Why are teamwork feats so unpopular?


Advice

151 to 200 of 293 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

kestral287 wrote:
APs solve a lot of the assumptions if you're smart. "I'm playing in an AP called Giantslayer... I wonder if I'll be fighting giants?"

I don't know. Isn't there a campaign guide or somehing I could download to help me know more about what's in that particular AP?

I wonder how much the campaign guide costs....


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I was trying to come up with a good build for an Assassin PrC. (it was definitely a challenge, because i wanted to make it work with a group)

so I built him up with 5 levels of tactician and 1 level of assassin.

he focused dexterity and then intelligence, with a bit of strength for carrying capacity. (He used HellKnightplate, with the idea to eventually get creeping on it, had a heavy shield, and wielded a rapier, using weapon finesse and fencing grace)

he used stealth synergy to get his friends up close with him and then bam you have a tank in the middle of the enemies who just at least tried to death attack the mage. he also uses poisons though that's not as necessary.(the end result still wasn't that great)

it was the only time i've considered using teamwork feats.


Yeah, I'd been saying earlier in the thread that teamwork feats and maneuvers like Trip are probably better in an AP than in a homebrew where the DM might emphasize certain types of monsters or change plans to thwart your abilities. Maybe I wasn't clear enough about that.

In my haste to expound upon the wonderful possibilities of playing PCs just like mine I also kind of forgot that gustavo was playing Giantslayer. That said, I think that some other player in a different campaign might find the relative values of Outflank and BGH work out differently though. I mean, if you're playing "Against the Kobolds" maybe BGH wouldn't be so hot. On the other hand, maybe the kobolds have a bunch of pet dragons and it would be just grand. All 3 games I'm in right now are homebrew, so it is tough for me to predict what might work.

As far as the situation being mostly under your control with "many" teamwork feats I'll stand by my assertion, especially as it relates to the relative control you have over something like favored enemy at least in a relatively railroaded campaign. I mean, if you take favored enemy (undead) and then the DM never uses any undead it could be a pretty disappointing choice. If you and your friend take Shield Wall and then stand next to each other in most combats you'll mostly get your +2 AC. Whether or not standing near each other it a terrible idea is a subject which might be worthy of its own thread, but at least you have some control. The same could be said for Amplified Rage, which I think will actually end up being pretty nice.

Outflank has all the same problems as flanking, and Tandem Trip has most of the same problems as tripping. Deepening your investment in a risky tactic like flanking or tripping might not be as prudent as diversifying into other abilities, but when your high risk investment pays off it will probably be nice. A lot of folks are risk averse in various ways, and that probably contributes to the avoidance of teamwork feats.


Devilkiller wrote:
Deepening your investment in a risky tactic like flanking or tripping might not be as prudent as diversifying into other abilities, but when your high risk investment pays off it will probably be nice. A lot of folks are risk averse in various ways, and that probably contributes to the avoidance of teamwork feats.

Well, that's where Gustavo's analysis comes in. Saying "(it will be) pretty nice" is awfully vague. The question is whether it's nice enough to a) pass up on all the other great feats that are also "pretty nice" and b) nice enough to persuade your buddy of the same thing.

I mean, Amplified Rage is good okay on paper, but how often do you have two barbarians in the party? Two orcish barbarians? Two orcish barbarians who want to stand next to each other instead of taking advantage of their mobility, reach, et cetera?

From a tactical standpoint, Amplified Rage really says "here's a feat you can take that will keep you from charging effectively, lock you into using non-reach weapons, and make you a target of every AoE spell the casters can scrape up." For those kind of limitations, I'd want it to give me DR 20/kryptonite, not just another +2 to hit over normal rage.


I have a PC who usually triggers about 5-6 attacks on a foe he trips. When we're facing a centipede or a flying fish (seriously our last encounter was a Huge magical flying fish with Awesome Blow) my investment in Trip feats and Vicious Stomp seems like a big waste of time. When we're facing a foe who can be tripped it is "pretty nice" though. That PC doesn't even have Tandem Trip since that party has no other trippers, but the idea is really that situational feats are situationally useful, not anything about teamwork feats in particular though they've almost by definition highly situational.

The same PC is the one considering Amplified Rage. Criticisms like questioning how often we have two orcs who Rage in the party don't seem very applicable for a party which will have two orcs who Rage. There's nothing about being adjacent to each other which prevents us from using Reach weapons. In fact, against foes who can't be tripped the Scarred Witch Doctor often stands behind the Fighter who has higher AC and uses hexes or her prehensile hair since she doesn't need to be adjacent to the foe for Vicious Stomp. It is tough to argue with the idea that we'll often be caught in the same AoE spells, but that's already the case given our clustered up combat tactics. Sometimes being reasonably close to other PCs can also be nice such as if you've got somebody who casts buff spells. That's not really a big benefit for the PCs looking at Amplified Rage, but the Shield Wall folks get a lot of Haste and Good Hope, and just last session the whole party needed to get adjacent to the same square for a Communal spell.

People hate teamwork feats though, so bringing up examples of when they might be useful is probably sort of a silly effort, especially when we all know that there is probably something else which could have been more useful. Like by 17th level the fact we'll be orcs trying to hit things in melee rather than Wizards putting them in a Maze puts us in a position that's tough to defend from a "best bang for the buck" perspective. We're doing it because it seems like it might be fun and should work well enough to win the combats we expect to face (though honestly in a homebrew we can only guess)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Weslocke wrote:

As far as the changing PC "concepts" goes, since when does a "concept" take all your feats?

