Pathfinder 2E Mark Seifter wants to set the record straight: Feats and Improvisation in Pathfinder 2e (Video)

[The-Magic-Sword]

 

[Retreater]

I think I figured out why feats bother me in PF2. When they're discussing Group Coercion, it should be that you get a bonus to coerce attempts if you have the feat. Not that you can't try if you don't have the feat - or take penalties.
There are too many feats to remember to apply penalties to those who don't have them. Instead, the design should've been the opposite: it's the responsibility of the player who invested in the feat to remember to apply the bonus.
It's like most feats exist to reduce penalties.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I think I figured out why feats bother me in PF2. When they're discussing Group Coercion, it should be that you get a bonus to coerce attempts if you have the feat. Not that you can't try if you don't have the feat - or take penalties.
There are too many feats to remember to apply penalties to those who don't have them. Instead, the design should've been the opposite: it's the responsibility of the player who invested in the feat to remember to apply the bonus.
It's like most feats exist to reduce penalties.

It kinda makes sense though, by definition trying to intimidate a group of people at once is harder than intimidating one person, if you do it the way you're describing someone would become better at intimidating groups than they are at individuals because the feat doesn't pertain to individuals, just groups.

But if you start from the perspective that coerce exists and is usually single target it makes sense you'd make it harder for a group regardless of if there was a feat.

It's not like "it's harder to coerce a group of people to do what you want than it is to coerce a single person to do what you want" is a controversial statement, so what's the alternative?

 

[Pedantic]

I would appreciate this a lot more if it was modular design laid out as a menu of settings, instead of yet more "don't worry, you can just do the game design yourself on the fly" advice. The point about Treat Wounds is great, and an actual toggle setting that laid out the impact and the aesthetic reason to make one choice or another is a great idea in a toolbox game.

 

[Retreater]

It's not like "it's harder to coerce a group of people to do what you want than it is to coerce a single person to do what you want" is a controversial statement, so what's the alternative?

Ok. So create a DC to Coerce somebody. Probably their Will DC. If they're in a group, use the highest DC of the group. Give a bonus to the Will DC if they outnumber the party, have other advantages, or are just generally jerks.
Then create a feat and call it "Good at Coerce." Give a scaling bonus to all coercion checks, based on the Proficiency level.
Put the responsibility of the feat on the players.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Ok. So create a DC to Coerce somebody. Probably their Will DC. If they're in a group, use the highest DC of the group. Give a bonus to the Will DC if they outnumber the party, have other advantages, or are just generally jerks.
Then create a feat and call it "Good at Coerce." Give a scaling bonus to all coercion checks, based on the Proficiency level.
Put the responsibility of the feat on the players.

The base action is Coerce. It has clear rules, it targets 1 creature and does what it says it does. If someone tries to get it to do more, like apply to multiple people, you apply an adjustment using the general rules for applying an adjustment because they're trying to do something harder than usual that sounds reasonable to try.

Nothing different happens until the player informs you that they have a feat that asks you to do something different, so it's already on the player side because they have to invoke / remind you of the feat, you hear the feat and then say "got it" and you do what the feat says, which is compare it to the will dc (as opposed to an adjusted dc, in this instance.)

 

[Eric V]

The base action is Coerce. It has clear rules, it targets 1 creature and does what it says it does. If someone tries to get it to do more, like apply to multiple people, you apply an adjustment using the general rules for applying an adjustment because they're trying to do something harder than usual that sounds reasonable to try.

Nothing different happens until the player informs you that they have a feat that asks you to do something different, so it's already on the player side because they have to invoke / remind you of the feat, you hear the feat and then say "got it" and you do what the feat says, which is compare it to the will dc (as opposed to an adjusted dc, in this instance.)

Exactly. The rules work well as they are, as long as players know them.

 

[Velderan]

Linda said something I found pretty accurate to my approach to improvisation: I am far more concerned about breaking action economy than I am about letting players try something they might not have a feat to do.

I really like Linda and Mark's channel, it's probably my second favorite PF2e related channel after How Its Played. Discussions like this are what I wished the YouTube algorithm pushed but alas instead we get Pathfinder videos featuring "You won't believe these 10 things WotC is doing to kill Pathfinder, #6 will surprise you".

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, any given kind of task is going to have a baseline; doing things outside that should be where penalties cut in. Now, I'm a bit on Pedantic's side that I think doing things outside that range should have some guidance rather than just leaving it up to the GM, but I don't see why the idea that you can deal with things outside that scale by either having a feat (meaning you're specialized in it more than most) or a penalty should be controversial.

 

[Retreater]

The base action is Coerce. It has clear rules, it targets 1 creature and does what it says it does. If someone tries to get it to do more, like apply to multiple people, you apply an adjustment using the general rules for applying an adjustment because they're trying to do something harder than usual that sounds reasonable to try.

So ... here are the rules for Coerce (from AoN):

Coerce​

Auditory Concentrate Emotion Exploration Linguistic Mental
Source Player Core pg. 240
With threats either veiled or overt, you attempt to bully a creature into doing what you want. You must spend at least 1 minute of conversation with the creature. At the end of the conversation, attempt an Intimidation check against the target's Will DC, modified by any circumstances the GM determines. (The attitudes referenced in the effects below are summarized in the Changing Attitudes sidebar and described in full in the Conditions Appendix.)

Critical Success The target gives you the information you seek or agrees to follow your directives so long as they aren't likely to harm the target in any way. The target continues to comply for an amount of time determined by the GM but not exceeding 1 day, at which point the target becomes unfriendly (if it wasn't already unfriendly or hostile). However, the target is too scared of you to retaliate—at least in the short term.
Success As critical success, but once the target becomes unfriendly, they might decide to act against you—for example, by reporting you to the authorities or assisting your enemies.
Failure The target doesn't do what you say, and if they were not already unfriendly or hostile, they become unfriendly.
Critical Failure The target refuses to comply, becomes hostile if they weren't already, and is temporarily immune to your Coercion for at least 1 week.

So it says "a creature." The circumstantial attitudes referenced include "hostile, unfriendly, indifferent, friendly, helpful." It does not give guidance to impact a group. [I won't even talk about how worthless the skill is because it takes a minute - but there's a feat for that, too.]

For the GM to learn that there are alternative rules to coercing a group, they need to go to the Group Coercion feat and read that.

And how many feats are on AoN that a GM might need to read to learn the rules? 4,232.