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

[Velderan]

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



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.

I imagine that is probably a common "problem": GMs just improvising a DC check roll on something that makes sense and isn't specifically described in the rules only to later on buy a new book and find a feat describing that action in specifics. I don't so much think that's an actual problem, since it's pretty much impossible for any TTRPG ruleset to describe every potential thing a player might want to try and new feats will inevitably add on more and more specifics if you're playing a game where you allow things from all books which I do or at least the 1st party stuff. I will probably start mixing in some BattleZoo stuff since the material I've read doesn't seem broken on an initial read through.

 

[Justice and Rule]

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



So it says "a creature." The circumstantial attitudes referenced include "hostile, unfriendly, indifferent, friendly, helpful." It does not give guidance to impact a group.

"modified by any circumstances the GM determines"

That might seem vague, but there are a bunch of things you could give guidance on like relative positioning of people (should people further away be harder to intimidate?), situational aspects (they have more people than we do, they have authority, etc), or a plethora of other circumstances that would be important. They don't need to because that's all under the concept of adjusted DCs.

[I won't even talk about how worthless the skill is because it takes a minute - but there's a feat for that, too.]

Coerce is a roleplay skill; it's not meant to necessarily be quick. Most coercion attempts don't involve a few spoken words, but a whole series of actions and statements to intimidate someone. It's not just "I spoke the magic words"... unless you got Quick Coercion, then I suppose you are just that damn good.

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.

No, it says right there that it's for a creature. Singular. You'd have to modify it to do multiple people, so you just add a situational modifier. Thus you don't need to read the Group Coercion feat because that simply removes a potential modifier.

Also because it's a GM decision, you can simply say "Nah, in this situation I think the circumstances allow to do it unmodified", just like you could say "I'm going to let you do Coercion quickly instead of giving you a penalty for time" for some circumstances of the situation. What the feat allows you to do is to simply not have penalties for certain things. Normally intimidating a group might be difficult, but maybe you're on a megaphone at a podium far above a stadium; in this case, the situation is built for you to not have that penalty, or at least not have as bad a penalty (or we simply assume that it's offset by circumstance bonuses from the situation I described).

But also I don't get your solution, either: you want to give a bonus? Like, just straight up you're better at intimidating two people rather than one? I don't think that really works. Removing a penalty is the way to go, and the penalty is implicitly there, it just doesn't give firm modifiers because the GM should have freedom to set those as the situation demands. Unless you just want to start giving out Feats that are just numerical bonuses, which feels like a step backwards into 3.X design where you can start breaking numbers. And hey, if you want that, cool, but that's just not this game.

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

Oh Jesus, let's get off it. There are only 243 skill feats, and ones like these don't even need to be known because they take away modifiers, don't create new ones.

 

[Pedantic]

But also I don't get your solution, either: you want to give a bonus? Like, just straight up you're better at intimidating two people rather than one? I don't think that really works. Removing a penalty is the way to go, and the penalty is implicitly there, it just doesn't give firm modifiers because the GM should have freedom to set those as the situation demands. Unless you just want to start giving out Feats that are just numerical bonuses, which feels like a step backwards into 3.X design where you can start breaking numbers. And hey, if you want that, cool, but that's just not this game.

You've missed the second part of the ask, which is that the penalty be intrinsic to the resolution, thus that resolution is fixed on the GM side, and the player will simply note or ask if their feat applies, and then add it. That is, Coerce could include a modifier or subsystem for affecting a group in its own description. The reason to do it that way is that the DM is always engaging the same rules mechanism, and the player can announce it's modified by their feat.

I don't really see pushing for the GM to make resolution rulings, and then giving players specific overrides to those rulings as feats is a best of both worlds scenario. If you want specific rules, you should just write them into the actions themselves.

 

[Retreater]

But also I don't get your solution, either: you want to give a bonus? Like, just straight up you're better at intimidating two people rather than one? I don't think that really works. Removing a penalty is the way to go, and the penalty is implicitly there, it just doesn't give firm modifiers because the GM should have freedom to set those as the situation demands. Unless you just want to start giving out Feats that are just numerical bonuses, which feels like a step backwards into 3.X design where you can start breaking numbers. And hey, if you want that, cool, but that's just not this game.