My players establish their concepts at first level.

About 3rd -7th they look to see if any teamwork feats fit between their concepts.

Example: "I have been making good use of this shield I found", said the Cleric PC to the Paladin in my last carrion crown campaign. "Maybe we should practice using our shields in concert in hallways and tight spots.", she added.
"Good idea", replied the paladin. And they promptly purchased the Shield Wall feat.

How, precisely, does that disrupt a "concept"?

To be a good archer you eventually need: Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Deadly Aim, Clustered Shot, Manyshot.

To be a good Two Weapon Fighter you eventually need: Two Weapon Fighting, Double Slice, Improved Two Weapon Fighting, Two Weapon Rend, Power Attack, arguably Greater Two Weapon Fighting. If you want to that plus be good with your shield you also need: Improved Shield Bash, Shield Slam, and Shield Master.

To be good with a two handed weapon you need: Power Attack.

If you plan out your character build and see what you need and what you want for your character to function well, then only one of the three main combat paths actually has room for you to fit extremely situational abilities without you delaying things you need. You cannot fulfill the concept of "-background here- badass archer/sword and board dude" without the appropriate lengthy feat chains. If you try without it you just have ""-background here- dude who deluded himself to think he's a badass archer/sword and board dude" as your concept.

Doomed Hero wrote:
Weslocke wrote:
As far as the changing PC "concepts" goes, since when does a "concept" take all your feats?
Clearly you've never tried to build an effective whip weilder...

...And that's not even talking about trying to make even more niche builds work. Apparently all people who use whips are fighters or demigods because they are the only ones who can afford the feat tax.


Devilkiller wrote:

...

@Gronk - One criticism I'll offer on Lookout is that unless somebody has an ability to always act in the surprise round you could find that having the entire team invest a feat into not being surprised becomes a big disappointment when the DM ensures (or simply rules by fiat) that you're all surprised anyhow.

Your group stealth story seems pretty sad, but did the players know about Taking 10? If so are you sure they understand that you can take 10 even when there's a risk of failure? It is taking 20 which isn't allowed then, but a lot of folks get those rules confused, and some DMs enforce them incorrectly. Anyhow, in some ways Teamwork Feats might as well be called Don't Work All the Time Feats, and a lot of players probably figure that feats which don't work all the time won't work when they need them.

I honestly don't remember. That may have been back before it was understood, but it may have just been they didn't feel like the could take 10 times as long to do everything.


Taking ten does not increase the time spent on the task, so the answer is probably "they didn't know about Taking 10".

Which is pretty much my issue with Stealth Synergy. Unless the GM rules you can't take 10 on Stealth, you've got the ability to avoid low rolls built right into the rules.


True, but Stealth Synergy is closer to T16 than T10.

I did a quick calculation with four PCs using Stealth Synergy. Assuming my math is correct (which is a big assumption, I haven't done probability in ages) I got these results.

*Unnecessary text to keep the table somewhat aligned goes here*

Spoiler:
Min: 1
Max: 20
Avg: 16.48
Std Dev: 3.258
Roll Freq Prob Bar
1 1 0.0%

2 15 0.0%

3 65 0.0%

4 175 0.1%

5 369 0.2%

6 671 0.4%

7 1105 0.7%

8 1695 1.1%

9 2465 1.5%

10 3439 2.1%

11 4641 2.9%

12 6095 3.8%

13 7825 4.9%

14 9855 6.2%

15 12209 7.6%

16 14911 9.3%

17 17985 11.2%

18 21455 13.4%

19 25345 15.8%

20 29679 18.5%

Calculations done using this dice roller, with the formula 4D20D3.

The average roll is 16.48. ~75% of the rolls are 15 or higher. The more PCs you have, the higher the average roll will be. As such Stealth Synergy is miles better than the entire party taking Skill Focus: Stealth or the like.

Only vaguely related but I quite like that it not only solves but reverses the probability problem that tends to haunt stealth checks.


Stealth Synergy might be better than the entire party taking Skill Focus (Stealth), but it might not be better than just the PCs who need a little extra Stealth taking Skill Focus (Stealth) or nobody taking Skill Focus (Stealth) and everybody or the lowest Stealth PCs buying cloaks of elvenkind. I'm not saying Stealth Synergy is bad, just that it might not be "worth it" if everybody has a decent Stealth modifier and takes 10.


Devilkiller wrote:
There's nothing about being adjacent to each other which prevents us from using Reach weapons.

hi, its actually in the first sentence where it Says you must be adjacent


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
kestral287 wrote:

Taking ten does not increase the time spent on the task, so the answer is probably "they didn't know about Taking 10".

Which is pretty much my issue with Stealth Synergy. Unless the GM rules you can't take 10 on Stealth, you've got the ability to avoid low rolls built right into the rules.

except that for every person who has the feat higher than the first 2 you significantly increase the odds of having rolls higher than 10, making it eventually take10++. it's the only feat i've considered.


CWheezy wrote:
Devilkiller wrote:
There's nothing about being adjacent to each other which prevents us from using Reach weapons.
hi, its actually in the first sentence where it Says you must be adjacent

Unless you have that Undine trait.


Bandw2 wrote:
kestral287 wrote:

Taking ten does not increase the time spent on the task, so the answer is probably "they didn't know about Taking 10".

