Quote from: deadDMwalking;1102575Serious question.

Yeah, I wouldn't expect that either. Say the Fighter is on first base, the cleric is on second, and the dragon comes in from center field. "Flanking" in PF terms means that two opponents have to be in front/behind or on either side of the "flanked" enemy, which will make them flat footed and -2 AC to those two opponents. There are other methods to make the enemy flat footed (like Brutish Shove) to everyone, but flanking is easy to accomplish and usually priority #1.

Most feats are "moves" that you choose to do instead of doing something else, and they do cost different numbers of actions. You can't Brutish Shove and Power Attack in the same hit, for instance. You could Brutish Shove twice in your turn with cumulative MAP penalties if you chose and were in the right situation.

The Shove ability itself is defended by Fortitude DC (Fort save +10), not armor. A little pixie is going to be easy to Shove but hard to Trip, as that targets Reflex DC. You can't normally shove huge monsters, the feat is an exception, and if you hit with it the Shove works automatically.

So! We've got our battlefield set up, lets see the numbers. The Fighter needs to be L12 to have all those feats, so that will be the party level and the opponent is a L14 Adult Red Dragon with 37 AC, an appropriate boss level fight.

I've got the Fighter at +29 to hit with a +2 weapon and Heroism, so hit/crit on a roll of 8/18 or 6/16 if it is flat footed. He can probably Sudden Charge 12 spaces, maybe getting behind the dragon and maybe not. The Brutish Shove  second attack would be at 13/20 or 11/20, needing a 20 to critical in either case but the dragon could already be prone if the Sudden Charge crits.

I'd say Brutish Shove is worth a look if you wanted a 2H specialist Fighter. I don't know if I'd take the 3 feat chain but you might save the day once in a while if you do. I don't think its useless.

Quote from: Shasarak;1102354I do like how they made retraining a core part of the game, so if you do have a "trap" option then you can just take some downtime and retrain out of it.

That is a welcome touch, but really it would be better to just not have the really weak/esoteric options or try to make them at least "ok".

Quote from: Conanist;1102614That is a welcome touch, but really it would be better to just not have the really weak/esoteric options or try to make them at least "ok".

If you had some kind of objective standard about what is OK or not.

Quote from: Shasarak;1102621If you had some kind of objective standard about what is OK or not.

I think that there's room for some subjective balance across groups, but once you choose your balance point, you can be objective about whether feats measure up or not.

Most gamers are familiar with Magic the Gathering and there are a lot of reasons why you wouldn't just play with ultra-rare cards.  If you're on a budget, you'll make the best deck you can with what cards you have.  Since you can play multiple decks, or re-jigger decks, it is easy to play a 'theme deck' that seems fun just to see how it works.  But if you're limited to just one deck and you can pull exactly what you want?  There's still going to be variety - there will be people who opt for a blue deck or a green deck or white/black, but people will gravitate to what works.

If you have 400 feats, and you're allowed to pick 20, you're probably going to pick the 20 that best fit your theme.  If the other 380 feats best fit another theme, they'll still be used.  But usually there are 100 feats that everyone uses and 300 that you'll never see in play.  The benefits are so extremely niche that there's no point.

And when they publish more and more feats, and none of them 'displace' the existing paradigm, there really isn't any point to it at all.  

Regarding the Shove - if you hit it 'works automatically' - meaning that you don't have to spend another action to activate it, but it still resisted, correct?  If you roll a Natural 20 to attack the dragon (Attack 49 against AC 37, so a critical by +10 over or a nat20, either way), does the dragon ALSO get a Fortitude save to resist being shoved at all?  

I'm trying to wrap my head around the failure points.  

What I suspect (and would like to confirm) is that allowing you to shove creatures that are 2 sizes bigger should be automatic because doing so is difficult enough that it won't generally happen.  If you have to hit the dragon with a critical AND the dragon has to roll a 1 or 2 on a Fortitude Save, that'd seem to indicate that the 'marginal utility' of the high level feat is low.  While it allows you to shove creatures you normally couldn't, it still might have a high failure chance.  If I'm wrong and they DON'T get a resist check, well, it might look silly but I could see how it has tactical advantages.

Quote from: Shasarak;1102621If you had some kind of objective standard about what is OK or not.

