Pathfinder 2E Creating a Retreat System

[Justice and Rule]

I feel like we should just start a new topic for this, since we are well off the old one in the other thread.

So... how do you create a system for retreating within a d20 system (and obviously PF2 specifically)? When I'm off work (or maybe over the weekend) I'll refine what I posted in the other thread. Everyone else, put in thoughts and maybe continue the discussion we've been having in the other thread here.

 

[kenada]

There are a few approaches depending on how complex one wants it to be (I let someone else discuss skill challenges). The obvious approach for Pathfinder 2e is to take the chase subsystem and bolt it on as an option during combat. If one side wants to escape, they need to separate and declare their escape. At that point, you switch to using the chase subsystem until the escapees either makes a break or their pursuers catch them.

To be honest, I don’t want escape to involve a ton of checks or play. I feel like it would eventually get rote and tedious, or it would not happen often enough that it would feel clunky in practice as I got (re)accustomed to using it. I’m also not big on player-facing clocks, which I had one of m players notice when I used the VP subsystem for something else (he runs Scum and Villainy).

What I have in my Worlds Without Number game is a mix of WWN’s procedure and B/X, mostly B/X. You can see the B/X escape procedure on the Old-School Essentials SRD. The changes I make for WWN are to have each side make opposing Dex/Exert checks using the best modifiers for each side, and each side gets bonuses and penalties: for being slower (−2), having a smaller group (+1), dropping bait (+1 per, as appropriate), or creating obstacles (may cause the pursuit to stop). Note that WWN uses 2d6 for skill rolls, so the numbers are smaller.

To adapt that back to PF2, I’d change the check to a group Athletics vs. the opposition’s best Athletics DC. Success means you get away, but the GM decides to where. Critical success means the players get a say where. Failure means you get caught, and combat starts again so where along the escape route. There would also be modifiers: for being slower (−4 circumstance penalty), for having a smaller group (+2 circumstance bonus), and dropping bait (−2 penalty to the DC). It’s totally untested in PF2, so I have no idea how well it would work.

The penalty for slowness seems harsh, but you only need one success on the group check to escape (wish PF2 had better group check mechanics …). One could have only the best person roll, but having everyone roll seems more idiomatic to Pathfinder.

 

[!DWolf]

To build a retreat system you should first define what you mean by retreat and what you want to accomplish by retreating.

So just thinking of my games off the top of my head, retreat can mean any of these things:

1. Backing off to deescalate conflict. The characters ask: are we fighting this thing (or these guys)? Conclude no, so they just leave and it doesn’t follow.
2. Short withdrawal to a fixed point of defense. The PCs realize that the terrain/situation here doesn’t favor them, but if they move over there it does.
3. Short withdrawal to temporarily break combat. The characters need to break contact for a brief moment, usually to heal and buff themselves before continuing the fight.
4. Short withdrawal to permanently break contact. The PCs don’t want to continue the fight (or fight in the first place) but they don’t want to (or can’t) leave the area. So they break contact and then use skills such as stealth to avoid further conflicts. Note that when this happened in my games the PCs were usually split off from the main party.
5. Luring the enemies away from their position. The enemies have superior numbers or position and the PCs want to try and force them to fight in a situation where the PCs have the advantage.
6. Long withdrawal is like one of the short withdrawals above but it has additional complications due to the distance moved.
7. Complete rout (which I have never experienced due to the nature of my players). Multiple PCs may be down or dead and the remaining PCs realize that a TPK is eminent. The PCs decide to flee without any notion of where to and without any strategy or tactics.

Personally, all the time the PCs in my pf2e games retreated (that is not number seven) the system handled it just fine. For short distances, the three action economy provides enough flexibility, that ducking around a corner and through a doorway then closing the door, works fine. For longer distances I use the chase rules (potentially combined with hazards) and have no trouble organically moving to and from them to encounter mode if necessary.

So for pf2e my ‘retreat system’ would be the words DON’T PANIC in big bold letters and a collection of case studies showing how the system actually runs retreats and withdrawals.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Personally, all the time the PCs in my pf2e games retreated (that is not number seven) the system handled it just fine. For short distances, the three action economy provides enough flexibility, that ducking around a corner and through a doorway then closing the door, works fine. For longer distances I use the chase rules (potentially combined with hazards) and have no trouble organically moving to and from them to encounter mode if necessary.