Which is pretty much my issue with Stealth Synergy. Unless the GM rules you can't take 10 on Stealth, you've got the ability to avoid low rolls built right into the rules.

except that for every person who has the feat higher than the first 2 you significantly increase the odds of having rolls higher than 10, making it eventually take10++. it's the only feat i've considered.

Indeed, but that's only helpful if your party would only succeed if you need a stealth roll of 14 (17 at the high levels) or higher-- otherwise you're better off with Skill Focus.

If a stealth-oriented party can't succeed without a 14... prooobably not a stealth-oriented party.

In a party of 'people who are okay at stealth', it works, don't get me wrong. But it strikes me as mislabeled, and a party full of people who are okay at stealth is probably not looking at the feat in the first place.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
kestral287 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
kestral287 wrote:

Taking ten does not increase the time spent on the task, so the answer is probably "they didn't know about Taking 10".

Which is pretty much my issue with Stealth Synergy. Unless the GM rules you can't take 10 on Stealth, you've got the ability to avoid low rolls built right into the rules.

except that for every person who has the feat higher than the first 2 you significantly increase the odds of having rolls higher than 10, making it eventually take10++. it's the only feat i've considered.

Indeed, but that's only helpful if your party would only succeed if you need a stealth roll of 14 (17 at the high levels) or higher-- otherwise you're better off with Skill Focus.

If a stealth-oriented party can't succeed without a 14... prooobably not a stealth-oriented party.

In a party of 'people who are okay at stealth', it works, don't get me wrong. But it strikes me as mislabeled, and a party full of people who are okay at stealth is probably not looking at the feat in the first place.

since stealth is opposed by perception, it directly counter attacks a large group of possible noticers, as only one guy needs to see 1 person to raise the alarm.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
From a tactical standpoint, Amplified Rage really says "here's a feat you can take that will keep you from charging effectively, lock you into using non-reach weapons, and make you a target of every AoE spell the casters can scrape up." For those kind of limitations, I'd want it to give me DR 20/kryptonite, not just another +2 to hit over normal rage.

Keep in mind of course that DR/Kryptonite is still DR and still vulnerable to that same AoE spell damage you were concerned about.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
From a tactical standpoint, Amplified Rage really says "here's a feat you can take that will keep you from charging effectively, lock you into using non-reach weapons, and make you a target of every AoE spell the casters can scrape up." For those kind of limitations, I'd want it to give me DR 20/kryptonite, not just another +2 to hit over normal rage.
Keep in mind of course that DR/Kryptonite is still DR and still vulnerable to that same AoE spell damage you were concerned about.

Superman's DR was actually DR/magic hilariously.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I never said we don't have to be adjacent, just that, "There's nothing about being adjacent to each other which prevents us from using Reach weapons". Since that apparently wasn't clear enough, what I meant is that if we're standing adjacent to each other to qualify for the benefit of Amplified Rage we can still use Reach weapons. We could also qualify for the benefit of Amplified Rage by flanking a common enemy (with or without Reach weapons) rather than being adjacent, but I don't think we concentrate on flanking enough to make Outflank better than Amplified Rage for us, and staying adjacent to each other is probably easier for us to control than keeping a foe in flank anyhow.

Honestly even the bit about Amplified Rage preventing us from charging seems a little suspect to me since in fact we could still charge, and the second orc charging into an adjacent position would even still get a +2 to hit and +3 to damage boost on his or her attack. Even halved that's still a pretty decent bonus, and the PCs in question don't charge a lot anyhow. Of course if they did there's another teamwork feat which could help with that.


Kudaku wrote:

True, but Stealth Synergy is closer to T16 than T10.

{. . .}
Calculations done using this dice roller, with the formula 4D20D3. {. . .}

I think you meant 4d20D3 for the string (4D20D3 just gives 1 bar).


Bandw2 wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
From a tactical standpoint, Amplified Rage really says "here's a feat you can take that will keep you from charging effectively, lock you into using non-reach weapons, and make you a target of every AoE spell the casters can scrape up." For those kind of limitations, I'd want it to give me DR 20/kryptonite, not just another +2 to hit over normal rage.
Keep in mind of course that DR/Kryptonite is still DR and still vulnerable to that same AoE spell damage you were concerned about.
Superman's DR was actually DR/magic hilariously.

No, remember magic ignores all DR according to DR rules (Paizo later changed it so some magic is weakened by DR though). His DR doesn't have to be /magic.

"A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks. Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessly (in either case, the opponent knows the attack was ineffective). The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. A certain kind of weapon can sometimes damage the creature normally, as noted below."

Only weapons and natural attacks are supposed to be reduced.


Starbuck_II wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
From a tactical standpoint, Amplified Rage really says "here's a feat you can take that will keep you from charging effectively, lock you into using non-reach weapons, and make you a target of every AoE spell the casters can scrape up." For those kind of limitations, I'd want it to give me DR 20/kryptonite, not just another +2 to hit over normal rage.
Keep in mind of course that DR/Kryptonite is still DR and still vulnerable to that same AoE spell damage you were concerned about.
Superman's DR was actually DR/magic hilariously.

No, remember magic ignores all DR according to DR rules (Paizo later changed it so some magic is weakened by DR though). His DR doesn't have to be /magic.

"A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks. Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessly (in either case, the opponent knows the attack was ineffective). The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. A certain kind of weapon can sometimes damage the creature normally, as noted below."

