to whoever rolled the lowest. One of the last encounters of my campaign I made an opposing party of mounted characters with a few mounted teamwork feats. Most of the opposing party was lower level and much lower gear than the PC’s. But they very quickly almost killed several of the PC’s. They saw how easy it was to get lots of very successful charges with cavalry formation and coordinated charge.
None of them took a teamwork feat except for the hunters free one.
We were in a campaign where we were constantly rolling moderately high AoE DC will saves from surprise ambushes. We didn’t expect it from the campaign description for our initial builds. So most just had the standard ‘decent’ will save. About halfway through every single PC took the feat iron will for a +2 on will saves. If they had instead took shake it off they would have almost always had a +3 to all saves. But no one did.
I just don’t get it. Even when a teamwork feat is numerically better and perfectly fits the build concept and/or does a better job of solving the problem in front of them, most people seem unwilling to even try them. The only answer I’ve been able to get is “They don’t work all the time. What if you are not right next to your team mates?” But you usually are next to your team mates and almost no feat works all the time.
Is there something I’m missing? If you are one of the people that won’t take them even when they work great for what you want to do, can you tell me why?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Teamwork feats work for about four classes that cheat the idea that two characters need the same one. They also do wonders for minion NPCs to keep looks threatening longer. Otherwise they're generally useless and for some reason that upsets people.
|
Team work feet's are fine. It dose require some working with the group. Preparation and planning but they are very effective. In home games. However this is coming from some one who's home game. First question is who is playing the bard. Followed by what is every one else playing?
In PFSP Team Work Feet's unless free are all but worthless. Due to the nature of the play style.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Although I do agree some teamwork feats can do wonders if used right, in general the nature of combat is such that teamwork feats become less and less useful unless there are mechanics that jam them in to make them a better fit (like a hunter riding his wolf and flanking at the same time all the time).
Then there's the "build" argument, few classes aside from those who get teamwork feats for free and plus fighter and brawler with his awesome martial flexibility, can really afford to take teamwork feats or risk being unoptimized. This is less of a problem if it's a lighthearted game.
A lot of the feats assume that everyone performs the same role in a party. Meanwhile, your generic party is a fighter, cleric, mage and rogue. But if you were running in a party of mostly the same role, then the teamwork feats would be great.
That's assuming you have a stable table though. If you are in something like PFS, where party composition is fairly random, you can never count on any other player to have a feat, so you can't count on benefiting from it either.
Uhmm...
I already agreed it wouldn't be a good idea for PFS.
Several of them don't require the PC's to have the same role. Some of them even, by design, work best for PC's that have different roles.
All 4 of my examples, the group was already planning on doing and eventually did in fact do everything required to make the teamwork feat work. They were already functioning as a unit, flanking, riding in close formation, etc...
It was mathematically and demonstrably (in actual play) better than what they did take.
They would have been much more optimized if they had taken the teamwork feats. Not useless and not unoptimized.
...
In all of your examples, the teamwork feats would be good choices, but that may not always be the case.
Absolutely agree. Never said it would always be a good choice. The game would be very boring if the same thing was always the best choice.
But even when they clearly are the best choice, most people won't consider them.
| 3 people 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.
2) Non-teamwork feats don't depend on someone else, so you're not stymied as often. It's like Magic the card game, why would you depend on a 2-3 card combination when you can get the same results from a single card? You're setting yourself up for failure.
3) Don't depend on others. It would suck if that player didn't show up or left the gaming group.
Despite the drawbacks, not sure why they're not used *sometimes*.
My tactical paladin grants a teamwork to all in 30'. I took lookout first (lv 3) then outflank (lv 9)
Are there any better for PFS use (I tend to think the weapon specific ones are not as useful in unknown groups.
My Holy Tactician feat is Shake It Off: up to a +4 untyped bonus to all saving throws is huge.
I picked up Outflank as my cavalier dip because I usually run with a Mouser Swashbuckler. I also have a level of Brawler, so I can learn a few useful teamwork feats on the fly, which covers all those situational ones like Swap Places.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Most people want to be The Hero of their own little narrative in their head, with the other PCs being the Robin to their Batman.
