I'm working on a subsystem for the same purpose, a flight from danger over several days or weeks. I'm taking more inspiration from the Infiltration subsystem than the Chase subsystem, since the latter feels more appropriate for short sprints than the marathon hide-and-seek I'm going for.
My idea is to use diminishing VPs to represent the party's lead over their pursuers, with complications arising at different thresholds, representing the rising danger as the bad guys gain on the players, things like encountering scouting parties, the bad guys recruiting spies, and strongarming local authorities into hunting the PCs.
The PCs lose Lead Points by traveling too slowly, leaving a trail, and making too much of a ruckus when visiting settlements. They can regain points by pushing themselves to travel as fast as they can and by forming positive bonds with people in settlements, who might stifle the bad guys' investigations.
For level 1, I think Diehard is likely more impactful. Toughness gives you just 1 HP at that level, and while it does scale, it'll give you the same amount of HP if you take it at level 3 that it would if you had it the entire time. But that's assuming you're going to be taking both anyway- if it's one or the other, I'd go with Toughness.
Simplifying all of it in this manner removes most of the value in raising medicine above trained. You might want to take expert if you really want those feats, but unless you really want Legendary Medic? Nah, the return diminishes too steeply to be worth it.
If you wanted to solve a problem with your players taking too long with each rest, I suggest using the stamina rules in the GMG instead. Your players will treat wounds less often, but continued investment in medicine won't be subjected to the same diminishing returns your house rule would introduce. I suspect it would also help your pacing issues.
Whether or not the athletics check made to trip is an attack *roll*. To answer one is to answer the other, or if not, at least it would be closer.
I just wish it was explicitly stated that skill checks can also be attack rolls. It's never said they're mutually exclusive, either, but that's hardly concrete evidence.
Generally, the same trends you see in 5e apply to PF2 as far as useability. Martial characters tend to be easier to build and play than spontaneous casters which tend to be easier than prepared casters. I just think the differences aren't nearly as stark.
My advice is to just make a character concept-first. Any character you want should be fine. Making sure you have your concept figured out is really important because it will eliminate a lot of options from consideration, and decision paralysis can be a real thing.
Armor and weapons both have 2 kinds of fundamental runes, why shouldn't the same be true for shields? One type of rune to increase hardness, another to increase HP. As for why, I feel like having the whole package in one place is a tad too convenient, and we all like our fiddly bits anyway, don't we?
But yes, I like this idea.
You haven't addressed MAP yet, and how that's handled could easily break this. Spells will also be a challenge, because something that you begin casting may not be relevant or possible by the time you finish, and partial effects for spells strikes me as unfeasible due to the quantity you'd have to pull (although I guess counting a save or attack for an incomplete spell as one degree better or worse might do).
It seems to me like a really interesting idea, but a few factors make me skeptical of how well it would run in practice. I think it'll take more time, due to more "priority transitions" and single action ticks requiring more mental bandwitdth to plan ahead while keeping track of activities and reactions. More importantly, a single action is rarely satisfying on its own. It's not going to feel good taking an action, spending an entire tick, to set up for a future one by drawing a weapon, moving into position, begining to cast a Spell, or raising a shield.
You could give them abilities that capitalize on missing, like a reaction that allows them to make a strike or other attack if an attack against them critically fails, a la the Fighter Feat "Dueling Riposte." That by itself incentivizes a more measured approach to make each strike as effective as it can be instead of brute-forcing it.
Give them a high athletics score and make good use of tripping and grappling, forcing the PC to use actions to counter them.
If you were feeling really adventurous, you could give them 2 custom styles, maybe one based on maneuver control and the other focused on defense, for example, and maybe an ability to switch from one to the other with an extra effect. That would make for a really interesting fight, I think.
This is a reply to a post in the Oracle thread, which I'm making here because, unlike these classes, there's zero reason to have this many threads
The benefit of the dedication feats I propose, is that you aren't making 'Sorcerer (Oracle)' be the replacement for the 1e Oracle class - you can have, instead, a 'Cleric' that is cursed by a mystery that trades a curse for power - or a wizard who dabbled a bit too much in his youth and was cursed with a similar affliction. The variety of these mechanics being able to be added to a number of base classes is far more enticing to me than the choice of 'I'm an Oracle' from level one, and that's just what you are for the rest of the game.