Only weapons and natural attacks are supposed to be reduced.

It's DR/magic because magic weapons also hurt him.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Starbuck_II wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
From a tactical standpoint, Amplified Rage really says "here's a feat you can take that will keep you from charging effectively, lock you into using non-reach weapons, and make you a target of every AoE spell the casters can scrape up." For those kind of limitations, I'd want it to give me DR 20/kryptonite, not just another +2 to hit over normal rage.
Keep in mind of course that DR/Kryptonite is still DR and still vulnerable to that same AoE spell damage you were concerned about.
Superman's DR was actually DR/magic hilariously.

No, remember magic ignores all DR according to DR rules (Paizo later changed it so some magic is weakened by DR though). His DR doesn't have to be /magic.

"A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks. Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessly (in either case, the opponent knows the attack was ineffective). The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. A certain kind of weapon can sometimes damage the creature normally, as noted below."

Only weapons and natural attacks are supposed to be reduced.

yeah magical weapons like wonder woman's whip effect him normally. The man of Steel is powerless against people with magical armor.


Bandw2 wrote:
Starbuck_II wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
From a tactical standpoint, Amplified Rage really says "here's a feat you can take that will keep you from charging effectively, lock you into using non-reach weapons, and make you a target of every AoE spell the casters can scrape up." For those kind of limitations, I'd want it to give me DR 20/kryptonite, not just another +2 to hit over normal rage.
Keep in mind of course that DR/Kryptonite is still DR and still vulnerable to that same AoE spell damage you were concerned about.
Superman's DR was actually DR/magic hilariously.

No, remember magic ignores all DR according to DR rules (Paizo later changed it so some magic is weakened by DR though). His DR doesn't have to be /magic.

"A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks. Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessly (in either case, the opponent knows the attack was ineffective). The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. A certain kind of weapon can sometimes damage the creature normally, as noted below."

Only weapons and natural attacks are supposed to be reduced.

yeah magical weapons like wonder woman's whip effect him normally. The man of Steel is powerless against people with magical armor.

Yeah, Supes took a real pounding from Goku's Power Pole as well.


... Dammit, someone had to bring that video up.

Points for the double entendre, but still. Teamwork feats!

Stealth Synergy: Is it really better than Skill Focus? How often does your party really, really need to 'take 16'?


Devilkiller wrote:

I know people who swear by Tandem Trip. The main problem I see with it is that it deepens your investment in Trip, which is a tactic the DM can easily take off the table completely (especially in the land of homebrew)

Regarding adjacency, Bodyguard and In Harm's Way require adjacency too but strike me as pretty good feats for the right team. We've used Bodyguard successfully in a couple of campaigns. I also like Mounted Combat, which is obviously kind of situation based since you need to be on the mount. As for actual teamwork feats, Shield Wall hasn't been bad, and the PCs who have it like to be adjacent anyhow since Shield Slam allows them to create AoOs for each other (not when the opponent is moved away, but when it tries to stand up or move back in)

That right there is the problem with everybody taking a Teamwork feat in a homespun game. If the party comes up with a devastating strategy, the result won't be that they win at D&D, the result will be that the GM will change the challenges he throws at the party so that your devastating tactic won't work anymore.

The problem in PFS with getting everybody to take the same Teamwork Feat is that it's a public table, not a tight gaming group, and coordinating character builds with other players you might not even know and who may or may not be there next time, and if they are there, they might feel like playing a different character that day, is nigh impossible.

I like to get around the requirement that other players have my Teamwork Feat by getting my Teamwork Feat via 1 level in Cavalier or 3 levels in Inquisitor. The Cavalier Tactician ability lets you give all you allies within 30' your Teamwork Feat. The Inquisitor Solo Tactics ability lets you use your Teamwork Feat as if your allies have your Teamwork Feat. You can even swap out 1 Feat for another.

I'm quite fond of Paired Opportunist. I have a Shield-Slam-Bull-Rush Build, and I intend to have him take Paired Opportunist via a 3 (actually 5, why not get Bane, too?) level dip in Inquisitor. You normally can't Bull Rush your opponent into an ally or other square they can't move into, but you can with Shield Slam, and it knocks them Prone. I envision you getting a flanking buddy. You Slam your opponent. Your buddy get his AoO because of Great Bull Rush, and you get your AoO because of Paired Opportunist. Then your AoO is another Shield Slam, and then another Bull Rush, looping every round so that you and your allies can max out their Attacks of Opportunity. The only thing you have to count on for your fellow PFS players is that they realize that your character gives away attacks of opportunity to characters who form up on the same guy you form up on.

I have to admit, though, the combination of Snake Fang and Paired Opportunist was disappointing. It was all too rare in PFS that people would form up on my guy even though I gave away AoOs. That character was also a grappler, and if I have another character like her, I might just take Coordinated Maneuvers instead. It was fun though when I was qualifying for the Ruby Phoenix Tournament to stand up and shout to all the rest of the tables, "All Pathfinders in the area of ________ now have the Paired Opportunist Feat, so if any of you get Attacks of Opportunity, you all do!"

This is about teamwork, not about Teamwork, but one thing that seemed to happen a lot is that I would run up and Grapple somebody, then other players would come up from behind and kill the guy I was grappling. That seemed to work, too.


I just ran some quick monte carlo sims on stealth synergy when taking 10 is allowed.

