Let's Look At Some Monster Stat Blocks For Pathfinder 2

The Monday update to the Pathfinder 2 development blog took a look at building monsters under the new rules. Today, with the Friday update we're getting a look at a couple of stat blocks. They look at an ogre and a redcap (pictured below).

View attachment 97690​

You can see the details of the two monsters at the Paizo website. The stat blocks do look to be more streamlined than the equivalent in Pathfinder first edition, but what is interesting is the differences between a Pathfinder 2 and Starfinder stat block.

View attachment 97691​

Obviously there is a good chance that there will be changes between this sample, the playtest edition of Pathfinder 2 and the final version of the game. What do people think...too much detail, or not enough?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It reminds me a lot of how monsters worked in Fourth Edition, in that they have several different actions which don't relate to player actions in any way, such that the person running the game has to take in a lot of additional information in order to run every combat.

At least with PF1E, half of what the monsters were doing was just a variation on player mechanics, so the GM should already be familiar with it all.

 

[The White Sorcerer]

At least with PF1E, half of what the monsters were doing was just a variation on player mechanics, so the GM should already be familiar with it all.

Except that was (and still is) a huge problem for me in 3e and Pathfinder, since I don't play as much as I DM: Monsters having feats that I would forget existed, and if I did remember them I would have to flip through the Player's Handbook to see what they did. Pathfinder made it worse by having even more feats and giving more of them to everyone. The 4e style was a blessing.

 

[Oathstone]

Looks like D&D 4e.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Except that was (and still is) a huge problem for me in 3e and Pathfinder, since I don't play as much as I DM: Monsters having feats that I would forget existed, and if I did remember them I would have to flip through the Player's Handbook to see what they did. Pathfinder made it worse by having even more feats and giving more of them to everyone. The 4e style was a blessing.

I guess it works if you're a full-time GM and don't already know how the player stuff works, because it means you only need to learn the monster stuff. For anyone who goes back and forth between playing and GMing, and who already knows all of the player stuff, it's an additional barrier to actually running the game.

The absolute barrier from nothing to GMing is smaller, but the relative barrier going from being a player to being the GM, is much larger.

Although to be fair, it probably would have been prohibitive to try and make monsters as PCs, given the over-all increase in PC complexity between PF1E and PF2E. The monsters-as-characters paradigm really works best when PCs themselves have fewer decision points involved.

 

[Koloth]

In the Irreligious entry, part way in they define brandish. IMO, the stat block is the wrong place to be defining game mechanic terms. At most include a * and a footnote with the book/page number for the term.

Also, the [[A]] and [[R]] need a better way of being highlighted. My eyes are drawn to the bold Deadly Cleave and have to backtrack to find the [[R]]. And Trigger and Effect need to be visually different from Deadly Cleave to note they are part of the description of Deadly Cleave and not equal items.

 

[EthanSental]

Interesting difference in forum crowds...the paizo comments as expected tend to be more pro - I like it - responses. Me - it's too much reading to quickly glance and use a creature for a random encounter.

 

[JohnnyZemo]

I'm not crazy about this use of the word "Irreligious" which means "indifferent or hostile to religion." A creature that is indifferent to religion should not be affected by a holy symbol. Being hostile to religion doesn't give someone else's religion power over you (other than perhaps to annoy you); it's exactly the opposite.

I hope they will find a different term for this.

 

[JohnnyZemo]

And this is a bit of a nitpick, but if the title of the article is "let's look at some stat blocks," shouldn't the article include more than one stat block?

 

[Xavian Starsider]

And this is a bit of a nitpick, but if the title of the article is "let's look at some stat blocks," shouldn't the article include more than one stat block?

Your eyes are being tricked. It's like the laurel/yanny thing. Half the people on this page see stats for the ogre and the other half see the redcap.

 

[Charlaquin]

Looks like D&D 4e.

I find it hilarious that the things I’ve thought have resembled 4e have been widely compared to 5e. Now I see a stat block that looks straight out of 5e, and people are comparing it to 4e. The irony.