• Resources are back! Use the menu in the main navbar. If you own a resource, please check it for formatting, icons, etc.

Here's A Pathfinder 2E Goblin

Paizo has shared part of its upcoming Bestiary for Pathfinder 2nd Edition with a quick look at the goblin entry.


EALsI6GW4AAIRNM.jpg


How does this differ from the playtest version? Let's take a look! Generally the layout is much the same with some minor tweaks; the differences appear to be under the hood as various numbers change.

  • It's gone from CREATURE 0 to CREATURE -1.
  • Perception has increased from +1 to +2.
  • Skills no longer have an initial 'blanket' entry; in the playtest goblin skills were "–2; Acrobatics +3, Athletics +3, Stealth +5"; now they're "Acrobaitcs +5, Athletics +2, Nature +1, Stealth +5".
  • Con has increased to +1
  • AC has gone from 14 to 16, TAC is gone, Fort, Ref, and Will have all increased significantly
  • Dogslicer attack has gone from +6 to +8 and now has finesse added
  • Shortbow attack has gone from +6 to +8, and various additional info added in parenthesis
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Russ Morrissey

Comments

As a veteran of the Edition Wars (2007-2011 were grim days for this hobby), I find immense irony and humour in how much PF2 reminds me of 4E. lol
It's a decidedly 5e-looking statblock, to me (and 5e consciously evoked 1e, FWIW). PF1 shaded statblocks looked (superficially) more like 4e's.

Some people are working real hard to get people to see PF2 as 4E when it's pretty obvious it's far more like 5E.
I've been noticing that. Maybe it's something to do with having fled to PF1 from 4e, in the first place? Like 4e is in hot pursuit, or, having been burned by a rev roll once before, means being forever suspicious of 'em?

That goblin ability looks more like the goblin ability from 5E where they escape attack than a 4E goblin ability.
The 5e goblin ability is a bonus action (on-turn), 4e "Goblin Tactics" was an Immediate Reaction (off-turn) - and frustratingly hard to remember to use, IMX.


I mean. I get it cause it's meant to be a big two handed weapon for horses but like. Goblins. Big head little arms. What do I do with that
Maybe it anchors the weapon in it's oversize jaws, and guides it with it's ittybitty arms?
 
The goblin horsechopper sounds like some sort of weird knife/whip/cat-o-nine tails/bolo combo to me in which they throw out a serrated line or something to hamstring and trip a horse. I think we're just missing a description of the weapon for context.

Being more "4eish" would indeed matter here if the weapon is not contextualized anywhere (we are not told how its working in the world, just in the mechanics), and if it were not lootable and useable in that manner by PCs. If that's the case....we have a 4E problem alert here. However, I would be shocked if Paizo went that route, and I think it only looks odd because we only have one page to work with right now.

Agreed that a stat block description which refers to another stat block is a bad idea, though.
 

Celtavian

Dragon Lord
Well, 5e takes a lot of the best parts of 4e as well.

I don't think anyone is trying to see PF2 as 4e, just some similarities jump out at first glance.
I played 5E for over a year, 4E for maybe 4-6 months, and Pathfinder since it's been out. PF2 seems to have drawn far more from 5E than it has drawn from 4E. I'm hearing it drew from some other game systems not even associated with D&D. I'm not sure why the mental connect with 4E is there given 5E is the most recent version that uses 1 minute durations and the like similar to PF2. It feels like some players trying to fit it into the 4E box like fitting a square pet into a round hole meaning not much evidence to support the assertion. 4E was a very metagame game. PF2 is still a game trying to simulate realism like original PF with some 5E streamlining and some stuff taken from other game systems.

Even with some similarities to 5E and the base PF1 carryovers, it's still very much it's own thing. I honestly can't think of another game just like it. It's why I can't even rate it overall right now based on the playtest. It's so different from what I'm accustomed to, I'm still not exactly sure how it will all work together.
 

D1Tremere

Villager
I think PF2 evokes 4E to some (at least to me) because of the tactical video game RPG layout. Key words and action icons coupled with tactical ability choices such as triggers and movement/position mean a huge chunk of character builds do not lend themselves well to non-tactical game play. This was the problem I ran into in the playtest, and that is just the direction they wanted to go. In a way it puts them in a position of being the alternative game again, for people who would prefer tactical game play to narrative driven. At least that is how it appears to me.
 