I can't be bothered transferring the numbers to here, so I will just summarize .

I should probably note that when I simulated it I assumed all but one players would roll and then the last would take 10 if that gave a better result than all the others rolled previously.

2 PCs: does nothing half the time (max roll of 10), will get you above 16 about a quarter of the time
3 PCs: 23% chance of doing nothing, 35% chance of being equal to or worse than skill focus, a 16 or better comes up about 45% of the time
4 PCs:10% chance of doing nothing, 20% chance of equal to or worse than skill focus, 16 or better 57% of the time
5 PCs:chance of a 10 is under 5%, worse or equal to skill focus is 13%, 16 or better 70% of the time


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Weslocke wrote:


Actual play is what really matters.

Not sterile numbers on a whiteboard.

That's what people told to Keppler too. It's what often people who isn't good at maths think. Un the end, math trump opinions. The deadly sneak talent is mathemathically weak, regardless of your opinion and your 'feel', just like earth's orbit is elliptic, regardless of the opinion of Keppler's contemporary scientific mates and their feels. Reality doesn't change to make your opinion right

Your stunning fist annecdote is a good example of cognitive bias, actually


born_of_fire wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
stuff

In other words "nuh-uh"

That was a whole lot of typing to explain that your opinion is no more scientifically sound than Weslocke's. All those things that you say are required to measure a feat's value haven't been done by either of you and you are both operating on gut feelings.

That was my point, and I even said so in my post.

The difference is I'm aware, and I at least tried to make a mental simulation if what would be better, outflank por Big Game Hunter. To discover the real effect, I should take notes of every fight and calculate the difference, to be dure which obe is better.

Muy point, though, was that "un the ends, both are opinions, so both are right' is a fallacy. Both are opionons, but INE of those opinions is right, and the other INE is wrong. Feats hace a mathemathical effect, and thus it's empirically demonstrable which one has a greater effect, even if it's hard to do so. It's possible that, un the end, it's me who is wrong. I don't deny that. But 'it's a matter of opinion if it's mechanically better' is not true. Opinions about measurable things can be wrong. The average damage output for outflank con pared to weapon focus or big game hunter por improved critical through a campaign IS measurable. Justo painful to measure.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
kestral287 wrote:

... Dammit, someone had to bring that video up.

Points for the double entendre, but still. Teamwork feats!

Stealth Synergy: Is it really better than Skill Focus? How often does your party really, really need to 'take 16'?

here's why it;s better than skill focus, because it stacks with skill focus. :P


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Snowblind wrote:

I just ran some quick monte carlo sims on stealth synergy when taking 10 is allowed.

I can't be bothered transferring the numbers to here, so I will just summarize .

I should probably note that when I simulated it I assumed all but one players would roll and then the last would take 10 if that gave a better result than all the others rolled previously.

2 PCs: does nothing half the time (max roll of 10), will get you above 16 about a quarter of the time
3 PCs: 23% chance of doing nothing, 35% chance of being equal to or worse than skill focus, a 16 or better comes up about 45% of the time
4 PCs:10% chance of doing nothing, 20% chance of equal to or worse than skill focus, 16 or better 57% of the time
5 PCs:chance of a 10 is under 5%, worse or equal to skill focus is 13%, 16 or better 70% of the time

considering that 4 people when no one takes 10 has something like a 90% chance of being 10 or better, it's better than taking ten.


Bandw2 wrote:
kestral287 wrote:

... Dammit, someone had to bring that video up.

Points for the double entendre, but still. Teamwork feats!

Stealth Synergy: Is it really better than Skill Focus? How often does your party really, really need to 'take 16'?

here's why it;s better than skill focus, because it stacks with skill focus. :P

Which assumes you need and have room for both.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Weslocke wrote:


Actual play is what really matters.

Not sterile numbers on a whiteboard.

That's what people told to Keppler too. It's what often people who isn't good at maths think. Un the end, math trump opinions. The deadly sneak talent is mathemathically weak, regardless of your opinion and your 'feel', just like earth's orbit is elliptic, regardless of the opinion of Keppler's contemporary scientific mates and their feels. Reality doesn't change to make your opinion right

Your stunning fist annecdote is a good example of cognitive bias, actually

You are correct if the math manages to include all relevant variables. It rarely will.

Shadow Lodge

In PFS they are not the best because of the natural instability of tables. One week you can have a full table of people who you built these feats with, the next everyone's sick and you're screwed.

In general what usually does it is kind of two fold. The first being that a lot of the teamwork feats are either not that good or stuff you can already do some other way with better feats (saving shield is usually way better than shield wall for instance since it does the same thing without having to worry about whether the other guy has a shield).

The second big issue is that a lot of the classes that help you get over this hump like a Cavalier have weird nerfs that hamstring them from really letting them shine. Like with the cavalier it's almost nonsensical that I get tactician but can only share the teamwork feats I get from tactician until level 17! Which makes investing in more to really get a lot of use out of tactician as the game grows kind of moot.

The final big thing is I feel they miss a key niche they could have which is giving non caster characters more ways to offer support to their buddies.

All that being said I've always loved the idea and with a few fixes I've found them to really shine in my home games.

For example I remove the other people need the feat requirement for a lot of them and allow the person to share the buff so long as the other requirements are met but does not benefit themselves unless the other guy has it.

For example if I have shield wall and am in formation with my party who have shields but not the feat I grant the buff to all of them. Or with precise strike my guy gives the buff to my ally in flanking but doesn't get it unless they also have the feat. Turns you into a hell of a team buffer.