2. Teamwork-Feats are a pact of equals.
--> These two desires do not mix.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Teamwork feats generally aren't prereqs to other feats. Stealth synergy may be better value than skill focus (steath) but the latter is a prereq to several later feats with non-numerical benefits to stealth. Similarly for many others; teamwork feats feel like they trap you into low-level abilities.
Often teamwork feats require those using them to be bunched up close together. This is sometimes referred to as a 'clusterf~!#' when AoE effects are in play.
Flanking enemies is sometimes a neat tactic, sometimes it gets one of the flankers isolated, flanked in turn and killed. You might feel that investing a feat on yourself and also on your pet is too much to spend for a +2 on that tactic only (as opposed to just carrying a longspear which costs nothing much).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A large number of them are entirely worthless (just my opinion). The ones that aren't useless are incredibly awesome. That being said, you've got to have someone else that also wants whatever benefit that is going to give. In a well balanced party you won't always find that because each person will fill a distinct (i.e. unique) role and most of the teamwork feats only work within one role. But if you can find a way to always benefit (hunter + pet, cavalier (either tactician or horsemaster's saddle, ring of shared tactical precision, inquisitor's solo tactics) then grab as many as are useful to you.
| 5 people 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.
It would be like when Lucy used more than 10% of her brain...
You might feel that investing a feat on yourself and also on your pet is too much to spend for a +2 on that tactic only (as opposed to just carrying a longspear which costs nothing much).
Hunters solve this problem by getting teamwork feats for free and automatically sharing them with their pets.
Of course, inquisitors get solo tactics which let them use teamwork feats without partners, and those are really effective.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) Need to get two people with the same concept at the same time. Doesn't always happen
2) They are weak. Their design does not seem to have taken into account that its effectively TWO feats to get the benefit: one from each party member taking it. They're often not that great when evaluated at the cost of 1 feat, much less two.
3) In practice, positioning requirements make them even less useful than they are in theory. (ie, worse than "not very")
You might feel that investing a feat on yourself and also on your pet is too much to spend for a +2 on that tactic only (as opposed to just carrying a longspear which costs nothing much).Hunters solve this problem by getting teamwork feats for free and automatically sharing them with their pets.
Of course, inquisitors get solo tactics which let them use teamwork feats without partners, and those are really effective.
Yeah, I was thinking of the OP's scenario which involved a druid and a summoner. No solo tactics or similar for them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many builds have huge feat requirements and feat taxes (like boon companion for dome classes, the whole Shatter Defenses trece, etc) that means that while some claasses or builds have a few early feats to spare, others don't. You could like to take Outflank, but maybe your fellow samurai trying to build a deadly stroke build can't afford it. Or your fellow druid needs/wants more natural spell, wildspeech, augmented summons and craft eoundreous items, and so on. Your compare it yo Weapon focus: I often can't spare a feat in weapon focus.
Teamwork feats should give something when used alone. For example outflabk could be +1 when you flank, +2 ehen your flank with other outflanker
|
Teamwork feats are actually hidden class features for classes like Inquisitor, Cavalier, and Hunter. The fact that others can take them if it happens to be optimal is as much a DM tool as anything. I think it was more about keeping the option open than intending many players to take them.
There is one teamwork feat where it's VERY worth it to pair up with someone even when not a teamwork-based class: Outflank. That gets ridiculous with combat reflexes and high crit weapons. I've seen bosses shredded to triple-digit negatives off of an AoO chain before due to a string of lucky rolls.
Why don't people take teamwork feats?
1) Caster feats are normally a lot more expensive than +2 on attacks (while being in melee, which is a mistake in my opinion, but your players said they planned on it, so okay.)
2) Stealth Synergy is great for all stealth groups. Which are maybe 1 in 1000 groups.
3) Only half of an average party would even want to make charges, the other half would cast spells.