Celtavian

Dragon Lord
I think PF2 evokes 4E to some (at least to me) because of the tactical video game RPG layout. Key words and action icons coupled with tactical ability choices such as triggers and movement/position mean a huge chunk of character builds do not lend themselves well to non-tactical game play. This was the problem I ran into in the playtest, and that is just the direction they wanted to go. In a way it puts them in a position of being the alternative game again, for people who would prefer tactical game play to narrative driven. At least that is how it appears to me.
Having played the PF Playtest, there were not any movement based abilities like that, at least not that any of my players used. The knockbacks and pulls of 4E were not used in the playtest. I recall the 4E positioning abilities of the controller classes and the tanks, I did not see those in the playtest. Not as an option and not in use.

Most of the caster spells were damaging cantrips. The martial abilities were mostly some static bonus with an attack, not a condition or movement. The abilities were very much similar to what a PF player is accustomed to, but weaker. There is no 4E character paradigm.
 

Zardnaar

Adventurer
Stat block looks good. 4E had a lot if good stuff in it most if the complaints against it are about the classes/AEDU. Followed by healing surges.
The 4E playstyle is what people don't like, mechanics conceptually most of them are fine in a different context IMHO.

My wife put together a rough goblin alchemist build. I'll buy the PDF regardless although my PC is on the blink atm.
 

Redbadge

Villager
What about PF2's Brutish Shove, which is a 1st-level At-Will power for the PF2 fighter that deals 1[W] damage plus pushes the target back 5 feet (and unlike the Playtest version, doesn't give the target a choice)? There seems to be numerous positioning powers throughout the ability lists of both martials and casters, and fighters in particular have these types of options at nearly every level.

As someone that was fortunate enough to get my book early from my subscription, I can confirm that PF2 doesn't resemble 4e much other than the keywording and power structure, similarities in the way conditions are handled (including their proliferation throughout the powers of every class), level and rarity tags for every magic item, proliferation of magic item daily and encounter powers, the inclusion of a general structure of "at-will", "encounter", and "daily" recharge combat options (although generally, but not always, excluded from the fighter and rogue, like 4e essentials), skill powers selected using a different pool and at different levels than combat abilities (many of which are similar if not identical to 4e utility and skill powers), a general assumption of the variety of arrays for point buys (always with a 16 or 18 in the prime stat), using the prime stat for attacks, even spells, in keeping with those expected arrays, skill challenges, the moving of certain utility spells to ritual status, the scaling of the entire character framework (skills, attacks, defenses, initiative) based on level using a unified progression (+1 per level rather than 4e's +.5 per level), the expansion of monsters to include a number of specified, keyworded actions and power to use the new streamlined action economy, even for the simplest of monsters, the proliferation of triggered powers and abilities as part of this new action economy, skill challenges, a scaling DC table based on character level to help to DM adjudicate improvised actions, the inclusion of a number of ancestry/race feats to allow improvement to that aspect of your character, the use of feats (with ability prerequisites) to multiclass (and granting a trained skill and iconic ability from the class) and further feat selections to pick up powers from that class, a growing collection of powers that you select from as you level up (many of which are very similar if not identical to one or more of 4e's 2500 powers, certain item slots that are always intended to be part of the baseline (potency runes for armor in weapons in PF2; weapon, armor, neck in 4e), the way those potency runes work with regards to leveling, scaling, and expected power level, crafting that allows you to generate any common item from your magic item wishlist in support of you character build (but like 4e, with no economic advantage over buying the item from a shop), the hazard and trap statblocks, the expansion of the use of difficult terrain and combat set pieces (often to be used with the improvised DC table, colloqially called "page 42" table from 4e, and like 4e uses "minor", "moderate", or "heavy" damage based on the character's level, rather than a fixed value), no opposed rolls (instead often attacking fixed Reflex or Athletics DCs, for example), animal companions, summons, and other creatures simplified to "minion" status, greater differentiation of weapons and armors based upon keywords, metagame points (hero/action) available only to the PCs to make them feel more heroic, vast reduction in save or die, the general balance of the classes, the more defined roles (paladins are the only class with legendary armor, also have a reaction to punish creatures that attack allies; alchemists have three subclasses, each focused on a different role such as the chirugeon's healing or the bomber's damage/AOE), multiple simultaneous ability boosts at each tier (obviously baked into the math), the use of different defined power sources for magic (including arcane, divine, primal, and occult), the heavy reliance on grid play, the proliferation of the most common combat effect - flat-footed, which is identical in effect, utility, and type and context of occurrence to 4e's "combat advantage," removal of certain actions and effects (such as sunder) without having the appropriate power, the inclusion and keywording of basic attacks (strikes) to help better define their interaction within powers and the action economy, simplified attacks of opportunity (which, like 4e, have been made into an iconic fighter ability), the way specific rules elements work (i.e. resistances and weaknesses work identically and are formatted similarly to 4e, although the actual number of similar mechanics at this level of fidelity are far to numerous to list here, such as the way wands have been changed to be permanent implements with a daily power), between combat non-magical healing (and the proliferation of non-magical healing options in general), AND the general layout, formatting, presentation, and verbiage of the books themselves (although PF2 is far better at marrying the flavor to the mechanics, a definite change for the better).