Would it be worth considering giving players teamwork feats as rewards (e.g. a mile-stone for adventuring for x amount of time together) or would that unbalance the game too much?

Another idea could be to have a bonus teamwork feat that functions similarly to the arcanist's Greater Meta-magic Knowledge exploit. It would be a feat that could be changed one per week (or more or less often) and requires that players to train at it for x number of hours on top of any other prerequisites they might need.


Giving teamwork feats as a reward for working as a team makes sense to me. Someone else upthread said something similar.


@doc the grey - If my Viking were aware of the game rules he’d tell you that Saving Shield is a steaming pile of pig manure compared to his “Viking” Shield Wall. He might fly into a Rage if somebody suggested that he should grant an adjacent ally a +2 shield bonus which wouldn’t stack with any existing shield bonus as an immediate action instead of increasing an adjacent ally’s existing shield bonus by +2. Immediate actions are valuable, and people who fight without shields are fools (at least in Arnvarg Askettil’s 8 Wisdom opinion - his Asgard Shield is one of his most prized possessions)

@Scott Wilhelm - Teamwork feats seem like they’d be a tough choice in PFS unless you’ve got an adventuring buddy who will always be there with you. On a slight tangent, you mentioned knocking people prone by pushing them into walls or allies using Shield Slam. I’m not sure if pushing an enemy into an ally would result in knocking the enemy prone though. On the other hand, Unchained has a combat trick for Shield Slam which allows you to attempt a Trip, Disarm, or Sunder instead of a Bull Rush after hitting with your shield.


RDM42 wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Weslocke wrote:


Actual play is what really matters.

Not sterile numbers on a whiteboard.

That's what people told to Keppler too. It's what often people who isn't good at maths think. Un the end, math trump opinions. The deadly sneak talent is mathemathically weak, regardless of your opinion and your 'feel', just like earth's orbit is elliptic, regardless of the opinion of Keppler's contemporary scientific mates and their feels. Reality doesn't change to make your opinion right

Your stunning fist annecdote is a good example of cognitive bias, actually

You are correct if the math manages to include all relevant variables. It rarely will.

That was my whole point in my giant wall of text about heuristics. We all simplify the math model in our minds to make it easier to take a decision.

The math, however, always is right. We might be unaware of which one is better, because we don't take in account enough variables in our heuristic approach. But one of those two feats IS mathemathically superior.
Same thing that with God's existance: a believer and an unbeliever aren't sure which one is right, they can't prove it. But one of them is wrong. If God exists, the unbeliever is wrong, if God doesn't exist, the believer is wrong.


Bandw2 wrote:
Snowblind wrote:

I just ran some quick monte carlo sims on stealth synergy when taking 10 is allowed.

I can't be bothered transferring the numbers to here, so I will just summarize .

I should probably note that when I simulated it I assumed all but one players would roll and then the last would take 10 if that gave a better result than all the others rolled previously.

2 PCs: does nothing half the time (max roll of 10), will get you above 16 about a quarter of the time
3 PCs: 23% chance of doing nothing, 35% chance of being equal to or worse than skill focus, a 16 or better comes up about 45% of the time
4 PCs:10% chance of doing nothing, 20% chance of equal to or worse than skill focus, 16 or better 57% of the time
5 PCs:chance of a 10 is under 5%, worse or equal to skill focus is 13%, 16 or better 70% of the time

considering that 4 people when no one takes 10 has something like a 90% chance of being 10 or better, it's better than taking ten.

So you believe that when 3 other players roll under ten then the 4th player is better off rolling than just taking 10?

My simulation assumed 1 player takes 10 if it would beat all the other rolls.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I find that teamwork feats cost too much for what they do, require a teammate for most characters, and hamper your combat ability by forcing you to be close to your teammate, restricting your movement and leaving you in fireball/glitterdust/confusion formation.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Weslocke wrote:


Actual play is what really matters.

Not sterile numbers on a whiteboard.

That's what people told to Keppler too. It's what often people who isn't good at maths think. Un the end, math trump opinions. The deadly sneak talent is mathemathically weak, regardless of your opinion and your 'feel', just like earth's orbit is elliptic, regardless of the opinion of Keppler's contemporary scientific mates and their feels. Reality doesn't change to make your opinion right

Your stunning fist annecdote is a good example of cognitive bias, actually

You are correct if the math manages to include all relevant variables. It rarely will.

That was my whole point in my giant wall of text about heuristics. We all simplify the math model in our minds to make it easier to take a decision.

The math, however, always is right. We might be unaware of which one is better, because we don't take in account enough variables in our heuristic approach. But one of those two feats IS mathemathically superior.
Same thing that with God's existance: a believer and an unbeliever aren't sure which one is right, they can't prove it. But one of them is wrong. If God exists, the unbeliever is wrong, if God doesn't exist, the believer is wrong.

I once read an excellent saying on this very board: "Theorycrafting is simply the results of a playtest with a sample size of infinity." Player anecdotes are subject to all manner of distortions, including (but not limited to) small sample size, biases, and the vagaries of human memory — After all, few players even during a playtest are recording all the statistics of their games. Fortunately we do not need to run a thousand simulated battles to know the answer to mechanical questions, because the mechanical elements of the game boil down to simple math.


gustavo iglesias wrote:

...