I'd say for me its a pretty low bar. Something that would be a big distraction or a massive liability to the party would fall into "not OK".

A number of classes can try to be the "Intimidation Guy" who can frighten an enemy. The frightened enemy has -1 to everything until he ends his turn, when it goes away. So if you just play this straight and the initiative order doesn't work in your favor, its pretty awful. If you try to get the most out of it and try to micromanage which players should delay their turns so everyone can take advantage of the debuff, the tactic is better but still IMO an unnecessarily complicated mess.

Then the Wizard and Sorceror have Bespell Weapon, which lets you charge up your own weapon for more damage. There was a lot of chatter in the playtest about building a character around this and the fighter/mage has always been popular, so you could go down the rabbit hole with this and take a better weapon proficiency and try to fight on the front lines. The problems are myriad: low proficiency bonus, low hp, no combat feats, no armor, etc. This is taking already the weakest character and making it even worse, a walking corpse that doesn't know its dead yet.

An example of something I do think is OK would be the Paladin that takes the steed instead of the sword or shield spirit. Often you won't even be able to use the steed, but you can still be pretty effective without it.

Regarding the feat, this is exactly what it does. The two complimentary feats are also on there.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=365

Quote from: Conanist;1102660I'd say for me its a pretty low bar. Something that would be a big distraction or a massive liability to the party would fall into "not OK".

A number of classes can try to be the "Intimidation Guy" who can frighten an enemy. The frightened enemy has -1 to everything until he ends his turn, when it goes away. So if you just play this straight and the initiative order doesn't work in your favor, its pretty awful. If you try to get the most out of it and try to micromanage which players should delay their turns so everyone can take advantage of the debuff, the tactic is better but still IMO an unnecessarily complicated mess.

You could argue the same thing with something like Flanking in that it only lasts until the Enemies turn so yes you could try to micromanage every bonus.  That is certainly a play style.  On the other hand you dont need to do that.  In my own game, which is only level 1,  the players are playing it pretty straight at the moment.

QuoteThen the Wizard and Sorceror have Bespell Weapon, which lets you charge up your own weapon for more damage. There was a lot of chatter in the playtest about building a character around this and the fighter/mage has always been popular, so you could go down the rabbit hole with this and take a better weapon proficiency and try to fight on the front lines. The problems are myriad: low proficiency bonus, low hp, no combat feats, no armor, etc. This is taking already the weakest character and making it even worse, a walking corpse that doesn't know its dead yet.

An example of something I do think is OK would be the Paladin that takes the steed instead of the sword or shield spirit. Often you won't even be able to use the steed, but you can still be pretty effective without it.

Regarding the feat, this is exactly what it does. The two complimentary feats are also on there.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=365

If you are playing a character off type then you probably are going to be less effective then someone playing to their strengths and on the other hand you probably are going to be more versatile as well.  A Fighter/Wizard is going to be doing things that a Fighter cant and if they are doing it with less AC then thats fine to me.  I can not see that the "Walking Corpse" argument holds much weight to be honest because characters are designed to be able to take a few hits.

You can argue almost anything. In this case Flanking doesn't "go away" until someone moves or goes down.

Regarding playing "off type" I couldn't agree more, and that was kind of my point. There are bound to be a few good combos (I can think of a few myself) but by and large playing to your strengths is the best course. There is a class of player that likes to create these unintuitive characters and that has been rewarded in past games so you still see it.

As for the Wizard, the math doesn't really bear that out and none of this is very hard to evaluate. The HP looks like a lot but he is still in very real danger of being one shot with a critical, especially with that AC. And remember its not 5e where you can just bounce back up indefinitely after being healed for 1 hp. Get dropped with a crit and fumble your recovery, or get dropped twice by a crit before you can rest and heal to full, and you will be dead outright. I don't see a scenario where a Wizard can survive long in melee outside of pure luck.

Quote from: Shasarak;1102621If you had some kind of objective standard about what is OK or not.

I agree. I might find feats which enhance certain role playing background aspects of my character to be the best feats, even if they're considered esoteric by others. Someone else might find feats which enhance certain combat aspects to be the best feats. And then there are many other interests. Including everything and letting players decide what they want seems wiser.

