Please reconsider Press to the Wall.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Not really sure how I should've worded this (maybe with a "request"?), or where I should've posted this, but oh well.

I've just GMed a PFS scenario with a player who has the Press to the Wall feat. It's amazing how powerful that feat is, maybe oppressively so. That player's a Rogue (with some Brawler and Fighter levels) at level 10 and he can just outright solo entire encounters. In fact, he pretty much did. He's specced weirdly enough into an AC build that made him literally unhittable, and his own damage output makes GMs cry. He's built to TWF with a shield and 5 attacks at level 10 (TWF, iterative, feat for iterative TWF, natural attack), all with pretty much always 4d6 sneak attacks.
In PFS, it's pretty easy to get Press to the Wall online, as there tend to be a lot of cramped spaces. And if there isn't, he's got the Scout archetype (level 8) and Step Up and Strike to force it, but that's beside the point here. My main issue is that it's too easy to make it work. I like how Rogues in theory need others to be effective, but this build is just downright oppressive. I certainly think Rogues need a boost in effectiveness, and it was fun while he was low-level, but now he's a one-man army. And while it costs some feats, it isn't unthinkable for a Rogue to spec into this. Even disregarding the iterative attacks, he's got 3 attacks that essentially all deal 5d6 damage, that happens pretty much whenever he feels like it. Add to that the fact that there are people in our playgroup who are fond of creating walls or obstacles, and it's even easier to force.

Example: last night, the party was fighting a CR10 creature. Him being out of tier, he's also at level 10. That should be about an even match, right? Maybe even tipped slightly towards the enemy. The enemy had 110 HP, and a DR he couldn't puncture. That didn't matter, since all of his attacks hit and he still dealt 4d6 plus weapon damage damage on every hit (okay, his natural attack is a d3), which meant that due to circumstances, his allies were out of reach and he had the boss all to himself. He pretty much solo-ed the boss, dealing 40 damage each turn (post-DR) (doing the numbers, it seems pretty high, I think he just rolled really well on his d6es).

I'm not crying for the feat to be banned or nerfed into the ground, but I think some small tweaks would be appreciated. The player himself said he feels dirty about using it, but he's gonna use it until it gets banned. Which is his fair right. Maybe a slight tweak where if you use it, you remove one or two dice?
I'm pretty fried right now and can't explain myself too eloquently anymore, but my friend's promised to post in this thread as well, so I hope he can clarify some stuff.

TL;DR: Maybe I'm just whining, but pretty much everyone he's played with has commented on how cheap the feat feels.

Dark Archive

The Tengu Rogue 7/Fighter 2/Brawler 1 character Quentin is talking about belongs to me (one xp away from the Step up and Strike feat). When I first found the feat, I was extremely happy. I play a lot of rogues and it seemed exactly what they needed to tip the scales in their favor.

At low levels the extra damage is nice, not overly powerful and makes you feel handy in the small buildings/ruins you fight in. But as I now have 5 attacks on full round (TWF/ITWF/Beak attack) with 5d6 sneak per attack if positioned correctly, it becomes a tad ridiculous. As Quentin already mentioned, PFS scenarios usually take place in cramped spaces, with enemy placement near the wall or other obstacles. Although tactically sound in most cases, this feat turns that around quickly. Before the enemy can react on this situation, it already has taken quite some damage and is put in a tight spot.

When i took the feat, I assumed it would take quite some effort to position myself correctly, but it is extremely easy. I would not like to see it banned, cause it is an awesome concept. But maybe not full sneak attack, because living flanking partners are better flanking partners? Just my 2cp.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Your build above is say +14/+14/+9/+9/+4 with I am assuming maybe 1d8 + (4d6 sneak) + 11. (Hit: 8 BaB + 2 Weapon + 5 strength + 1 Weapon Focus) (1d8 spiked shield [4.5] + 4d6 sneak [14] + 5 strength + 2 weapon + 4 power attack)

So against a CR 10 monster with AC according to the bestiary table DPR is as follows.

PC: 54.2065

A 15 PB TWF fighter with Kukri has: 63.18

I understand that it feels strong to you but try switching out to a two hander build for a season or two and see if you still agree.

That feat is honestly just ok and I would hate to see even more things nerfed for PFS concerns.

