• 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

Redbadge

Villager
So is it that you don’t think things like feat-based multiclassing, items with levels and rarity (whose greater versions with higher pluses are included in a table in the item stat block just like 4e) available via wishlist, and the entire character framework being a unified automatic level based progression (not only automatic scaling of attacks, defenses, skills, and initiative every level, but also the assumption of a starting 18 in the prime stat, and multi-ability boosts and assumed item bonuses at certain levels baked into the unified math) are reminiscent of 4e... or that 5e has a greater percentage of these types of mechanics that are superficially similar to PF2? Perhaps you agree with Zaardnaar that many of these 4e type inspirations are also present in other games, in which case I feel that perhaps 4e was also inspired by those games when developing mechanics (and it turns out that 4e and PF2 were both inspired by the same design). Most of things that PF2 has in common with 5e, such as short rests and nonmagical healing, consolidated skill lists, subclasses, and more powerful at-will cantrips based on the caster’s primary stat, are all things that I find that 5e also has in common with 4e (obviously because they were some of the better 4e elements that were retained when designing 5e).

As for things like the free action 5’ step and flat-footed being in Pathfinder, my point wasn’t that these concepts weren’t present in Pathfinder, but were present in Pathfinder 2 and 4e, it was that both PF2 and 4e updated these concepts in exactly the same way. A Step is practically identical to 4e’s Shift and Flat-Footed is practically identical to Combat Advantage. To say so otherwise would be debating in bad faith.
 

zztong

Explorer
And here I thought when somebody suggested "PF2 is Paizo's 4E" they were saying it like "PF2 is Paizo's Waterloo" implying that PF2 might be a flop because it didn't capture as large an audience as expected.
 

Jer

Adventurer
There are whole bunch more bestiary pages posted on the paizo blog.

I can now with a whole lot of confidence say "these guys are not trying to be 4e." Why am I so confident? Scroll down to the page that has the Lillend and look at that stat block. That's a 3e stat block (one could argue for a 5e stat block I suppose, but it looks extremely 3e to me). What makes it a 3e stat block and not a 4e stat block? The monstrosity that is "a list of spells embedded into the block of a monster with no rules text" - one of the things that makes a 4e stat block a 4e stat block is that it doesn't have that. It's core to the design of 4e stat blocks that you just don't do that.

That's a 3e stat block that's been organized with a different flow and a few icons attached to various powers. As someone who DM'd 4e for years and now DMs 5e but continues to DM the odd Gamma World game as a one-off to keep my hand in, it's night and day in how the stat blocks are used. I couldn't run a PF2 game the way I run a 4e/GW game - just for starters it looks like it would require the same amount of prep that a 3e or 5e game does, which is a lot more for me than any of my 4e sessions require.
 

MockingBird

Explorer
Those stat blocks are busy. I will definitely take a closer look at the physical book to figure out the symbols. Real worry but 5e is pretty wordy too. I dont like how they wrap the text around the illustrations but that's just personal preference.
 

doctorhook

Adventurer
Those stat blocks look like 3e to me. Slightly better organized 3e, but still 3e.
I think those 3E blocks were one of the things that got “back converted” 4E during the design process.

But I was especially thinking of the way it uses symbols, codewords, and colour boxes. Very 4E.
 

doctorhook

Adventurer
Right, so earlier in this thread, I posted that IMHO the new stat block reminds me of 4E and that that’s hilarious to me, given the Edition Wars of a decade ago. Apparently that comment must have struck a chord because it really blew up, with lots of people agreeing and noting lots of other similarities between 4E and PF2, and a few people vigorously denying it because “4E bad but I like PF so they can never ever be similar!1!” Is this a hot button issue for some of you?You 4E haters need to take a deep breath here, because I’m not trying to trash PF2.

In particular, [MENTION=5834]Celtavian[/MENTION], you’ve most strenuously argued that PF2 is more like 5E than 4E. I suspect you’re one of those people who refuses to acknowledge how much of 4E went into 5E (hint: a ton). At a passing glance, not having followed PF2 closely, it looks to be far more in the “gamist” tradition than the “simulationist” school that 3.5E/PF1 lived in. (Surely these were always oversimplifications anyway.) Evidently I’m not the only one who thinks so.

None of this is a judgement on PF2 nor all y’all Paizo fans nor 4E nor anyone else. PF2 looks neat and I’ll probably give it a go, because it reminds me of 4E and 5E, which I enjoy. I continue to find the similarities ironic and hilarious, and the reactions of others have enhanced my amusement about all of this.
 

Jer

Adventurer
But I was especially thinking of the way it uses symbols, codewords, and colour boxes. Very 4E.
Or any game developed in recent decades that isn't intentionally trying to project an aura of being "old school". You might as well say it's "very FATE" or "very PbtA".

The thing about these write-ups is that they have the tags and the symbols and the color boxes and are still giant walls of 3e-style rules write-ups. It feels like they're using tags and icons and color to allow them to fit more rules into a stat block instead of to simplify what was presented in the stat block (which is what 4e did - the use of those elements was to cut the amount of text down, not to figure out a way to have more rules into the stat block without adding more text).

Although I will argue about the color here - in a 4e monster stat block color was only used to visually break up the text to make it easier to find things. Shaded rows were used to highlight the different actions a monster had available to them on a turn, so that the DM could easily see at a glance turn-to-turn what actions they had available to them. The colored rows at the top of the block were used to hold identifying information (monster name, type, level, size, etc.) and make it obvious where the write-up started. In contrast, the PF2 write-ups barely have any color in them at all - the only color on the page is for color-coding their alignment, size, and type keywords (fey, etc.).