There's a couple of things here though:

1. This isn't just an indoor problem, so there needs to be factoring in what outdoor cover people can use here;
2. And people seem to have radically different ideas of how easy it is to to this; in the parent thread someone was pretty much insisting that in most cases there was no significant chance to do this in most environments (and this is a thing I've seen all the way back to the 1970's in how some people, maybe most viewed it.

So I think having a more formalized system rather than just trying to use the extent combat system movement and hoping the GM is sensible is warranted.

 

[Teemu]

I’ve been working on a Retreat VP system, which would work together with modified Stamina.

In the modified Stamina rules the PCs would invert the Stamina and HP amounts, so half the class’ hp per level to Stamina and the other half plus Con mod to hit points. This turns a normal HP pool into about 1/3 Stamina and 2/3 HP, and at later levels 1/4 Stamina and 3/4 HP, depending on Con mod. Then you would gain Resolve Points equal to that HP per level number (half plus Con mod), not equal to your key ability score mod. I’ve done test fights with a level 6 party and this version seems to work well—although it was just a test, not a real extended campaign.

The PCs could decide to initiate a Retreat during a player’s turn. Unconscious characters can’t contribute to the checks. A Retreat always ends in a successful escape from an enemy, but the checks determine how well the group survives the ordeal. The DCs would be based on the highest level enemy present in the encounter when the Retreat begins

The party makes 3-5 Retreat checks with skills (or casts spells or uses other suitable abilities; a spell could grant a success if fitting). After a skill has been used to roll a success, further checks with the skill become increasingly harder (+2/+5/+10).


Success The PCs avoid losing Resolve Points.

Failure The PCs lose 1 Resolve Point.

Critical Failure The PCs lose 2 Resolve Points.

At the end of the Retreat, every PC loses 1 Resolve Point. If a PC can’t pay a Resolve Point cost, they become fatigued.

This version is based on the diminishing victory points version of the rules from GMG.

 

[Ixal]

What exactly is currently missing so that you think you need a new system to cover retreats?

 

[Justice and Rule]

What exactly is currently missing so that you think you need a new system to cover retreats?

I'm not sure it's needed as much as this is more of a thought experiment based on discussion from another thread. Felt like a nice, positive topic for a subcommunity that is generally more design-oriented.

 

[kenada]

One thing that occurred to me is it might be a good idea to outline default expectations for how aggressively enemies will pursue the party (particularly when the party goes out of sight). That was a point of contention in the other thread.

 

[John R Davis]

Running away in d20 games is really tricky. So a system where each player rolls 'something' and then escapes, but may suffer X, is much better than trying to do it round by round. Interested into what you settle on.

 

[GMMichael]

. . . retreat can mean any of these things:

1. Backing off to deescalate conflict. The characters ask: are we fighting this thing (or these guys)? Conclude no, so they just leave and it doesn’t follow.
2. Short withdrawal to a fixed point of defense. The PCs realize that the terrain/situation here doesn’t favor them, but if they move over there it does.
3. Short withdrawal to temporarily break combat. The characters need to break contact for a brief moment, usually to heal and buff themselves before continuing the fight.
4. Short withdrawal to permanently break contact. The PCs don’t want to continue the fight (or fight in the first place) but they don’t want to (or can’t) leave the area. So they break contact and then use skills such as stealth to avoid further conflicts. Note that when this happened in my games the PCs were usually split off from the main party.
5. Luring the enemies away from their position. The enemies have superior numbers or position and the PCs want to try and force them to fight in a situation where the PCs have the advantage.
6. Long withdrawal is like one of the short withdrawals above but it has additional complications due to the distance moved.
7. Complete rout (which I have never experienced due to the nature of my players). Multiple PCs may be down or dead and the remaining PCs realize that a TPK is eminent. The PCs decide to flee without any notion of where to and without any strategy or tactics.

Retreat: when a character leaves a conflict to stop fighting, but the battle continues.

One thing that occurred to me is it might be a good idea to outline default expectations for how aggressively enemies will pursue the party (particularly when the party goes out of sight). . .

Lots of opponent motivations make this a hefty task. For starters, the opponent can be fighting due to hunger, self defense, orders to attack, rage, or confusion. I wouldn't put a default expectation on those, beyond 50/50 odds of pursuit.

I'd just do this (if I were a PF2 player):

• retreating characters must reach an edge of the conflict (map) which would allow them to escape.
• retreating characters roll a check (based on means of escape) to escape, opposed by any opponents attempting to prevent escape.
• Success means the character is removed from the encounter (map). Crit success means no pursuit is allowed. Fails mean that the opponent who succeeded found a way to prevent escape.