I don't mean to be dismissive but if it is causing you issues I would say that is more an artifact of PFS than the feat needing a nerf.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Seems like a nice and powerful build, but I wonder if it is really that overpowered. On level 10 you had 6 feats to spare. I'm counting 5: following step, step up, press to the wall, accomplished sneak attacker, two-weapon-fighting. One feat left. So you propably don't have a very high base damage or attack bonuses, especially since you have to enchant/weapon focus every weapon on its own and the natural attack needs an AOMF.

If you are dex based you need a feat or enchantment to get dex to damage. Otherwise you are dependent on str, dex and con. They can't be all up, so it should be quite dangerous to confront the boss alone from my understanding.

I think it's either the other party members who are not very optimized or the opponents who could play better. If they feel being pressed to the wall is bad for them, they should adapt to this threat. Block the places from where you flank, move into wider areas or in narrow passages where you can't get opposite a wall.

Besides, I don't think 1/3 of opponents HP/40 damage per full attack is too much damage. My level 12 vivisectionist does about 100 when he gets in flanking position

Liberty's Edge

Prof. Löwenzahn wrote:
If you are dex based you need a feat or enchantment to get dex to damage.

Or he might just be an unchained rogue, which I rather suspect is the case.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not really sure what the issue with the feat is. It makes it slightly easier to flank if you're in a group with no/limited melee beyond the rogue.

If anything needing two feats to just patch the rogue so they function in groups like that seems a bit hefty to me.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It seems like if you've hit on a decent way to get consistent sneak attack damage and you're good at melee at level 10, you're probably okay. There are probably other tenth level builds with similar damage output and survivability (or maybe not, it's hard for me to say). You could post your build so other people could check your math.

Now, saying "it's totally fine, don't worry about it" is not the most helpful thing to contribute, especially since you've indicated that it's explicitly been disruptive with your group. The balancing act for this character is making your build work when you fight something immune to sneak attacks, or something mobile that you can't reliably get full attacks on, or obstacles that require more than just damage and AC. Maybe you could save this character for especially difficult PFS scenarios. It also sounds like this damage is definitely helped out by some nice teamwork. If you've got other Pathfinders summoning walls for you (or even just flanking), then that's an effective strategy rather than just the strength of this feat. If you feel the character is simply too disruptive, you could volunteer to retire them, which isn't necessarily great if you like them, but again you could save them for the tough stuff like Bonekeep and the like.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Press to the Wall as written is strictly useless without disarm when not fighting reach weapon users. Being the only one threatening your opponent is impossible when you aren't ignoring rules (which you can't in PFS) because an opponent almost always has himself in his own threatened area. It doesn't need a further nerf.

Besides, if you really want Sneak Attack at level 10, just use Greater Invisibility.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
deuxhero wrote:
Press to the Wall as written is strictly useless without disarm when not fighting reach weapon users. Being the only one threatening your opponent is impossible when you aren't ignoring rules (which you can't in PFS) because an opponent almost always has himself in his own threatened area. It doesn't need a further nerf.

Erm, in what crazy world does an opponent threaten himself?


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Anything that makes rogues more competitive is the last thing that needs nerfing.


Yeah, one more vote for 'damage doesnt seem that high'.

For references, search the DPR olympics threads. A basic fighter or barbarian build with a 2her will wreck this in full attacks pretty easily.

Its a cool trick, and seems well balanced to me.

edit: DPR olympics, not DPS


Combat Monster wrote:
Anything that makes rogues more competitive is the last thing that needs nerfing.

This.

And more than this the feat doesn't actually make the rogue stronger than they otherwise would be if they have a flanking partner.

In a party with a moderate to heavy melee composition, you are going to flank just as if not much more often than you would with the feat and the feat itself becomes redundant and difficult to use, so in a more normal or melee heavy party, the rogue is going to have two extra feats over the rogue that needs PTTW.

The primary thing this feat gives a rogue is the ability to function with some degree of efficacy in parties and situations where you'd normally just be better off not being a rogue at all.


The feat seems well balanced. It allows more options to deliver sneak attack without needing a flanking partner. Replace the rogue by a barbarian, a druid something and the CR 10 creature would have died the same, or even faster.

