Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2e: is it RAW or RAI to always take 10 minutes and heal between encounters?

[payn]

I tend to ask myself how a party would react if the situation were reversed, and the fact of the matter is most parties I have DMed are very reluctant to simply let an opponent run away if they can prevent it.

Its so true. In a PF1 game I had a random encounter with a witch that wanted to steal an item from the party that was of trivial value. The witch waited until they camped. She was busted trying to take the item. She tried to charm one of the party to try and help her get the item and get out. That failed, so the witch just tried to get out on her own. The party relentlessly hunted her down and went nova on her screaming FU FU FU the entire time. Its pretty funny now, but I was a little shocked at the time.

 

[payn]

This is something where you have to give your players a chance, or warn them going into the game that they need to be prepared for because you might not be giving them such chances. My group of grognard gamers always buy flasks of oil for this sort of thing, as well as for a retreat option. In 5E I had a group that loved using caltrops and ball bearings, which was hilarious when it worked.

I can really appreciate a clever use of items in a CaW game. However, its a bit of a bummer to play a powerful caster whose best move is to tote a gas can with flint and steel.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Monsters should be privy to the same information about the world as the characters (subject to their intelligence), and should interact with the world based on that information (and their own natures).

A monster seeking a meal would probably lie in wait, try to ambush the most lightly armored opponent, and drag them off for a peaceful meal. (if encountered outside its lair). A more powerful monster in a lair may be satisfied killing one or two characters for a future meal and letting the rest of the party escape (@Retreater ‘s HPK).

Potentially true. But again, if you're causing deep damage to it, healing is generally not easy for things and most things don't like taking a lot of damage for a single meal.

An intelligent monster is actively going to try to prevent its enemies from escaping, and is absolutely going to set up countermeasures against their return (after several hours or a few days). And of course, monsters include undead and demons, for whom destroying life IS their goal.

Maybe. I can think of a lot of reasons why an intelligent creature might prefer to drive off the enemies rather than keep them in there. It's all up to how you want to do it: are they prioritizing their survival? Then let them leave, pick up your stuff and get out. Or call on your minions and let them take care of it because if they aren't hitting you, you can recover. Continuing a fight can just be a bad way to get hurt. I even had a villain die because of a set of random crits because he tried continuing a fight that the players were running from.

The “I scare you off then take no actions while you go back to town and buy the items and reinforcements” is rather unlikely given the large number of monsters with human intelligence or higher.

I mean, I don't think that's what most people are really advocating for here. Things will change if you leave, even with less intelligent monsters. The point here is that the players get another chance. It might require more planning, a new strategy, better items, etc... but if things go bad, living is its own reward.

I tend to ask myself how a party would react if the situation were reversed, and the fact of the matter is most parties I have DMed are very reluctant to simply let an opponent run away if they can prevent it.

I don't like this only because PCs honestly act way differently than NPCs because they'll take way more risks than NPCs. Healing is easier to get and the risks are less than an NPC who, if killed, is just going to be dead.

I can really appreciate a clever use of items in a CaW game. However, its a bit of a bummer to play a powerful caster whose best move is to tote a gas can with flint and steel.

See, I love that stuff. Lock you can't crack? Well, good thing you brought that vial of acid. To me, carrying a bunch of useful, interesting consumables to deploy at a moment's notice is just what d20 Fantasy is all about.

Though I get that if you want to play as Gandalf, it probably doesn't sync up with your expectations . I suppose everyone has their line: I really like the idea of cantrips, but some people just grew up expecting their magic user to have a sling or some darts on-hand. Try explaining that to a kid who got into playing D&D in the last 10 years ...

 

[Thomas Shey]

I agree the increase in difficulty is not as stark as it’s being portrayed, though not fully engaging either is probably not a sound tactic.

Absolutely.