4) When you say they'd have had +3 "almost always", you mean in your party of 4, it's a rare event for any person to leave adjacency from the other 3? Because in the groups I play in and run, Shake It Off is more often "+1 for like half the turns, nothing for the rest". And with Inquisitors, yes, I'm watching for it.
tldr: they're good for super specialized groups designed to take maximum advantage of them. Most aren't.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't forget that Teamwork feats cost twice as much (it costs two feat slots to use a Teamwork feat, one slot on two different characters). So even if their benefit can be demonstrated to be, say, 50% better than some other non-Teamwork feat, paying 100% more for 50% better benefit is not a good bet.
Even when the numbers are not so perfectly clear cut (they never are), the perception of these numbers makes people shy away from Teamwork feats.
Ultimately, to eliminate this "shy away" factor, a Teamwork feat needs to be clearly and obviously twice as good as the other non-Teamwork options before anyone is going to take it seriously.
For example, imagine that they made a Teamwork feat that gave you +6 Initiative but only when an ally takes the same feat - but that ally gets no benefit from it, and it doesn't stack with Improved Initiative. You might want this feat. After all, it's better than Improved Initiative. But how easily could you talk one of the other players at the table to also take it, for zero benefit, just to help you out? YOu can't. But imagine if the same feat gave you +8 initiative. Now, at least the math works out. One feat (Improved Initiative) grants one guy +4 or two feats (this imaginary one taken twice) grants one guy +8 initiative. Even that would be hard to convince a fellow player to burn a feat for your benefit, but at least the math works out for the group. Now imagine if the feat gave +10 initiative. It becomes easier to talk someone into it since now it is clearly better than both people taking Improved Initiative.
Even so, you might never get a fellow player to make that sacrifice to help you. But maybe this imaginary feat could see some use for a character with an animal companion or a familiar or a cohort - but probably only the third version I presented, or maybe the second, but never the first.
THAT is the problem with most Teamwork feats. Double the cost, not necessarily double the benefit, so probably not worth the investment.
Yeah, I was thinking of the OP's scenario which involved a druid and a summoner. No solo tactics or similar for them.You might feel that investing a feat on yourself and also on your pet is too much to spend for a +2 on that tactic only (as opposed to just carrying a longspear which costs nothing much).Hunters solve this problem by getting teamwork feats for free and automatically sharing them with their pets.
Of course, inquisitors get solo tactics which let them use teamwork feats without partners, and those are really effective.
...
THAT is the problem with most Teamwork feats. Double the cost, not necessarily double the benefit, so probably not worth the investment.
That druid, summoner, and both their pets all had weapon focus for one single type of natural attack. I think the eidolon took it twice. That's 5 feats for a +1 to each. They are 3/4 BaB attackers (except the summoner who is 1/2). They were worried about hitting since they did almost always maneuver for a flanking position.
If they hadn't taken weapon focus already, I can easily see the rational for something else is more important to me than a +2 to hit most of the time.
.
Why don't people take teamwork feats?
1) Caster feats are normally a lot more expensive than +2 on attacks (while being in melee, which is a mistake in my opinion, but your players said they planned on it, so okay.)
2) Stealth Synergy is great for all stealth groups. Which are maybe 1 in 1000 groups.
3) Only half of an average party would even want to make charges, the other half would cast spells.
4) When you say they'd have had +3 "almost always", you mean in your party of 4, it's a rare event for any person to leave adjacency from the other 3? Because in the groups I play in and run, Shake It Off is more often "+1 for like half the turns, nothing for the rest". And with Inquisitors, yes, I'm watching for it.tldr: they're good for super specialized groups designed to take maximum advantage of them. Most aren't.
1) Agreed, but they were already taking melee combat feats.
2) Yes, it is rare. The group was going to be an all super sneaky group.3) But they wanted to be able to stay together to keep those casters out of isolation. Plus the mounts with reach would still be able to make their charge attacks.