And PFS have proved to not be a reasonable stick to measure the power of feats.


deuxhero wrote:

Press to the Wall as written is strictly useless without disarm when not fighting reach weapon users. Being the only one threatening your opponent is impossible when you aren't ignoring rules (which you can't in PFS) because an opponent almost always has himself in his own threatened area. It doesn't need a further nerf.

Besides, if you really want Sneak Attack at level 10, just use Greater Invisibility.

Can you provide a rules citation that says you always threaten yourself?

I'm aware of you are always your own ally, but not the inverse.


You don't have to be an enemy to be threatened by someone and there's no rule that excludes allies or yourself from being threatened by you.


deuxhero wrote:
You don't have to be an enemy to be threatened by someone and there's no rule that excludes allies or yourself from being threatened by you.

Actually, the attack of opportunity rules state specifically that only enemies provoke them when performing an act that provokes.

As you are always your own ally, you never provoke an attack of opportunity from yourself.

That's like saying that Viscious stomp allows you to kick yourself if you get tripped.

There is no RAW support for threatening yourself that I know of.

Please site a postive rule that states that you can threaten yourself, not a negative (as in there is no rule that excludes) rule intepretation, please.

See further discussion Here


"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally)."

If we already discuss something that far-fetched, here is the wording. RAW you only threaten adjacent spaces, not your own. So you cannot A o O yourself and therefore don't threaten yourself.


Prof. Löwenzahn wrote:

"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally)."

If we already discuss something that far-fetched, here is the wording. RAW you only threaten adjacent spaces, not your own. So you cannot A o O yourself and therefore don't threaten yourself.

That's not true.

Threatened Squares wrote:
You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally).

This actually implies that one's own square=adjacent, but it doesn't really matter, since...

Melee Attacks wrote:
With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).

Lets put these together.

  • You can strike any opponent within 5 feet of you.
  • You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack.

You can make an attack into your own square, so you threaten your own square.

The only ambiguity is if being in a threatened square counts as being threatened even if the threatening creature is an ally(including oneself). I can't see anything that would point strongly one way or the other there. The meaning of "threatening a creature" is never actually defined. It is only loosely implied.

However, in this case the RAI is pretty blatantly clear so it's not a huge deal.

My question is if it is supposed to work if an enemies is beside their own ally. Because by RAW that might be a no-go, and I don't know whether or not it is intentional for an enemy to need to be alone for the rogue to Press to the Wall.


Guys, if the feat would work the way you think it does, the feat's useless. Common sense would say it's the other interpretation, then.

I agree with all of you that the feat seems fine, and it provides a boost the Rogue needed for a long time, but I don't think it's too much an investment for a Rogue to take. TWF comes naturally to them, and it's only two feats away from coming online. I didn't make this topic to rage about how OP the Rogue has become, but I think it tips the scales too much in the opposite direction. This build isn't some cheese build the player had to multiclass for; it's available to all Rogues (in theory) and I think it changes their gameplay style too much. As I said, because the player decided on an AC build, he could solo entire encounters without being hit. I don't think that was the intention of the feat, that's all.


The feat's fine, you've mentioned the Rogue taking 3 rounds worth of full attacks to take down the boss. By level 10, most dedicated melee builds will take two.
A single player vs CR=PC level should be a 50/50 matchup, and you've well mentioned that the rogue rolled well in damage. And there, there remains the fact that there's stuff that targets Flat-footed, Touch AC, or saving throws directly, and the rogue can't excel at them all.
So we have a rogue that is dealing average (40 average sounds like 32.5 with some luck of the dice) but nonoptimal ( https://rpgwillikers.wordpress.com/2015/09/29/bench-pressing-character-crea tion-by-the-numbers/ provides some average calculations, for the record-where 62.5 damage is about the most efficiency needed)
So we have a rogue that is mildly competent but not amazing at doing damage, with good survivability in direct attacks and probably Reflex saves, a likely mild survivability in terms of Touch or Flatfooted AC, or Fortitude saves, and weak against Will-targetting effects.
Clearly, if an encounter plays to the rogue's strengths, it's clear the rogue will have an advantage, whereas he would fare poorly against enemies that spammed spells or spell-like abilities that targetted his will saves.


This was 40 damage a round after DR, with 5 attacks (of which 3 or 4 hit, so add 30-40 to that total), pre-DR it's much higher. And I miscalculated, he had 5d6 of sneak attack (damn you, Snakebite Striker!). He would've totaled that thing in two rounds if it hadn't been for DR. All on his own.