For example in one of my 5e games, a bard player took the Actor feat. This feat is frequently considered "weak" by other players who focus more on tactics and combat. However, the actor player LOOOOOOOVES this feat and has gotten a huge amount of use out of it. It's changed a lot of where our game headed in meaningful ways for both him and the more combat oriented players.

Quote from: Conanist;1102772You can argue almost anything. In this case Flanking doesn't "go away" until someone moves or goes down.

Regarding playing "off type" I couldn't agree more, and that was kind of my point. There are bound to be a few good combos (I can think of a few myself) but by and large playing to your strengths is the best course. There is a class of player that likes to create these unintuitive characters and that has been rewarded in past games so you still see it.

As for the Wizard, the math doesn't really bear that out and none of this is very hard to evaluate. The HP looks like a lot but he is still in very real danger of being one shot with a critical, especially with that AC. And remember its not 5e where you can just bounce back up indefinitely after being healed for 1 hp. Get dropped with a crit and fumble your recovery, or get dropped twice by a crit before you can rest and heal to full, and you will be dead outright. I don't see a scenario where a Wizard can survive long in melee outside of pure luck.

Yes when you are fighting Bosses then I can see Crits coming at you thick and fast.  One of the PCs (the Ranger) in my game got hit with a critical spear trap that knocked him from full to unconscious (and then got a critical Medicine check to knock him back to full again) so I agree that being hit with a critical can make for having a bad day.

Its tough for even a 600 page core book to support every character.  The Shield cantrip springs to mind as a useful tool for helping a front line Wizard/Fighter soak at least one hit.  Good at-table tactical planning can also help especially having someone else draw initial agro.  Maybe using spells or items like tanglefoot for initial crowd control before wading into combat.  It is hard to white room every possibility.

For all of the complaints about running a front line Wizard, I still remember the old days of 1d4 hp Wizards armed with a dagger.

Just checking in on the sales numbers. PF2 Core Rulebook is now down to Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,688, putting it well below Curse of Strahd, a 5e adventure that's been out since March of 2016.

Even if you think they sell 2 copies direct from Paizo for every one copy sold through Amazon despite the discount and free shipping most people get from Amazon (or even more...heck even 4 to 1 or 5 to 1) I have a hard time imagining they went to print on this book with these kinds of low sales numbers this early in the print cycle.

Quote from: Mistwell;1103316Just checking in on the sales numbers. PF2 Core Rulebook is now down to Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,688, putting it well below Curse of Strahd, a 5e adventure that's been out since March of 2016.

Even if you think they sell 2 copies direct from Paizo for every one copy sold through Amazon despite the discount and free shipping most people get from Amazon (or even more...heck even 4 to 1 or 5 to 1) I have a hard time imagining they went to print on this book with these kinds of low sales numbers this early in the print cycle.

I think their plan to leverage PF2E into permanently maintaining a staff much bigger than that of WoTC's D&D department was always doomed to fail. Their best shot would have been to move quickly to producing 5e D&D compatible adventures once 5e went OGL. That is probably still the case if they want to keep a business more than just mom & pop (Stevens & Wertz). There just isn't the kind of big demand for a Not-D&D that there was in 2009.

Quote from: S'mon;1103326I think their plan to leverage PF2E into permanently maintaining a staff much bigger than that of WoTC's D&D department was always doomed to fail. Their best shot would have been to move quickly to producing 5e D&D compatible adventures once 5e went OGL. That is probably still the case if they want to keep a business more than just mom & pop (Stevens & Wertz). There just isn't the kind of big demand for a Not-D&D that there was in 2009.

On the selfish side, I really WANT them to convert old PF adventures to 5e and write new ones for 5e.

However I tend to like the guys working there, and would prefer, for their sake, they work on things they love and are proud of. Which I imagine would be their own system, which they worked so very hard on to create.

Quote from: Mistwell;1103330On the selfish side, I really WANT them to convert old PF adventures to 5e and write new ones for 5e.

However I tend to like the guys working there, and would prefer, for their sake, they work on things they love and are proud of. Which I imagine would be their own system, which they worked so very hard on to create.

Just because you work hard, creating something you love; that doesn't mean that it will sell enough copies to pay your salary.  Sometimes, you can't make a living chasing your dream.