Like I said earlier in that thread, these concepts can hold a ton more thematic and mechanical weight than a simple archetype would allow. What you're describing here isn't a game design issue, it's one of personal taste.
And the good news is that you can make characters to your taste even though these will all be full classes because they are going to come with multiclass dedications. So you can absolutely make that cleric who trades a curse for power or that wizard who gets in too deep by taking the Oracle dedication at level 2. There is nothing stopping you!
A class has more flexibility, mechanically and thematically, than a simple archetype does. If you did make Oracles a simple archetype rather than their own class, you remove the possibility of a character who gains all their power from the Mystery. It becomes something tacked-on rather than the central focus of that character.
Like, look at Fighters. Their thing is that they're the best-trained weapon-users. Couldn't that have just been an archetype? Sure, it could have. But that approach removes the concept of someone who dedicates themselves wholly to the blade.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
If you are performing the Trip with a finesse weapon (such as the whip that has the trip trait), you add your Dexterity instead of Strength to that particular Athletics attack roll.
There haven't been any changes in the rules between PT and release that suggest to me that the intent has changed, and it would better explain why certain unarmed strikes (e.g. wolf-jaw attacks from monk's Wolf Stance) gain the Trip trait, etc (since simply gaining an item bonus is just really narrow).
You know what I think needs errata? Attacks. Specifically, attacks that don't use a classic attack roll. There are many interactions in the rules that don't seem to work as intended because of how attacks and attack rolls are defined.
Take athletics maneuvers and their associated weapon properties, and how those interact with finesse. We know the intention is that a weapon with both finesse and Trip, for example, is supposed to allow the wielder to trip using their Dexterity modifier instead of their Strength for the Athletics check, but you wouldn't be able to tell just by reading the rules.
And then you have attack spells that use no attack roll such as Chill Touch. They clearly contribute to MAP, but I've also heard that the intention was that they suffer from MAP as well. If that is indeed the case, you couldn't tell.
Attacks are probably the most frequently-used action by a large margin, so the rules governing them need to be as clearly-defined as possible. The known issue about the athletics attacks demonstrates there is room for improvement.
I'm trying to discuss the specific design decision to assume four-man parties. There is nothing "simple" about packaging a four-man assumption into the xp values of monsters. There is nothing it does that you couldn't do with the regular system. It doesn't make anything better. If your party isn't four man, it makes things worse.
They need to put the baseline somewhere in oder to have degrees of difficulty that make sense. Where would you have it?
Captain Morgan wrote:
This is so thematic and I'm honestly surprised you don't see this kind of thing more often. I really want to see how this would play out at the table.
First of all, I find that argument very disingenuous of you. We all know that spells that make food are not the only utility spells.
But what I should have posted was that the OP capitalize on the agency the CRB places on the DM to make certain options rarer than others for their specific campaign. If a specific spell or a subset of spells would trivialize what is intended to be a major theme of a campaign, should the DM not have the right to remove them? To say otherwise is to say that the DM shouldn't run the kind of game they want to.
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Players like the ability to spend money to improve their character, magic weapons are one of their choices. Sorry but I don't see them adopting a change like this, new loot should always be something players want to acquire.
They could always change the effects of magic weapons to something else. The old static bonus damage, maybe, or perhaps something more interesting.
Yeah, other folks have pointed out in other places that light and medium armor start out as much better options than heavy armor for most fighters, thanks to the ACP and speed reduction. The Fighter bonuses to Heavy Armor, in that context, look much more like making Heavy Armor viable in comparison to the lighter ones than making them the best option.
Yeah, that sounds perfect. 100% on board with that suggestion.
The way I see it, a second product line is totally unnecessary. Just take a few minutes to subtract the level values from what monsters you're going to be using for the session. I'm not saying that I wouldn't appreciate support for bounded Pathfinder (mostly through alternative encounter building rules in the Beastiary), but there's no need to print a second version of all the rulebooks for such a simple fix.
In D&D 5th edition, this kind of thing would be a Variant rule, and would have a sidebar in the DMG. And for a tweak as simple as this (it's far-reaching, yeah, but it's really simple), that's all you'd need besides the aforementioned alternative encounter rules.
Yeah, I agree that doesn't make much sense thematically. Fighting with a shield and hatchet is a much different beast than fighting with a greataxe, and it would make sense for that shield and hatchet fighter to feel more comfortable with a shield and hammer than a great weapon.
Sometimes using a skill in a specific