Besides the point, but due to this character focussing on AC, his flatfooted was also way above average, and due to multiclassing his Fort was high as well. Will was his weak save, but he had a Clear Spindle against mind control. But this is all complaining about his character, which isn't the point of this thread.

My point is, this Rogue almost did more damage on his own in a single combat than the other party members combined over the adventure. That's a big jump in efficiency.

Dark Archive

I should have posted the build along with my initial post. I forgot, it was very late when I posted that.

Tengu Unchained Rogue (Swordmaster/Scout/Counterfeit Mage) 7/ Fighter (Drill Sergeant) 2/ Brawler (Snakebite Striker) 1.

Str 13
Dex 20 (16+2, +1 at lvl 4 and 8)
Con 16 (16-2, +2 belt)
Int 8
Wis 15 (13+2)
Cha 7

AC 33 (10 + 9 Armor + 5 Shield + 5 Dex + 1 Natural + 2 Deflection + 1 Insight). Touch 18 and Flatfooted 28
Fortitude 12, Reflex 13, Will 7

Lvl 1 - Rogue 1: Sneak Attack 1d6, Magical Expertise, Finesse Training (Weapon Finesse), Weapon Focus (Estoc)
Lvl 2 - Rogue 2: Evasion, Rogue Talent: Assault Leader
Lvl 3 - Rogue 3: Sneak Attack 2d6, Tiger Trance, Finesse Training (Dex to damage Estoc), Step Up
Lvl 4 - Rogue 4: Scout's Charge, Debilitating Injury, Signature Wand, (RETRAIN: Assault Leader into Combat trick: Press to the Wall)
Lvl 5 - Fighter 1: Improved Shield Bash, Two Weapon Fighting
Lvl 6 - Brawler 1: Sneak Attack 3d6, Unarmed Strike (1d6), Brawler's Cunning, Martial Training (Improved Unarmed Strike)
Lvl 7 - Fighter 2: Tactician: Overwhelm, Shield Snag, Improved Two Weapon Fighting
Lvl 8 - Rogue 5: Sneak Attack 4d6, Rogue's Edge (Disable Device)
Lvl 9 - Rogue 6: Dragon Trance, Wand Adept, Rogue Talent: Weapon Training (Spiked Heavy Shield), Following Step
Lvl 10 - Rogue 7: Sneak Attack 5d6
Lvl 11 - Rogue 8: Skirmisher, undefined Rogue Talent, Step up and Strike

Traits: Indomitable Faith (+1 Will) and Shield Trained (shields are light/simple weapons)
Vanity: Master of Trade

Notable Gear at lvl 10.2 (PFS): +1 Adamantine Estoc, +1/+3 Spiked Darkwood Heavy Shield, +3 Mithral Agile Breastplate, Ring of Protection +2, Amulet of Natural Armor +1, Dusty Rose Prism, Clear Spindle, Cloak of Resistence +2, Belt of Con +2, Composite Short Bow

As for the discussion, I'll admit I rolled well on some of the attacks, and the Estoc has a crit range of 18-20 which factored in as well. But the fights were indeed straight up brawls, and I guess I was just in my element. As I have been in my element for the past few scenarios, maybe my experience with the feat is a tad skewed.


Uhm, I think you can't use weapon finesse with a heavy shield and you will have a -4 penalty from twf with it. What are your attack bonuses?

Dark Archive

It's the combination with the Shield-Trained Trait. Light and Heavy shields are considered simple light weapons for me, and then I take only a -2 with TWF and I can finesse it.

The Attack bonusses (without TWF penalties counted) I have are +15/+10 with both Estoc and Spiked Heavy shield, and +13 (or +8) with Beak.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's kind of a minor point, but:

retraining says wrote:
Retraining a class feature means you lose the old class feature and gain a new one that you could otherwise qualify for at that point in your level advancement.

So your retraining of assault leader isn't legal, because you didn't qualify for press to the wall at level 2.

Quentin Coldwater wrote:
This was 40 damage a round after DR, with 5 attacks (of which 3 or 4 hit, so add 30-40 to that total), pre-DR it's much higher. And I miscalculated, he had 5d6 of sneak attack (damn you, Snakebite Striker!). He would've totaled that thing in two rounds if it hadn't been for DR. All on his own.