4) That particular group has typically 5-7 players present and usually at least 1 of them has a pet of some sort. They are usually near at least 2 and sometimes up to 4 or 5 allies.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While most people have some "free feats" somewhere in their progression where they have finished their "must haves" and don't qualify for the next tier of feats yet, players don't always have those at the same time.
So one player would have to take the teamwork feat at level 5, just to then wait till level 7 or even level 9 when his buddy can finally pick it up as well.
First player also can't wait till level 7 or 9, because those feats are once again planned for different things he didn't qualify at 5 yet.
Now tell me, would you do this as player 1? I probably wouldn't.
That might not be the main reason TW feats aren't used often, but I figure it certainly contributes.
It's a lot easier to plan around them when you control all the characters, especially if they all fill the same role.
But for individual characters, they have their own planned builds with their own planned styles.
Ex. Paired Opportunists + Broken Wing is good, but it's not something everyone has the space for, or a tactic they'll favor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are people talking about it as if anyone takes them without cheating them in play with a class feature? Teamwork feats are for class features and NPCs this is obvious from day one. Sure you can make some use out of them for flavor and whatnot but overall nothing is really wrong with the concept because it does what its supposed to do; Be ammunition for class features or feat sharing abilities and maybe make a horde of lvl 1 goblins still vaguely threatening.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
On top of what everyone else is saying, I think there is another, more subtle issue at play. The thing that makes RPGs work so well (in the eyes of many) is the idea that you (the player) can sit down and make YOUR character the way that you see fit. However, when you decide that you want to use teamwork feats because you feel as though there is a great enough advantage from them (which I'm not entirely certain is accurate), you are essentially forced to ask another player to make her character in the style that YOU imagine, not the style that SHE imagined.
Of course, sometimes this will work out perfectly and its not a big deal. More often though, you are in a situation where one player feels as though they are being asked to design their character in a certain manner. Granted, its possible that the design in question is in fact superior (numerically speaking) to the one the player initially envisioned, but that doesn't mean it's more fun.
All of this comes up even before you look at whether or not a character has available feat slots to even take said teamwork feat. There are a lot of feats that are deemed to be pretty much necessary to make a particular character effective. Granted, I think that a lot of these feats may not be necessary depending on the style of game that the GM is running, but if they are perceived to be necessary then there's another hurdle to clear.
|
Contributor
|
While most people have some "free feats" somewhere in their progression where they have finished their "must haves" and don't qualify for the next tier of feats yet, players don't always have those at the same time.
So one player would have to take the teamwork feat at level 5, just to then wait till level 7 or even level 9 when his buddy can finally pick it up as well.
First player also can't wait till level 7 or 9, because those feats are once again planned for different things he didn't qualify at 5 yet.Now tell me, would you do this as player 1? I probably wouldn't.
That might not be the main reason TW feats aren't used often, but I figure it certainly contributes.
If the campaign allows retraining, that would help with this particular burden. ^_^
The biggest problem is that your examples are not indicative of actual play.
For every group where everybody decides to focus on stealth, there's another group-- or probably ten groups-- where there's one or two stealthy guys, and at least one guy clanking around in full plate.
The same is true for the mounted thing. Even assuming a party is nothing but mounted characters... every one of them wants melee? Really? And every one of them actually has open feats? Those are kind of hard to come by for mounted combat, which has bigger feat costs than most combat styles.
Shake It Off has a separate concern. If I'm fighting a caster-- if I even think there's a caster nearby-- bunching up is the last thing I want to do. That's inviting a Cloudkill, Dazing Fireball, or the entire group to be trapped behind a Wall. It's inviting the suddenly Dominated Fighter to do an about-face and full attack the Wizard.
No, I want to spread out. Sure, Johnny might get caught in a Fireball or a Wall of Stone, but Timmy and Spike can push through. And if Johnny gets Dominated, then he at least has to move, so he's not launching a full attack.
Even in a game where I was expecting lots of Will saves, unless I knew that what was causing them was not a spellcaster and could not turn into a Dominate, I would take Iron Will over Shake It Off. That feat just seems suicidal.