Other than that (and numerous other stuff I didn't list before tiring of this exercise), I don't see how anyone could possibly think the two were similar.
 

Zardnaar

Adventurer
One thing I noticed was no Dex to damage and apparently magical healing is semi required which will make pacing a bit easier.
 

Redbadge

Villager
Just wanted to provide a couple more examples at a lower mechanical level as mentioned above:

Pathfinder characters used Disable Device to disarm traps and open locks; 4e and PF2 Characters use Thievery (in general both 4e and PF2 consolidated skills down to the same similar package, and you don't use Skill points, rather you select certain skills to be trained in and add a fixed bonus plus level-based scaling. PF2 of course added even higher levels of proficiency).

Pathfinder had the concept of a 5' step (inherited from 3e) as part of a full round action to avoid attacks of opportunities and reposition your character. 4e simplified this concept to the "Shift", a keyword (move) action that your character could take as part of his three action economy round to move 5' without provoking. PF2 introduces us to "Step", a keyworded action that your character can take as part of his three action economy round to move 5' without provoking.

I think I'll stop here, but I hope you can see why someone *might* see how 4e and PF2 seem to be similarly inspired (and I think that PF2 is certainly its own game, with many improvements over both Pathfinder and 4e, but I can't agree that PF2 is more similar to 5e than 4e).
 

Redbadge

Villager
One thing I noticed was no Dex to damage and apparently magical healing is semi required which will make pacing a bit easier.
Rogue's can get Dex to damage, but other Dex based classes need to rely on other abilities to boost their damage (like the Ranger's Hunter's Quarry... I mean Hunt Prey :p). At any rate, a lot of a martial character's damage comes from their powers dealing multiple weapon dice worth of damage at higher levels.
 

Zardnaar

Adventurer
Rogue's can get Dex to damage, but other Dex based classes need to rely on other abilities to boost their damage (like the Ranger's Hunter's Quarry... I mean Hunt Prey :p). At any rate, a lot of a martial character's damage comes from their powers dealing multiple weapon dice worth of damage at higher levels.
I kind of like that idea. Dex is super stat in 5E and they have OP strength based feats to compensate.

Or you just use handcrossbows plus sharpshooter and laugh at the strength characters.

After 5 years there's enough in 5E that's starting to get annoying. Dex to damage, the encounter rules expectations, copious healing, armor rules, archetypes as the prestige classes, unbalanced feats. Even 3pp bloat, not using what I have bought already so just stopped buying it.

In another 5 years be ready for replacement, but if PF2 is good it's something to play occasional ly. The big problem would be getting people to play it though.

5E just killed Pathfinder locally. There was a PFS here not anymore.
 

D1Tremere

Villager
Having played the PF Playtest, there were not any movement based abilities like that, at least not that any of my players used. The knockbacks and pulls of 4E were not used in the playtest. I recall the 4E positioning abilities of the controller classes and the tanks, I did not see those in the playtest. Not as an option and not in use.