Erm... so? He got lucky (3 or 4 hit is lucky, considering), while doing the thing he's supposed to be good at. That should be a good moment for him.

Quentin Coldwater wrote:
My point is, this Rogue almost did more damage on his own in a single combat than the other party members combined over the adventure.

If the other party members are also 10th level, then I think the problem is the other party members.


It's mostly that this feat alone trivialised most of the combats present in the adventure. He could've gone in alone and come out without a scratch. Well, besides the ooze. He could one-round multiple opponents in the same turn (admittedly, the enemies were on the weak side), which led to lacklustre combats.


Some paizo adventures are just like that, press to the wall or not. I've never played one, but I've been hearing "this combat was too easy" complaints since a long time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quentin Coldwater wrote:
It's mostly that this feat alone trivialised most of the combats present in the adventure. He could've gone in alone and come out without a scratch. Well, besides the ooze. He could one-round multiple opponents in the same turn (admittedly, the enemies were on the weak side), which led to lacklustre combats.

All this feat does is let the rogue get flanking so that they can get off sneak attack semi-consistently. If this feat is getting banned solely for enabling sneak attack, then you would also need to ban every other rules element that can let a rogue get sneak attack with some degree of reliability. Circling Mongoose, Feigning, Greater Invisibility, the Scout Archetype, everything.

This is ridiculous.


I don't play PFS, but my understanding is that many of its scenarios are fairly easy to begin with (which is on purpose, because there's no way to guarantee the table that sits down will be anything resembling decently balanced). From what I'm seeing here, though, I don't think there's an actual problem.


DR is taken into account for calculations, when enemies with more DR will have lower AC or HP as compensation. And as others have stated, PFS scenarios are easy per-design; because otherwise in many cases random groups with little or no system mastery would easily fail them.

This would be very much like saying that Fireball is an overpowered spell because the group was facing a cold-themed scenario with multiple small enemies with cold vulnerability, which by being clustered let the spellcaster almost completely clear the encounter with a single cast.


Snowblind wrote:
Quentin Coldwater wrote:
It's mostly that this feat alone trivialised most of the combats present in the adventure. He could've gone in alone and come out without a scratch. Well, besides the ooze. He could one-round multiple opponents in the same turn (admittedly, the enemies were on the weak side), which led to lacklustre combats.
All this feat does is let the rogue get flanking so that they can get off sneak attack semi-consistently.

That's my point, it goes beyond semi-consistently into pretty much all the time. As the player said himself, the number of times he's able to use it borders on ridiculous. The fact that the PFS scenarios are kind of weak are besides the point. Pretty much everyone who's sat at the table with him agreed that the feat borders on oppressive, especially with that many attacks.

Dark Archive

Lucy_Valentine wrote:

It's kind of a minor point, but:

retraining says wrote:
Retraining a class feature means you lose the old class feature and gain a new one that you could otherwise qualify for at that point in your level advancement.
So your retraining of assault leader isn't legal, because you didn't qualify for press to the wall at level 2.

I should reread those rules again, cause that is a stupid error on my part... Easily fixable by taking Combat Trick: Step Up at lvl 2 instead of Assault Leader, shift Two-Weapon Fighting as Lvl 5 feat towards Lvl 3, and taking Press to the Wall at lvl 5 (instead of TWF).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quentin Coldwater wrote:


That's my point, it goes beyond semi-consistently into pretty much all the time. As the player said himself, the number of times he's able to use it borders on ridiculous. The fact that the PFS scenarios are kind of weak are besides the point. Pretty much everyone who's sat at the table with him agreed that the feat borders on oppressive, especially with that many attacks.

And as pointed out, in groups where the rogue has other ways of getting flanking, he's going to benefit just as if not even more often without having to burn two feats.

So if Press To The Wall is giving you trouble, what are you going to do when you run a group that has a more melee heavy composition and the rogue is doing even more damage because he has two extra feats to play around with? And what about that scenario is less problematic than the rogue being able to do it on his own?

What are you going to do when someone brings a barbarian to the table and outdamages the rogue handily without having to jump through any special hoops?

Because all Press really does is make it so the rogue can actually function in groups where he can't flank with his allies regularly. At best it slightly opens up sneak attack opportunities over the baseline. At worst all the feat does is compensate for having a nonstandard group.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mr. Bonkers wrote:

I should have posted the build along with my initial post. I forgot, it was very late when I posted that.