The math, however, always is right. We might be unaware of which one is better, because we don't take in account enough variables in our heuristic approach. ...

If you didn't take enough variables into account, then the mathematics is not correct.

I think what you are really trying to imply is that in a perfect world, if we could be complete enough, then it is possible that the mathematics could be made correct.

That is not the same thing.

Since it is not a perfect world, we can't take every variable into account, we have no way to know when enough variables will be close enough to give the same answers as every variable, and most importantly personal preference* can and does effect the system behavior - the mathematics is actually much closer to indeterminate than to always right.

* A preference such as "I don't like working with others so will not chose to use flanking tactics." if a common attitude will affect the probability of occurrences of a state where flanking does or does not benefit.
.
.

Athaleon wrote:
... because the mechanical elements of the game boil down to simple math.

Even though that is a common opinion, it is very rare that the mathematics in any complex system is simple.

Very nearly the only time the mathematics are simple is when the proponent has made assumption to support the result he wants to be shown as obvious.


Athaleon wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Weslocke wrote:


Actual play is what really matters.

Not sterile numbers on a whiteboard.

That's what people told to Keppler too. It's what often people who isn't good at maths think. Un the end, math trump opinions. The deadly sneak talent is mathemathically weak, regardless of your opinion and your 'feel', just like earth's orbit is elliptic, regardless of the opinion of Keppler's contemporary scientific mates and their feels. Reality doesn't change to make your opinion right

Your stunning fist annecdote is a good example of cognitive bias, actually

You are correct if the math manages to include all relevant variables. It rarely will.

That was my whole point in my giant wall of text about heuristics. We all simplify the math model in our minds to make it easier to take a decision.

The math, however, always is right. We might be unaware of which one is better, because we don't take in account enough variables in our heuristic approach. But one of those two feats IS mathemathically superior.
Same thing that with God's existance: a believer and an unbeliever aren't sure which one is right, they can't prove it. But one of them is wrong. If God exists, the unbeliever is wrong, if God doesn't exist, the believer is wrong.

I once read an excellent saying on this very board: "Theorycrafting is simply the results of a playtest with a sample size of infinity." Player anecdotes are subject to all manner of distortions, including (but not limited to) small sample size, biases, and the vagaries of human memory — After all, few players even during a playtest are recording all the statistics of their games. Fortunately we do not need to run a thousand simulated battles to know the answer to mechanical questions, because the mechanical elements of the game boil down to simple math.

Except that every game, every campaign ever played contains different variables. Different party composition, different tactics by that party, different opponents run by different gm's who run them different ways - the variables for every single game are different, they aren't the theoretical "large sample" game, they are a game consisting of a specific subsample of that larger set. Inferior feats could become very powerful in some, where "superior" feats might become drastically reduced. An 'against the undead' campaign introduces different variables than against the Giants, which is different than Wyrmslayer which is different than Kingmaker. There isn't a single, universal game. So, yes the basic formula might be the same but the variables are almost assuredly not based on the differences between campaigns, games, and gaming groups.


ElterAgo wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:

...

The math, however, always is right. We might be unaware of which one is better, because we don't take in account enough variables in our heuristic approach. ...

If you didn't take enough variables into account, then the mathematics is not correct.

I think what you are really trying to imply is that in a perfect world, if we could be complete enough, then it is possible that the mathematics could be made correct.

That is not the same thing.

Since it is not a perfect world, we can't take every variable into account, we have no way to know when enough variables will be close enough to give the same answers as every variable, and most importantly personal preference* can and does effect the system behavior - the mathematics is actually much closer to indeterminate than to always right.

* A preference such as "I don't like working with others so will not chose to use flanking tactics." if a common attitude will affect the probability of occurrences of a state where flanking does or does not benefit.
.
.

Athaleon wrote:
... because the mechanical elements of the game boil down to simple math.

Even though that is a common opinion, it is very rare that the mathematics in any complex system is simple.

Very nearly the only time the mathematics are simple is when the proponent has made assumption to support the result he wants to be shown as the result.

You got me with a shorter version by four minutes!


Devilkiller wrote:


@Scott Wilhelm - Teamwork feats seem like they’d be a tough choice in PFS unless you’ve got an adventuring buddy who will always be there with you. On a slight tangent, you mentioned knocking people prone by pushing them into walls or allies using Shield Slam. I’m not sure if pushing an enemy into an ally would result in knocking the enemy prone though. On the other hand, Unchained has a combat trick for Shield Slam which allows you to attempt a Trip, Disarm, or Sunder instead of a Bull Rush after hitting with your shield.

They are tough, indeed. I was thinking it would be okay. It's one thing to expect the local PFS Rogues gallery to all come with your teamwork feats, but it's another to tell them at the table, "Hey guys, my character gives out attacks of opportunity if you form up with her." I thought, so when I made the character, anyway. She managed to give out a few Attacks of Opportunity, that way.

Even if Shield Slamming your victim into your ally doesn't knock him prone, the AoO loop is pretty sweet. You'll be the schoolyard bully shaking town the little, fat, nerdy kid for lunch money.

That Unchained trick sounds pretty cool.


Decimus Drake wrote:
Would it be worth considering giving players teamwork feats as rewards (e.g. a mile-stone for adventuring for x amount of time together) or would that unbalance the game too much?

Nah, that'd be pretty awesome. You might have to think a bit about what to give out, but frankly that's probably the best way to get teamwork feats to see use at the table if the players don't have the classes for it.