Most of the caster spells were damaging cantrips. The martial abilities were mostly some static bonus with an attack, not a condition or movement. The abilities were very much similar to what a PF player is accustomed to, but weaker. There is no 4E character paradigm.
I'm not sure if you are serious, but I will give a few examples from my playtest deluxe copy.

Elf - Nimble - Additionally, when you use the stride action, you can ignore difficult terrain in one square during that move (P.27). (One square ? That is some very tactical combat mechanics).

Fighter - Attack of Opportunity Trigger A creature within your reach uses a manipulate action or a move action, makes a ranged attack, or leaves a square during a move action it is using (P.87). (AoOs are so full of conditions and key words it feels like Final Fantasy Tactics instead of a tabletop RPG).

Paladin - Retributive Strike (uses a ton of conditions and requires position tracking, and don't get me started on the whole hardness and dents tracking for shields) (P.106).

Shove - (Forced movement/space).

Exploration Mode and Fatigue (Requires micromanaging actions, conditions, tactical games states, Etc.) ((P.36)

Turning to the Pathfinder Playtest Bestiary we see Goblins have the same scuttle ability, Gnolls are even worse with their pack tactics rules.

PF2 not only has an extremely detailed rule for everything like 3.5 did (Hazard rules for a slamming door? Seriously?), but it also adds in a glossary of terms, triggers, abbreviations, and key words to make them all feel very mechanical and unavoidable like 4E. I'm not saying any of this makes it a bad game, but for me it is the opposite of the design direction I prefer.

Rogue: "My attack action triggers double debilitation, inflicting both entangled and enfeebled 1" DM: "Did you remember that your movement provoked an attack from the targets ally in 5ft that inflicted slow 1 to you?" Rogue: That is only because I got a single success on my last sabotage action, inflicting a dent on his weapon instead of destroying it."
 

Celtavian

Dragon Lord
I'm not sure if you are serious, but I will give a few examples from my playtest deluxe copy.

Elf - Nimble - Additionally, when you use the stride action, you can ignore difficult terrain in one square during that move (P.27). (One square ? That is some very tactical combat mechanics).

Fighter - Attack of Opportunity Trigger A creature within your reach uses a manipulate action or a move action, makes a ranged attack, or leaves a square during a move action it is using (P.87). (AoOs are so full of conditions and key words it feels like Final Fantasy Tactics instead of a tabletop RPG).

Paladin - Retributive Strike (uses a ton of conditions and requires position tracking, and don't get me started on the whole hardness and dents tracking for shields) (P.106).

Shove - (Forced movement/space).

Exploration Mode and Fatigue (Requires micromanaging actions, conditions, tactical games states, Etc.) ((P.36)

Turning to the Pathfinder Playtest Bestiary we see Goblins have the same scuttle ability, Gnolls are even worse with their pack tactics rules.

PF2 not only has an extremely detailed rule for everything like 3.5 did (Hazard rules for a slamming door? Seriously?), but it also adds in a glossary of terms, triggers, abbreviations, and key words to make them all feel very mechanical and unavoidable like 4E. I'm not saying any of this makes it a bad game, but for me it is the opposite of the design direction I prefer.

Rogue: "My attack action triggers double debilitation, inflicting both entangled and enfeebled 1" DM: "Did you remember that your movement provoked an attack from the targets ally in 5ft that inflicted slow 1 to you?" Rogue: That is only because I got a single success on my last sabotage action, inflicting a dent on his weapon instead of destroying it."
None of those were remotely like the 4E push and pull abilities. Those are more like already existing PF mechanics. What game are you coming from? Most of what you listed already existed in the PF rules. Pack tactics is a 5E ability.

In 4E controllers and tanks had move the target abilities that worked automatically to move the target into a favorable space. You listed a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with that other than shove which is like the overrun or trip ability of PF.

So yes, i was being serious because I played 4E and know what a controller push or pull ability plays like.
 