Tengu Unchained Rogue (Swordmaster/Scout/Counterfeit Mage) 7/ Fighter (Drill Sergeant) 2/ Brawler (Snakebite Striker) 1.

Str 13
Dex 20 (16+2, +1 at lvl 4 and 8)
Con 16 (16-2, +2 belt)
Int 8
Wis 15 (13+2)
Cha 7

AC 33 (10 + 9 Armor + 5 Shield + 5 Dex + 1 Natural + 2 Deflection + 1 Insight). Touch 18 and Flatfooted 28
Fortitude 12, Reflex 13, Will 7

Lvl 1 - Rogue 1: Sneak Attack 1d6, Magical Expertise, Finesse Training (Weapon Finesse), Weapon Focus (Estoc)
Lvl 2 - Rogue 2: Evasion, Rogue Talent: Assault Leader
Lvl 3 - Rogue 3: Sneak Attack 2d6, Tiger Trance, Finesse Training (Dex to damage Estoc), Step Up
Lvl 4 - Rogue 4: Scout's Charge, Debilitating Injury, Signature Wand, (RETRAIN: Assault Leader into Combat trick: Press to the Wall)
Lvl 5 - Fighter 1: Improved Shield Bash, Two Weapon Fighting
Lvl 6 - Brawler 1: Sneak Attack 3d6, Unarmed Strike (1d6), Brawler's Cunning, Martial Training (Improved Unarmed Strike)
Lvl 7 - Fighter 2: Tactician: Overwhelm, Shield Snag, Improved Two Weapon Fighting
Lvl 8 - Rogue 5: Sneak Attack 4d6, Rogue's Edge (Disable Device)
Lvl 9 - Rogue 6: Dragon Trance, Wand Adept, Rogue Talent: Weapon Training (Spiked Heavy Shield), Following Step
Lvl 10 - Rogue 7: Sneak Attack 5d6
Lvl 11 - Rogue 8: Skirmisher, undefined Rogue Talent, Step up and Strike

Traits: Indomitable Faith (+1 Will) and Shield Trained (shields are light/simple weapons)
Vanity: Master of Trade

Notable Gear at lvl 10.2 (PFS): +1 Adamantine Estoc, +1/+3 Spiked Darkwood Heavy Shield, +3 Mithral Agile Breastplate, Ring of Protection +2, Amulet of Natural Armor +1, Dusty Rose Prism, Clear Spindle, Cloak of Resistence +2, Belt of Con +2, Composite Short Bow

As for the discussion, I'll admit I rolled well on some of the attacks, and the Estoc has a crit range of 18-20 which factored in as well. But the fights...

So with this info your DPR is 58.61125.

A 15 pb non-archetype'ed Fighter dual wielding kukri's does 63.18.

Your numbers are with flanking and sneak. The fighter does his without flanking.

With flanking the fighter jumps to 72.54.

Your build does have better defenses than the fighter build but he does more damage. It seems to me that you simply have a semi-well built martial here.

Now your will save is an issue unless you put that clear spindle in a wayfinder, and you need a method of flight, but other than that you look solid.

This is in no way overpowered.

To me this means that the issue is either the ease of pathfinder society modules, the way said modules are designed catering to your strengths, or the other players at the table rather than the feat in question or your build.

Please do not get more decent, not great just decent, martial options nerfed via PFS outcry.

Not trying to be mean, but this is nothing compared to say a focused evoker, which is widely regarded as the weakest caster build.

Not to say your build is bad it is not. It is just not overpowered in any way.

Grand Lodge

I thought if you had a level in fighter or such you couldn't take a level in brawler? Since Fighter is the parent class I could be wrong though.

Dark Archive

I'm going to go with everybody else and say that this doesn't look tat bad. In fact, I wouldn't put it in the Top 20 of most broken characters I have encountered in PFS. Sometimes your build will be amazing and cause an encounter or scenario to be a cake walk. That happens all the time. This feat also only shines in a particular kind of party that is fairly uncommon, namely one where nobody else wants to get into melee. Otherwise, you just flank with another melee character and the feat is literally adding nothing to your effectiveness.