If your table includes a Hunter that may be worth giving the idea pause, but otherwise go for it.


Rather than just a mile-stone reward, what I was thinking was that if the backstory and/or play supports it, I'd give a similar teamwork feat to the pair.

Say there is a fighter and a wizard that the backstory has them as relatives or long term friends who have worked together, then when playing the fighter makes a significant effort to protect the wizard while casting. Ok, I'll give them each shielded caster.

Or if there are some melee guys actively trying to work with the archer guy to set things up, maybe I'll give them coordinated shot.

I don't think I will do that if any of the folks at the table have a class that grants free teamwork feat though. I don't want to take away from that guy's shtick.
.
.
For PFS, I know a number of people that have:
If I'm playing with JimmyJoeBob at the table I play Dortmund the fighter.
If I'm playing with BetsySueEllen at the table I play Jangle the druid.
Otherwise I just play whatever I feel like that day.
They could easily make teamwork pairs that functioned well together.

There were three of us that were going to take pet classes with Tengu race to become a "murder of crows." Iirc, it was going to be a hunter (or cavalier) with a roc (or the axebeak), an inquisitor with a hawk familiar, and a summoner with a small bird-ish eidolon. We were going to take a whole bunch of teamwork feats to sorta simulate the flock working together.
Yes, we would have been very organized with everything printed out carefully so we wouldn't slow things down. We would have very intentionally not optimized just for combat so as not to dominate the fights. Also the bird thing is not the most combat powerful. One of the other guys at our local said he would try to get an Oread boon to be the perching statue.
{sig} Work schedule change for one and the other moved, so it never happened. I think it would have been wonderfully hilarious. Those were the only 2 people I've ever been able to get at all interested in the teamwork feats.


ElterAgo wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:

...

The math, however, always is right. We might be unaware of which one is better, because we don't take in account enough variables in our heuristic approach. ...

If you didn't take enough variables into account, then the mathematics is not correct.

I think what you are really trying to imply is that in a perfect world, if we could be complete enough, then it is possible that the mathematics could be made correct.

Not really. The math (ie: the *real* math behind the fact, which might or might not be fully realized for me) IS right. My math model would be wrong, which is different. I might make a math model comparing Big Game Hunter with Outflank, and fail to ignore the chance to crit and gain an extra attack, for example. Or fail to ignore the chance that the extra attack is useless because the crit killed the creature. Or fail to ignore the chance that the extra attack misses, or whatever. That would mean that my conclusion is wrong, because my math model is unaccurate. Maybe I conclude Big Game Hunter is better, and I'm wrong, or maybe I conclude Outflank is better, and I'm wrong.

However, that doesn't mean "which one is better is a matter of opinion". Even if I'm wrong because my model isn't accurate, there is an answer. One of those feats is mathemathically better.

What you mean about personal prefference is different. A player might find that a certain feat is more fun. That doesn't mean the statistical effect of the feat is any better or any worse, though.


Weslocke wrote:

They did not know the exact AC in advance.

In a prior encounter with her (when she took Briar from them) they did discover that she was quite difficult to hit, though.

Your example is pure theorycraft. One sentence of actual play experience trumps two pages of theorycraft.

People say stunning fist is "useless" too, but my airwalking vanilla monk 9th stunning fisted a young adult dragon out of the air with a held action and killed it in the fall.

Actual play is what really matters.

Not sterile numbers on a whiteboard.

Heh, am I the only one who read this as math doesn't matter?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:


Except that every game, every campaign ever played contains campaign ever played contains different variables. Different party composition, different tactics by that party, different opponents run by different gm's who run them different ways - the variables for every single game are different, they aren't the theoretical "large sample" game, they are a game consisting of a specific subsample of that larger set. Inferior feats could become very powerful in some, where "superior" feats might become drastically reduced. An 'against the undead' campaign introduces different variables than against the Giants, which is different than Wyrmslayer which is different than Kingmaker. There isn't a single, universal game. So, yes the basic formula might be the same but the variables are almost assuredly not based on the differences between campaigns, games, and gaming groups.

That doesn't change the fact that, for a certain set of variables, one of the feats is better than the other.

For example, big game hunter might be better in a campaign about giants, like Giantslayer, while it might be worse in a urban intrigue campaign where most of the enemies are medium humanoids. On the other hand, Outflank is better if you flank 100% of the time, and it's worse if you flank 0% of the time. In the middle, it will be a variation (it has different degrees of effect if you flank 25.6% of the time or 73.1% of he time), and finding the real % of attacks that you make will change the evaluation, which is the problem here. Still, for a certain campaign, under a certain set of variables, there is a right answer, when the question is "which one is statistically more effective ". My point (which is derailing the thread a bit, btw), is that the post I was quoting was wrong when he said "don't say this or that is better, say that it's better in your opinion only".

That's not true. One of the feats is better than the other. It's mathemathically better. Maybe we* are right, or maybe we are wrong, but if the debate is "which one is more effective", one of both sides is right and the other is wrong. If the debate is "which feat you find give you more fun", that's different, because it's subjetive.

It's like discussing about supermodels. Maybe someone find that Adriana Lima is more attractive than Heidi Klum. That's subjetive. Which one is *taller* isn't subjetive, though. And if one person say it's Adriana and other person says it's Heidi, whoever chosed the shorter one, is wrong.

151 to 200 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.