Nah. Just a flat bonus to all Coercion checks. You want to do it in under a minute? You want to do it to more than one person? You want to do it to someone who doesn't understand your language? Great, you've got a bonus because you're good at Coercion.
Just give a flat bonus to all Coercion checks. Let the GM set the DC [with guidance in the GM Core] for 1) under a minute; 2) more than one person; or 3) you don't understand the language. Don't worry about these feats that "negate a penalty under a very specific circumstance."
What in the world does it look like in the current instance? Like, I'm trained to Coerce people and have been doing it for a long time now to the point of being Expert, & I have a high Charisma score. But, you know, I've never had to try to do this quickly before. Or I've never tried to speak to a group larger than one before.
Do we really need this level of granularity?

 

[Justice and Rule]

You've missed the second part of the ask, which is that the penalty be intrinsic to the resolution, thus that resolution is fixed on the GM side, and the player will simply note or ask if their feat applies, and then add it. That is, Coerce could include a modifier or subsystem for affecting a group in its own description. The reason to do it that way is that the DM is always engaging the same rules mechanism, and the player can announce it's modified by their feat.

It already does, it just doesn't give a set out scale. You can temper things to the situation as you like. Remember that we're already talking about a system where it doesn't ask you to add modifiers together, it simply says "You take the worst modifier of these three aspects and go" so creating a bunch of modifiers to add together isn't exactly what the system is about. If you want to create a more complex VP subsystem, okay, but that's just the influence subsystem from the GMG. It's good to have that, but I don't think the system should necessarily be built around that.

I don't really see pushing for the GM to make resolution rulings, and then giving players specific overrides to those rulings as feats is a best of both worlds scenario. If you want specific rules, you should just write them into the actions themselves.

But maybe they don't want specific rules because they want the GM to have some level of flexibility in what is an exploration action? This is a roleplay skill, not a combat skill, and thus I'm guessing they want to give GMs more leeway in how that stuff functions.

Nah. Just a flat bonus to all Coercion checks. You want to do it in under a minute? You want to do it to more than one person? You want to do it to someone who doesn't understand your language? Great, you've got a bonus because you're good at Coercion.
Just give a flat bonus to all Coercion checks. Let the GM set the DC [with guidance in the GM Core] for 1) under a minute; 2) more than one person; or 3) you don't understand the language. Don't worry about these feats that "negate a penalty under a very specific circumstance."
What in the world does it look like in the current instance? Like, I'm trained to Coerce people and have been doing it for a long time now to the point of being Expert, & I have a high Charisma score. But, you know, I've never had to try to do this quickly before. Or I've never tried to speak to a group larger than one before.

I mean, you say under "a very specific circumstances" but the three big Coercion feats eliminate

1) The Language/Spoken Penalty you're talking about
2) The Group Penalty
3) The Time Penalty

all three of which you talk about as modifiers, so I feel like your description of the feats is at odds with how you are actually trying to pitch your solution. I also like the style of those feats way more than "Here's a generic bonus", not only for flavor but also because giving out generalized bonuses in a game where that clashes with the general design.

Edit: Technically Intimidating Glare is for Demoralize rather than Coerce, but my point largely stands.

Do we really need this level of granularity?

You're complaining about them giving a starting "scope" and "duration". That's not granularity as much as a basic framework.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You've missed the second part of the ask, which is that the penalty be intrinsic to the resolution, thus that resolution is fixed on the GM side, and the player will simply note or ask if their feat applies, and then add it. That is, Coerce could include a modifier or subsystem for affecting a group in its own description. The reason to do it that way is that the DM is always engaging the same rules mechanism, and the player can announce it's modified by their feat.

I don't really see pushing for the GM to make resolution rulings, and then giving players specific overrides to those rulings as feats is a best of both worlds scenario. If you want specific rules, you should just write them into the actions themselves.

I think, in practice, having a base state and other uses apply functional penalties (keeping in mind I don't consider setting a higher target number being meaningfully different from applying a penalty) is kind of a standardized way things operate in the hobby. Its just a question whether clarity or conciseness is a greater priority to you.