The other thing that I would remind the player is that just because you CAN solo an encounter doesn't mean that you SHOULD. There are many ways to make a character that will win an encounter without party assistance. But is that fun for the player, the rest of the table, or the GM? Probably not. There is nothing wrong with keeping something in reserve and letting someone else shine for a little while.


@Raltus: I believe that was in the playtest, but was removed for the final release of that book.


Barbarian gets most of its damage output through his rage rounds, which are finite, but I get you point.

I'm totally fine with Rogues being more powerful. Rogues have needed that. I keep trying to explain how easy it is to get that sneak off, and people keep reading past it. This guy's been able to do sneak attacks more often than not because of it and has become a one-man army. Again, Barbarians do similar damage, if not more, but at least it's costing them resources. This is pretty much an always-available powerup that could turn oppressive really quickly, much like ragecycling Barbarians.


Quentin Coldwater wrote:

Barbarian gets most of its damage output through his rage rounds, which are finite, but I get you point.

I'm totally fine with Rogues being more powerful. Rogues have needed that. I keep trying to explain how easy it is to get that sneak off, and people keep reading past it. This guy's been able to do sneak attacks more often than not because of it and has become a one-man army. Again, Barbarians do similar damage, if not more, but at least it's costing them resources. This is pretty much an always-available powerup that could turn oppressive really quickly, much like ragecycling Barbarians.

A level 10 barbarian has ~25-30 rounds of Rage per day. It's a finite resource, but not much of a concern unless you're running extremely long battles.

The Fighter listed above, who does more average damage than the Rogue build given (including Sneak Attack), is not expending any resources. Also, his damage doesn't go through the floor when he's fighting someone in the open.

I do have to ask, does every enemy put their back to the wall (or boulder, or tree, etc)? Any open battle area will pretty much shut this feat down, and that's ... pretty common, especially at higher levels.

Regardless, you keep describing the damage done, and I keep thinking, "Oh, that's about what a martial should be able to do. Good for him finding a way to make it work." I really don't see the problem with the feat.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

The rogue is also level 10 in a module designed for 7-8 level characters. I'd be more concerned if he was able to dominate the 10-11 tier as well.

Also, why were enemies staying next to the wall?


Woo, lots more people posting while I was typing.

I wasn't exactly posting this because of its OP-ness in damage output, but in sheer utility. Damage aside, this feat allows for much more shenanigans than people might think. When the owner of the character say he feels dirty for using it, you know there's something wrong.

It's clear I'm in the minority here, so I'll shut up about it. Thanks for the replies, all!


The thing is in a more melee heavy group you'd be flanking regularly too. It's not hard to get sneak attack every single round with a decent group composition. In that sense all Press does is bump the rogue back up to baseline in a group that can't supply flanking.

Except even worse than that because the feat does nothing in open spaces.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Raltus wrote:
I thought if you had a level in fighter or such you couldn't take a level in brawler? Since Fighter is the parent class I could be wrong though.

P sure that was true, but then wasn't after they went official.

Honestly, it seems like the problem the OP has is two fold. The first is one player who is stealing the spotlight in combat and fustrating others. That is a problem that can be solved through RP. Since the player is here, maybe just sometimes not get involved in fights for RP reasons. (Too cocky, arrogant, busy praying, unworthy opponent...)

The second problem seems to be the idea of what a Rogue should be doing. For me, a self reliant Rogue is the baseline. Not having a flanking buddy. Rogues in terms of themes and mechanics to me have always been about dirty fighting. This isn't any worse than Pack Flanking or a good Feint build. Or just being able to go invisible for that matter.

If anything, the heavy shield trait is a touch strong maybe? I dunno, doesn't feel that overpowered. But still definately a very strong trait.


KingOfAnything wrote:

The rogue is also level 10 in a module designed for 7-8 level characters. I'd be more concerned if he was able to dominate the 10-11 tier as well.

Also, why were enemies staying next to the wall?

In fact, he could, but that's mostly due to more of the same enemies, rather than bigger enemies. And more of the same still wouldn't be an issue, because his AC was so high they could only hit him on a 20 anyway.

It's a dungeon. There's little enough space as it is. I know he has the feat, but a) sometimes enemy placement is spelled out, and b) they don't know he has the feat. Smart people would think putting yourself against the wall prevents flanking, but in this case it helps.