I will say that melee Druids and Summoners not using any teamwork feats is odd to me if they're emphasizing the Eidolon/Companion... but that's honestly a pretty big 'if'. Half the day the Summoner is probably falling back on Summoned Monsters, who don't really have teamwork feats. And for any major fight the Druid probably drops some summons, and it's not at all hard to imagine a battlefield where he and his companion wind up being tactically better off working with a summon apiece than with each other.
...
Yes, all of them are indicative of actual play.
I agree not necessarily common situations but they were actual true to life examples that actually occurred.
That small party did actually have a druid and summoner that were built to be and almost always were in flanking positions with their pets.
Another group did make an all sneaky group with a whole bunch of feats dedicated to being super stealthy. They eventually gave up on it as not working even though 1 single feat for each of them would have made it work just fine.
They really did make a mounted combat group that tried to make good use of charges and position to protect the squishies. Not very successfully because they didn't take the teamwork feats designed to allow exactly what they were trying to do.
The last was the most niche case. That particular issue was about 90% undead with fear and insanity effects. The group did tend to stay bunched up. (They were very concerned about getting split up if they spread out. It happened a few times early in the campaign.)
Note: Again I am not saying they are always great. But sometimes they very clearly are very good. Certainly sometimes better than what is taken instead.
.
.
1. Most people want to be The Hero of their own little narrative in their head, with the other PCs being the Robin to their Batman.
2. Teamwork-Feats are a pact of equals.
--> These two desires do not mix.
This makes the most sense of anything I've read so far. Seems kinda sad to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most characters are only going to see 5-7 feats in the life of any given character. That makes every feat a significant investment of character resources.
In most cases, Teamwork feats are highly circumstantial to begin with. The bonuses they give require planning and set up, and even then, when they take effect they usually aren't as big a benefit as a decent buff spell
Like most feats, there are good teamwork feats and bad ones. The bad ones aren't ever worth the investment. The good ones require two characters designed to synergize with each other, who both have the "room" in their build to devote a feat to teamwork.
The only teamwork feat build I've ever seen that was consistently functional and impressive was Paired Opportunists and Seize the Moment with Butterfly Sting, Greater Trip and Reach weapons.
Why are people talking about it as if anyone takes them without cheating them in play with a class feature? Teamwork feats are for class features and NPCs this is obvious from day one. Sure you can make some use out of them for flavor and whatnot but overall nothing is really wrong with the concept because it does what its supposed to do; Be ammunition for class features or feat sharing abilities and maybe make a horde of lvl 1 goblins still vaguely threatening.Eh. I could also see taking them if somebody else gets 'em off a class feature.
For example, I'm GMing for a party that includes a Hunter and an Inquisitor. That means there are three bodies in melee who have Outflank. It's pretty easy for the third party member to consider Outflank in that case.
Granted in that specific example I don't know that he'll wind up taking it, since he wants to spend half his time casting. But he wants to spend the other half of his time on the front lines, which makes it at least an option.
That's still a situation where class features are cheating out teamwork feats. Me and my girlfriend made twin cavaliers for PFS so we'd get an engaged bonus or something, so I know people have reasons to grab it but unless someone is cheating them out they aren't useful and that includes situations where everyone else has it due to class features.
|
Contributor
|
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. ^_^
Well, if your team agrees they are good and still doesn't use them, part of the problem may be your team.
We have a group that is a stealth team much like you described and there are pretty much three requirements for the team. Darkvision, drow sign language (our healer is a deaf oracle), and Stealth Synergy.
With seven players, it's nigh impossible to fail a stealth check.
----
One of the big issues is that it has to be the same priority for two players at the same time. Both can agree that it's useful, but if one person wants it at level 5 and the other wants something else more it breaks down. If the first guy takes it at level five then they have wasted a feat slot until the other guy gets around to it. This is why the classes that don't need to rely on somebody else taking it are the only ones who do.
Even when you do get two people who have them, you have a feat that only works when the other guy is near you. Situational feats are rarely as good as other feats.