That was one of our problems. I had a player playing a bomber alchemist who played very conservatively. He would only throw one bomb per round—typically a DPS bomb; and then hide behind his shield. From what I understand, you should really want to be handing out consumables to buff the party and focus on debuffing the monster with your bombs in combat because raw bomb damage isn’t very good compared to what other characters can do.

Well, if you want to put up a poster child for a class that requires significant extra work to use effectively, the alchemist is it. Even with some helps here and there over time, there are still people who think the class is just flat out underpowered (and at least one of the three variations is really, really hard to argue against that). So I'm not going to fault someone misstepping with that one.

But I've also heard that there are people where those playing barbarians or fighters who will just run up and strike/strike/strike every round, and that's a degree of flatout disengagement with the mechanics that isn't going to serve you well.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Here's some of the very basic adventure design stuff Paizo should have followed (especially in their first AP adventure) ...
1) Extreme/deadly encounters should be well telegraphed, out of the way, not necessary to progress in the dungeon
2) Encounters that can't be stacked together shouldn't be connected by a simple door UNLESS you clearly tell the GM to not stack them and then give a good reason they aren't stackable in the fiction (e.g.: "these two factions hate each other and won't come to the aid of the other side.")

I have mixed feelings about the first (though I will agree walking right into that damned barghest where it is can be a real problem; its one of the three most difficult fights I recall across the campaign to date, and one of the others is part of my generic annoyance with how golems work), but I'd at least agree with telegraphing them (them not being necessary I'm not as convinced of, unless there's no way to come back and deal with the problem later when you're more prepared, either by leveling or by careful use of buffs) and I have no issue with the second at all (though, honestly, I think this is an area I've seen adventure writers be sloppy as hell about over the years, and as I noted, this can be a big problem whether you use a encounter balance system or not).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Its so true. In a PF1 game I had a random encounter with a witch that wanted to steal an item from the party that was of trivial value. The witch waited until they camped. She was busted trying to take the item. She tried to charm one of the party to try and help her get the item and get out. That failed, so the witch just tried to get out on her own. The party relentlessly hunted her down and went nova on her screaming FU FU FU the entire time. Its pretty funny now, but I was a little shocked at the time.

I'd argue that's an indication of, honestly, how irrational most player-character groups are though (sometimes as a consequence of scar tissue from similar events in the past). But in general, the fact that a PC may well tend toward Leroy Jenkins responses doesn't mean that most opponents will do the same; PCs get away with things that would normally get most NPCs killed in normal existence all the time.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Well, if you want to put up a poster child for a class that requires significant extra work to use effectively, the alchemist is it. Even with some helps here and there over time, there are still people who think the class is just flat out underpowered (and at least one of the three variations is really, really hard to argue against that). So I'm not going to fault someone misstepping with that one.

Alchemist is a class where you can get a lot out of it, but it helps to be the person that emails the GM with 2 pages worth of stuff they're looking for compared to the dude who just shows up and plays stuff off the page the GM hands him.

 

[payn]

Though I get that if you want to play as Gandalf, it probably doesn't sync up with your expectations . I suppose everyone has their line: I really like the idea of cantrips, but some people just grew up expecting their magic user to have a sling or some darts on-hand. Try explaining that to a kid who got into playing D&D in the last 10 years ...

You used to have to plan out your resources for the entire day and/or adventure. Now numerous encounters are expected so you need a magic crossbow and encounter powers to mange them all.

 

[Justice and Rule]

You used to have to plan out your resources for the entire day and/or adventure. Now numerous encounters are expected so you need a magic crossbow and encounter powers to mange them all.

This is, I think, part of the problem with a lot of modern APs: they try to keep the dungeon crawl aspect of older adventures while trying to keep things within the newer expectations players have for play. Systems can play both of those individually, but trying to split the difference leads to a ton of mechanical dissonance.

 

[Campbell]

I really think Alchemist would have been better served as an Advanced Player's Guide class. It's not really straightforward enough for a core rulebook class in my opinion.