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

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Unfortunately, they wanted a New Core Class, and Alchemist was the one at immediate hand.

 

[kenada]

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). 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.

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 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 agree monsters should take measures after the PCs retreat, but that’s not what was said. I was responding to the comment about the monsters’ letting the PCs escape and not taking optimal tactics (focusing fire). I think both are reasonable and that a monster’s chasing the PCs endlessly would be less likely. If escape can make any sense in the fiction, it should be allowed to happen for the sake of the game.

 

[CapnZapp]

If escape can make any sense in the fiction, it should be allowed to happen for the sake of the game.

Sure. And this is pretty much how you have to run it.

"We run away!"

"You run away."

But the notion that the battle doesn't magically end, and that rules for initiative, movement, attacks of opportunity, line of sight etc remain in play until the monsters can no longer detect any hero is perfectly reasonable.

It's just that no "you go I go" game that I can recall allows for escape in the general case, using the regular combat rules.

(If the game offers rules for chases and what not, my personal preference is to revert to the above "rule":

"We run away!"

"You run away."

If you're gonna "cheat" why bother with rules? Either the players want to end the combat or they don't.)

 

[kenada]

But the notion that the battle doesn't magically end, and that rules for initiative, movement, attacks of opportunity, line of sight etc remain in play until the monsters can no longer detect any hero is perfectly reasonable.

By what metric? If playing out an escape using the combat rules results in escapes that don’t usually work, then it’s not a particularly good way to run that type of encounter. Just because it’s possible doesn’t mean one should do it. It’d be like using initiative and combat rounds to handle exploration, which isn’t a very good idea either.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Worth noting that the CRB basically states what @kenada does, though it recommends having the players have to make it to a certain place before they can all leave.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Honestly, most games work like crap if you try to run escapes using the normal combat rounds, and D&D has always been terrible about it; there's almost always at least some opponents that are significantly faster than the PCs, so if you just do the normal movement sequence it'll fail out. It was sufficiently clear in OD&D that there were special rules for running away in dungeons (though nothing to solve the problem outdoors).

 

[CapnZapp]

By what metric? If playing out an escape using the combat rules results in escapes that don’t usually work, then it’s not a particularly good way to run that type of encounter. Just because it’s possible doesn’t mean one should do it. It’d be like using initiative and combat rounds to handle exploration, which isn’t a very good idea either.

You appear to conflate different things.

I did not say "use the combat rules to enact escapes, you'll get good results."

In fact, I said the exact opposite.

However, many groups instinctively dislike the notion that you should stop using the combat rules at an arbitrary point, and either switch to another set of rules or (my preference) no rules at all (basically the GM just saying what happens).

I did say "perfectly reasonable" referring to the idea and desire to be able to use the combat rules throughout an encounter; including the "before" and "after" - especially the "after" since there is no clear demarcation when that happens. Put simply, it feels like you need to "cheat" if you want to be able to run away (or if the GM wants its monsters to run away). Players want to keep running the game round by round to ensure no stragglers get away - and the combat system (and choosing to play heroes with high mobility) pretty much guarantees that there is no escape.

Why? Because combats are tuned to be over in a very small number of rounds. Which is generally good, since drawn-out combats are boring and time-consuming. The nature of hit points also impact this.

But when it comes to "fleeing", it also means most monsters (and heroes) just has no time to find a hiding spot, get out of sight, and "disengage" the enemy. After all, you're fleeing only when things go badly, and then it is far too late. (The only time you have a reasonable chance of actually fleeing - assuming the game engine is still running - is right away when you still have all your hit points!)

Do note this criticism is not specific to PF2. As I also said, just about any traditional ttrpg suffers from this inability, but D&D like games are particularly unsuited.

 

[CapnZapp]

Worth noting that the CRB basically states what @kenada does, though it recommends having the players have to make it to a certain place before they can all leave.

Yes. Exactly.

But you don't have to like it...

 

[kenada]

Do note this criticism is not specific to PF2. As I also said, just about any traditional ttrpg suffers from this inability, but D&D like games are particularly unsuited.

I’m disagreeing with whether it’s reasonable to make that assumption. I don’t think it is. Yes, some groups that got started playing newer editions may assume escape is impossible because the system doesn’t tell you that you can, and the combat rules clearly provide no means by which you can get away from someone faster than you, but I wouldn’t conflate that with a desire to use the combat rules to resolve escapes.

Anyway, I don’t think it’s “cheating” for the GM to make rulings to ensure the game stays fun. That’s the GM’s job! It’s what makes tabletop RPGs different from computer games.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Just a note: I don't think it requires people playing newer editions to have that assumption. I've got people who've been playing for 40 years who tend to assume it'll work out badly unless the system actively supports it, because they saw problems with it that long ago.