----
We have an upcoming game that's second level. It has one hunter, one inquisitor, and one kineticist/inquisitor. That's four allies with teamwork feats. If we coordinate, then there's a good chance that anybody else nearby will be able to benefit as we go up.
The hunter is especially cool - he is a goblin mounted on a Roc. He has Outflank and Pack Flanking, so they both always get +4 to hit against flankable foes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
Hence, you have micro scale scenarios of actual play where they would have been helpful, but in the massive majority (read as: macro scale) of actual play they would not be. And that develops an aversion to consider them even in the .01% of the time that they're actually a viable choice outside of class features.
(I don't think it is anywhere near that rare that they are a good idea, but that is really irrelevant to my point.)
You last sentence is a reason that I could almost agree with. If I didn't constantly watch people spend huge amounts of time on convoluted schemes to make a really lousy feat workout at least halfway decent.
.
.
What ever, it seems most people are absolutely convinced they are horrible no matter what.
A few of the responses make a bit more sense than most of the others, but still don't hold out much hope that anyone will be willing to give them much of a chance.
Thanks folks. Catch you later.
| 3 people 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.
The kicker is it requires cooperation, and that means it doesn't apply 100% of the time. You are reliant on the other person to work with you.
For the DM, this is easy...squad combat is what they DO. So teamwork feats are no-brainers, and absolute cooperation means they are killer in application, just like they are intended.
But when your Outflank buddy has to leave and go rescue someone, or engage a different baddy to save your asses, or just plain isn't there, you've blown a feat slot for no benefit.
So, do you want a feat that is working for you 100% of the time, or 01-100% of the time? People do the math, and go with the guarantee.
===Aelryinth
|
|
It's worth noting that, in a lot of cases, teamwork feats for non-cheaters would mean feats spent by classes for whom feats are a precious resource (i.e. those without bonus feats). That heightens the opportunity cost for taking situationally useful feats that can immediately become dead weight in the event of PC death.
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 fireOthers 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.
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
I assume the teamwork aspect is the wizard moves behind the fighter as the fighter moves to intercept someone going at him, thus halving the effort, i.e. teamwork.
Meh.
==Aelryinth
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would have been nice if the teamwork feats offered a baseline personal buff and then an augmented buff when teammates had either the same teamwork feat OR the singular version.
For example:
====
Shake It Off (Teamwork)
You gain a +1 bonus to one saving throw (Reflex, Fortitude, Will) chosen at the time the feat is selected. This feat may be taken multiple times, but does not stack with itself for the same saving throw.
Whenever you are adjacent to one or more allies with any feat that grants a bonus to the same saving throw, you and those allies gain an additional +1 to the selected saving throw per adjacent ally (max of +4). This bonus does not stack with itself for the same saving throw.
====
So if you choose "Shake It Off [Will]" you gain a lesser Iron Will. You could also choose to take Iron Will, with which your Shake It Off bonus would stack, giving you a solo +3 to Will saves for the investment of 2 feats.
If you stand next to Fred the Fighter and Bob the Barbarian, things might change. Fred has Iron Will while Bob has Shake It Off [Will].
Because Fred has a feat that gives a bonus to Will saves, as does Bob, you, Fred, and Bob would all gain an additional +3 bonus to your Will saves.
"But wait!" you say, "Bob also has Shake It Off [Will]! Wouldn't I get another +3?"
Nope. Shake It Off [Will] can't stack with itself, so you would only get one or the other, not both.
This would allow you to get at least *something* for your feat investment even in circumstances where no one else works with you, and gives you the ability to buff your teammates without them having to alter their characters. In fact, with a Fighter's number of feats, this would allow them to be passive group buffers, though I suppose that is somewhat stepping on the Inquisitor's toes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the 'adjacent' language is the killer for Shake it off.
A combat rarely stays with adjacent. Someone with a Pet could use the feat reliably, as they could simply have their familiar stay next to them.
Another PC? Running all over the place? Vastly diminished utility. They would have to extend the range significantly to make it worthwhile.
==Aelryinth