Pursuing opponents can begin a new encounter/chase, upon resolution of the current encounter.

 

[Thomas Shey]

One thing that occurred to me is it might be a good idea to outline default expectations for how aggressively enemies will pursue the party (particularly when the party goes out of sight). That was a point of contention in the other thread.

And of course this is going to need to be broken down based on the enemy type. Some guardian types will be unlikely to budge from where they started, though if they have ranged attacks they may take potshots at your retreating backs; some animalistic enemies will chase you out of their turf then call it good; some others may try and track you back to your camp or the like and deal with the problem. One size is distinctly not going to fit all.

 

[kenada]

I think it should be possible to give a reasonable default that applies broadly with examples of when the GM might decide to do things differently (e.g., in a secure area, pursuers might start systematically searching for the PCs). The important thing is to set a baseline understanding.

Breaking it down by type or motivation isn’t a bad idea, but I'd be wary of being too prescriptive. PF2 already has a lot of moving parts. That’s why I suggested some reasonable default (like @GMMichael’s suggestion of some odds for pursuit).

 

[Ixal]

I think it should be possible to give a reasonable default that applies broadly with examples of when the GM might decide to do things differently (e.g., in a secure area, pursuers might start systematically searching for the PCs). The important thing is to set a baseline understanding.

Breaking it down by type or motivation isn’t a bad idea, but I'd be wary of being too prescriptive. PF2 already has a lot of moving parts. That’s why I suggested some reasonable default (like @GMMichael’s suggestion of some odds for pursuit).

Which is why I wonder why you need a codified system for this anyway.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, I expressed my opinion about that: because without something as a baseline, a lot of people seem to default to using things like just movement speed, and that typically translates to PCs trying to withdraw as "you lose". Its hard to see that as serving good purposes.

 

[Ixal]

Well, I expressed my opinion about that: because without something as a baseline, a lot of people seem to default to using things like just movement speed, and that typically translates to PCs trying to withdraw as "you lose". Its hard to see that as serving good purposes.

What else should they use?

 

[Thomas Shey]

What else should they use?

Terrain. Enemy motivations, Perception.

Movement is an element, but its not the only element, and its not self-evidently the most important one.

 

[kenada]

Which is why I wonder why you need a codified system for this anyway.

Like I said, I don’t think it should be too prescriptive. It’s tempting to provide a bunch of tables of possible reactions, but I think it should be kept pretty simple. There doesn’t need to be a lot of gameplay around it. What’s important is that escape is there as a pressure release valve for when PCs get in over their heads and need to back off. Putting it in a procedure codifies that as a baseline assumption. Otherwise, the prevalent assumption is that escape is not possible (especially when the escaping side is slower than the pursuing side), and people will just default to how they’ve always done things. (See also: “System Matters”.)

Edit: My default assumption would be that pursuers are easy to lose. If you can navigate to a hiding space or get out of sight, they’ll give up the chase. There are exceptional circumstances when they might continue the chase or systematically search for the PCs. A list of example situations can be provided, but it should be disclaimed as non-exhaustive. This is basically the approach B/X takes, which I favor because it is very simple.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm rather prone to having a slightly more detailed system in terms of having discussion of the 3-5 important elements, but otherwise I and Kenada are fundamentally on the same page, if in slightly different paragraphs.

 

[Campbell]

If we're looking to build something that represents a realistic depiction of retreating from a determined enemy in who will doggedly pursue you in the context of a mostly melee skirmish than it will be brutal. Historically most successful retreats (when armies mostly fought with melee weapons) depended on what Sun Tzu called the golden bridge, meaning to allows leave your enemy with a means to escape. When retreat is not an option you fight much more fiercely and are likely to do the same to your enemies.

Within the context of a game where we want to reward proactive action a realistic depiction of fleeing is most likely not the best design decision.

 

[Tonguez]

Personally I’m not sure how this helps - Disengage followed by Movement (Chase rules) would seem to be sufficient.

Personally I always work on the notion that sapient creatures dont want to die and thus ‘Run Away” is the default. As soon as someone takes a disengage and a run away movement then I’d leave the whole retreat and pursuit to narrative decisions instead of mechanics - if its the PCS retreating then the GM makes a decision to see if pursuit makes narrative sense and tells a cool story