 

[Retreater]

I mean, you say under "a very specific circumstances" but the three big Coercion feats eliminate

1) The Language/Spoken Penalty you're talking about
2) The Group Penalty
3) The Time Penalty

No. They just mitigate (not eliminate).
Group penalty - can only attempt on 10 if you're an Expert, 25 if a Master, 50 if Legendary. So doing it on 11 if you're an Expert - it's just out of the question? Like the gods of Golarion will strike you dead if you try it? It fails on 1 of the 11? It fails on all 11?
Time penalty - still has to be a full round. Except if you have Group Coercion and it's now "a single action."

I also like the style of those feats way more than "Here's a generic bonus", not only for flavor but also because giving out generalized bonuses in a game where that clashes with the general design.

I really dislike the style. It forces arbitrary limitations to the otherwise heroic abilities of the characters. Like, you can't even attempt to Coerce more than 1 opponent. You have to have precisely one minute to do it. Because that's what having these ultra-specific feats say. That's how the game is designed.
And it's so limiting. Coerce could've been "you've taken adequate time to convince the target of your threat."
But, you know, coming upon two inattentive guards while brandishing a weapon and telling them to get on the ground if they value their lives - that takes two feats to do it?

 

[Thomas Shey]

And it's so limiting. Coerce could've been "you've taken adequate time to convince the target of your threat."
But, you know, coming upon two inattentive guards while brandishing a weapon and telling them to get on the ground if they value their lives - that takes two feats to do it?

Since its already been discussed that just applying a penalty is okay--that was what the whole point in this thread was about--you seem to be aiming this at your perception of the game system rather than its intended function.

 

[Justice and Rule]

No. They just mitigate (not eliminate).
Group penalty - can only attempt on 10 if you're an Expert, 25 if a Master, 50 if Legendary. So doing it on 11 if you're an Expert - it's just out of the question? Like the gods of Golarion will strike you dead if you try it? It fails on 1 of the 11? It fails on all 11?

Maybe it's just a -1, or maybe the GM decides that in this case it's not worth giving a penalty. You're making a mountain out of a molehill here.

Time penalty - still has to be a full round. Except if you have Group Coercion and it's now "a single action."

Sure, but what's the problem with this?

I really dislike the style. It forces arbitrary limitations to the otherwise heroic abilities of the characters. Like, you can't even attempt to Coerce more than 1 opponent. You have to have precisely one minute to do it. Because that's what having these ultra-specific feats say. That's how the game is designed.

They're not exactly ultra-specific, and just because one is leveled doesn't necessarily make it bad. Like, allowing people to increase the cap they can coerce without penalty is fine, especially given the Expert level (Which most will make it to if they take this feat) is already 10 people. That's a lot!

And it's so limiting. Coerce could've been "you've taken adequate time to convince the target of your threat."

I wish you a bunch of fun on what "adequate" means at any given time and every argument that will take place regarding it. It's easier to start with a firm idea what the skill can do and decide, given the circumstances, does it actually make for a penalty or not.

But, you know, coming upon two inattentive guards while brandishing a weapon and telling them to get on the ground if they value their lives - that takes two feats to do it?

It doesn't, you're just ignoring everything we've just talked about and even your own arguments to do this.

Like, you could totally do that and take the penalty. But how about your bonuses? Well, you're with multiple people and you've caught them off-guard. GM rules the penalties offset the bonuses: your good setup and the guards' unpreparedness means that you can effectively do what the feats would let you.

There's nothing that doesn't let you do any of that unless you don't want it to. In this case, the feats make it easier, but you can easily say as a GM (or argue as a player) that you have created bonuses that offset the penalties. I don't see any reason why this is even an argument.

 

[Pedantic]

Since its already been discussed that just applying a penalty is okay--that was what the whole point in this thread was about--you seem to be aiming this at your perception of the game system rather than its intended function.

Surely that could be better achieved then by not writing the feat the way it is? The proposal here is not that the feat grant a new action, but instead it should be understood to mitigate a penalty. There's no reason it couldn't simply have done that, instead of existing the way it does.

I personally don't think it's good that the penalty is left as a game design exercise to the reader, but setting aside that issue, the presentation is pretty clearly bad. The proposed penalty could have been explicitly written into the ability, and/or the feat could have been written to clearly mitigate the penalty instead of as if it grants new capabilities.

Setting aside the question of how complete the action description should be and how much should be left up the to the GM to design in the moment, I really can't think of a worse way to present what is apparently the desired play here without outright counterindicating it.