Quentin Coldwater wrote:

Barbarian gets most of its damage output through his rage rounds, which are finite, but I get you point.

I'm totally fine with Rogues being more powerful. Rogues have needed that. I keep trying to explain how easy it is to get that sneak off, and people keep reading past it. This guy's been able to do sneak attacks more often than not because of it and has become a one-man army. Again, Barbarians do similar damage, if not more, but at least it's costing them resources. This is pretty much an always-available powerup that could turn oppressive really quickly, much like ragecycling Barbarians.

Tbh I think the issue you are missing is that this "always available" power up has a chance to be ignored by immunities, and it often is an expectation that the class can use it often without the investment.

You appear to be having an issue with a well invested strategy of the entire build, which those responding are rightly pointing out is unfair especially in regard to the fact stronger builds are easily possible, and the feat itself is just stronger than most... it's like whining about Power attack being OP tbh.


M1k31 wrote:
Quentin Coldwater wrote:

Barbarian gets most of its damage output through his rage rounds, which are finite, but I get you point.

I'm totally fine with Rogues being more powerful. Rogues have needed that. I keep trying to explain how easy it is to get that sneak off, and people keep reading past it. This guy's been able to do sneak attacks more often than not because of it and has become a one-man army. Again, Barbarians do similar damage, if not more, but at least it's costing them resources. This is pretty much an always-available powerup that could turn oppressive really quickly, much like ragecycling Barbarians.

Tbh I think the issue you are missing is that this "always available" power up has a chance to be ignored by immunities, and it often is an expectation that the class can use it often without the investment.

You appear to be having an issue with a well invested strategy of the entire build, which those responding are rightly pointing out is unfair especially in regard to the fact stronger builds are easily possible, and the feat itself is just stronger than most... it's like whining about Power attack being OP tbh.

Yeah, I've realised I'm pretty much the only one with this opinion. It's not that it's too powerful, but I just think it enables too many things. It's just this gut feeling that Rogues shouldn't get their sneak attacks this easily. Which is a terrible argument, I know, but if you've played with this guy you know what I mean. It isn't that he's dominating the table, it's simply that it feels cheap.

Dark Archive

Seeing all the comments on how the amount of damage can be considered semi-decent and not at all overpowered, I feel a lot less fidgety about playing him. But in defense of Quentin Coldwater, only the last scenario has been my lvl 10 at tier 7-8, others before mostly included being in tier or me playing up, with no real change in difficulty for the character. Also, the last scenario pitched most enemies either immediately next to us or consisted of 1 big bad enemy. Since my fellow martial in that scenario was a Spring Attacker Fighter build, my Press to the Wall could have just been a spotlight case.

In other scenarios I usually do not try to outshine the rest. The character actually has a phobia for swarms and ghosts (anything that gets past his armor, he is actually a coward who only feels confident due to a layer of steel between him and the rest), and has absolutely no face powers. But since combat suddenly spawns in PFS, and usually next to my character, I feel obligated to hit it (I'm a martial, afterall). Everytime I use PttW however, fellow players are suprised at the sudden increase in damage output. Maybe it is just an expectation thing surrounding the rogue at our lodge that it is viewed as too powerfull.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mr. Bonkers wrote:
In other scenarios I usually do not try to outshine the rest. The character actually has a phobia for swarms and ghosts (anything that gets past his armor, he is actually a coward who only feels confident due to a layer of steel between him and the rest), and has absolutely no face powers. But since combat suddenly spawns in PFS, and usually next to my character, I feel obligated to hit it (I'm a martial, afterall). Everytime I use PttW however, fellow players are suprised at the sudden increase in damage output. Maybe it is just an expectation thing surrounding the rogue at our lodge that it is viewed as too powerfull.

I would say so. Gaming groups tend to be insular communities. It means that for them, the same general perception and ideals will come about. I honestly feel this is just a thing with the concept of what rogues should be doing and defying that expectation rather than anything that needs to be changed about the game itself.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

Sounds like things worked out well for you, Mr. Bonkers. But, I see Press to the Wall, as the "no other martials?!" version of Gang Up. It takes a little bit of coordination and setup, but you should be getting your sneak attacks in almost every round.


Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

PFS Scenarios that have challenging combats are definitely the exception rather than the rule.

1 to 50 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Please reconsider Press to the Wall. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.