Quote from: Mistwell;1103316Just checking in on the sales numbers. PF2 Core Rulebook is now down to Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,688, putting it well below Curse of Strahd, a 5e adventure that's been out since March of 2016.
... I have a hard time imagining they went to print on this book with these kinds of low sales numbers this early in the print cycle.

I agree, I think they mis-understood the market signals as to why they got as big as they did.

In other words: they started to believe their own Hype. Not realizing that at least 50% of their success was due to WOTC's fuckups...

5e = the fucking up by WOTC basically stopped.

Quote from: S'mon;1103326I think their plan to leverage PF2E into permanently maintaining a staff much bigger than that of WoTC's D&D department was always doomed to fail. Their best shot would have been to move quickly to producing 5e D&D compatible adventures once 5e went OGL. ... There just isn't the kind of big demand for a Not-D&D that there was in 2009.

Well I will say that Pazio/Baizuo has show some business savvy in the past and weathered some big downturns. Going back to producing 5e D&D compatible adventures is still in their back pocket, and they have tested the waters recently on that front.

What we don't see is how financially tied up they are in this, and how that will impact things down the road. I've read rumors that some relatively big dollars were hemorrhaged with their pathfinder MMO adventure. But getting actual facts on that on is iffy at best.

I still think it will be 2-3 years down the road to see visible fallout. 5 or so to see the PF2 endgame. I think that out of pride PF2 will still exist, but we will see more "real" D&D from Baizuo in 5 years time.

The real sign will be to see if PF2 sales keep it at a strong #2 behind D&D, or PF2  starts to cycle between 2-5th place like every other RPG company's products out there.

Quote from: S'mon;1103326I think their plan to leverage PF2E into permanently maintaining a staff much bigger than that of WoTC's D&D department was always doomed to fail. Their best shot would have been to move quickly to producing 5e D&D compatible adventures once 5e went OGL. That is probably still the case if they want to keep a business more than just mom & pop (Stevens & Wertz). There just isn't the kind of big demand for a Not-D&D that there was in 2009.

Sadly, I think that's probably the case. Their eye-rolling politics aside, I really like what Paizo does. They've been a training ground for most of the writers and creatives in the D&D world for years, they put out a lot of professional-quality material, and they make adventures the core of their business. And call me superficial, but the professional part counts a lot to me. I get real value of professionally designed, edited, written, illustrated, and laid-out RPG books. With WotC D&D being operated by a skeleton crew and owned by a megacorp that only cares about return on investment to shareholders, we need more companies doing what Paizo does, not less.

But while I really hope PF2 can survive as a commercially viable alternative to D&D that supports a professional publisher, I'm beginning to have my doubts. It's very early days, of course, but sales numbers aside, there's just not a lot of buzz about PF2 on forums. Even on Paizo's own site there are very few reviews and comments about the new books. Activity on that site has been declining for years, and hasn't seen the uptick you might expect with a new edition.

Some AP chapters and the number of reviews on Paizo's site:

Trial of the Beast (Carrion Crown #2) 2011:  21 reviews

Curse of the Lady's Light (Shattered Star #2) 2012:  14 reviews

Empty Graves (Mummy's Mask #2) 2014:  11 reviews

RELEASE OF D&D 5E

Turn of the Torrent (Hell's Rebels #2) 2015:  7 reviews

Into the Shattered Continent (Ruins of Azlant #2) 2017:  2 reviews

Those numbers suggest to me Pathfinder has been on a steady decline in players for some time now, maybe even predating the release of D&D 5E. I had assumed that the massive popularity of 5E would have a 'rising tide lifts all boats' effect on the RPG hobby. I'm not so sure it has. Not when it comes to D&D-like systems such as Pathfinder, anyway.

The numbers also show why standing pat with Pathfinder 1 was never a real option for Paizo. I expect their player-base and subscriptions have been declining for years.

I hope there's room for two largish, professional publishers in the RPG world. At the very least, I hope if PF2 doesn't take off, Paizo can transition into supporting 5E. Because today's WotC has been a disappointment when it comes to publishing adventures and support for DMs, both in quality of quantity. And Golarion may be a bit over the top, but I fucking despise the Realms.