Celtavian

Dragon Lord
Just wanted to provide a couple more examples at a lower mechanical level as mentioned above:

Pathfinder characters used Disable Device to disarm traps and open locks; 4e and PF2 Characters use Thievery (in general both 4e and PF2 consolidated skills down to the same similar package, and you don't use Skill points, rather you select certain skills to be trained in and add a fixed bonus plus level-based scaling. PF2 of course added even higher levels of proficiency).
5E consolidated skills as well. Consolidating skills is not a 4Eism. It's smarter game game design that needed to be done for a while.

Moving to a proficiency modifier based on level with some variation due to variation proficiency modifier is a PF2 concept. Don't remember this from 4E or 5E. Pretty much a new, unique PF2 mechanic unless some other game system uses it I don't know about.



Pathfinder had the concept of a 5' step (inherited from 3e) as part of a full round action to avoid attacks of opportunities and reposition your character. 4e simplified this concept to the "Shift", a keyword (move) action that your character could take as part of his three action economy round to move 5' without provoking. PF2 introduces us to "Step", a keyworded action that your character can take as part of his three action economy round to move 5' without provoking.
Pathfinder/3E actions were all coded. Step is a 5' step. Removing the 5' doesn't change what it is. It was there in 3E/Pathfinder before 4E. Not sure why you see this as keywords when any PF player would see it as one of many actions you can do same as before.

I think I'll stop here, but I hope you can see why someone *might* see how 4e and PF2 seem to be similarly inspired (and I think that PF2 is certainly its own game, with many improvements over both Pathfinder and 4e, but I can't agree that PF2 is more similar to 5e than 4e).
The evidence is clear it is more like 5E than 4E. I think any objective analysis of all three editions by an uninvolved third party would see that.

The key elements that made 4E were the powers: at will, encounter, and daily and the specific class roles controller, tank, striker. Neither 5E nor PF2 are structured that way.
 

FowlJ

Villager
What about PF2's Brutish Shove, which is a 1st-level At-Will power for the PF2 fighter that deals 1[W] damage plus pushes the target back 5 feet (and unlike the Playtest version, doesn't give the target a choice)? There seems to be numerous positioning powers throughout the ability lists of both martials and casters, and fighters in particular have these types of options at nearly every level.
Oh man guys I can't believe that Pathfinder 1st edition was a 4e clone this whole time.
 

Zardnaar

Adventurer
5E consolidated skills as well. Consolidating skills is not a 4Eism. It's smarter game game design that needed to be done for a while.

Moving to a proficiency modifier based on level with some variation due to variation proficiency modifier is a PF2 concept. Don't remember this from 4E or 5E. Pretty much a new, unique PF2 mechanic unless some other game system uses it I don't know about.





Pathfinder/3E actions were all coded. Step is a 5' step. Removing the 5' doesn't change what it is. It was there in 3E/Pathfinder before 4E. Not sure why you see this as keywords when any PF player would see it as one of many actions you can do same as before.



The evidence is clear it is more like 5E than 4E. I think any objective analysis of all three editions by an uninvolved third party would see that.

The key elements that made 4E were the powers: at will, encounter, and daily and the specific class roles controller, tank, striker. Neither 5E nor PF2 are structured that way.
Castles and Crusades uses level to ability checks, not to attack rolls.

There's some 4Eisms in PF2, big whoop I used them in my Homebrew.

The classes are the important part IMHO. If anything is self inflicted (vs 5E being 5E) it will be there. Goblin Warrior is fine, less of a fan of the commando mostly because of the name. Stat block reminds me of 5E if anything.

Thread got mentioned over in the Paizo forums.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Redbadge

Villager
My post was a response to the claim that there was no push powers in PF2, not that this ability wasn’t in PF. At any rate, the access to this specific weapon damage plus push ability in PF is far more niche than the first level fighter power available in 4e and PF2. It isn’t that the certain abilities weren’t retained when moving from PF1 to PF2, it is that Paizo decided to format and keyword them to demonstrate how they fit in the new class and action economy, add levels to the power blocks, and sort and silo them by class and level. It also helps that options for power/feat selection available at each level include a diverse list a player can choose from, involving either proliferation of keyworded conditions like immobilized or slowed, the granting of combat advantage, the ability to reposition foes or allies, extra damage dice, stances, non-magical self healing, or even damage on a miss (see the PF2 power Certain Strike).
 

Advertisement

Latest threads

Advertisement

Top