This is why I say it's not like 4e at all - the 4e monster stat block was designed from the ground up to be easy for a DM to use straight out of the book at the table. That was a stated design goal by the 4e design team mentioned in interviews. These stat blocks clearly do not have that goal - they're designed to be used the same way as a 3e or 5e stat block and have the same barriers to use at the table as either of those.

ETA:

You 4E haters need to take a deep breath here, because I’m not trying to trash PF2.
Naw - I'm in the opposite camp here ;) I'd love to see someone pick up the ball that 4e dropped and turn out a good D&D-descendant that gives me solid easy-to-play DM tools, a decent tactical game on the table, and players enough options to make my players happy. As it stands I'll just keep running 4e (or Gamma World) when I need that itch scratched, but it would be nice to see someone pick it up. My objection is that PF2 isn't that from what I've seen - it's a different kind of 3e descendant than 4e was. Which is fine - I'm sure there are going to be folks who enjoy it - but every time someone points and says "look it's like 4e" I get disappointed because it isn't. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

wakedown

Explorer
I can see why some folks are feeling like it's 4E again when they look at the PF2E Bestiary. A lot of the negative reaction that gamers who continued onto Pathfinder 1E after D&D 3.5E had was due to it feeling more like a video game than a TTRPG. A lot of the PF2E evokes a more video-gamesque feel than its PF1E or D&D forebears and thus feels like it moves closer to 4E to them (again, these are folks who object to feeling even a nanometer more like a video game).

Let's take Goblin through the ages.

1E your Goblin page had a uniform block with details like: # appearing, 1-7 HP, a 40% chance of being in the lair, treasure types, intelligence. What followed were several paragraphs that were human readable talking about how they hate full daylight and attack at -1 in such. It talked about how for every 40 goblins, there would be a leader and 4 assistants roughly as powerful as orcs. It went on to explain chiefs, worg riders and then show a wide range of goblin preferences in armament from shortsword to sling to pick to spear. It discussed their skin colors and how they dressed and they would reach about 50 years old max.

2E the stat block is somewhat similar to 1E but you have Activity Cycle (Night), and Diet (Carnivore) in there. There's a good amount of paragraph text and within that is the daylight -1. There's text talking about their weapon use are any that take little training like spears and maces but also they like short swords. There's more about ratios of goblins to leadership and their max age of 50 again. There's still plenty of descriptive text about their appearances and garb. Some of my favorite text here is that they'll eat carrion or rats or snakes, and their habitats are usually devoid of all resources by the time the party gets to it, as goblins are wont to do.

3E your Goblin page said they had 5hp on average derived from 1d8+1hp and in the uniform block that goblins were using morningstars and javelins. It detailed their ability scores (Str11, Dex13, .. Cha6). It kept the notion of an "Organization" - a gang of 4-9 or a band of 10-100 with a 3rd level sergeant or fire wolves. It talked about their height, colors and garb. It explained how they have a poor grasp of strategy and like ambushes and how they raid for food and tools and their lairs have no sanitation.

4E is the first edition that split a Goblin up into 2 blocks - a Goblin Cutter and a Goblin Blackblade. The Cutter was a minion with 1hp and had a reaction when missed to Shift 1 square. They had two skills at the exact same bonus (Stealth +5 and Thievery +5). The Blackblade same deal, both +10 and it's a flat 25hp. And a deal where when it shifts, it can shift into an ally its level or lower and swap with it. Most of the Lore was thrown into a table with DC15 to DC30 and shared with hobgoblins. It was probably the lightest amount of copy to date in any edition in terms of giving flavor text with maybe 6 sentences across a few paragraphs. They kept the stats and included the bonuses (Str 14 +2, Dex 17 +3, .. Cha 8 -1).

This edition received a pretty major negative reaction from the players up to that point because part of this read like it was the internal document for Blizzard in how they'd stick 2 types of Goblin Mobs in a Zone with names like "Cutter" and "Blackblade". It also went deep into playing on a grid and abandoning theater of mind play. Shifting wasn't really portable into theater of mind plus it started introducing terms/concepts that were unique to the game - a "Shift" (capital S).


5E trickles a little more imaginative presentation with a little sheet of parchment and a quote from Slave Lord Stalman Klim and the "Bree-Yark" thing. It took all the flavor text and put it into 6 bold prefixed areas (1 they're lazy, 2 they are gredy, 3 a boss leads them, 4 they use alarms, 5 they keep rats and wolves and 6 they worship Maglubiyet). It returns to showing the "roll" for hit points (7 from a 2d6 roll). It's somewhat similar in having a special goblin ability where they can Disengage or Hide as their bonus actions. These actions are useable in a theater of mind play where positioning doesn't matter - you can describe aloud that the goblin skitters away and ducks behind a rock. In the 4e shifting ability, there wasn't really a narrative benefit from their schtick.

So finally PF2E - you get 2 paragraphs which explain their skin and head sizes and how they like to slaughter livestock and steal babies and are in awe of magic and lair with goblin dogs. There's 2 sidebars to the left that talk about them living in filth, stealing and keeping shinies, and then where their warrens are near humans and coasts. But then it gets right into the Goblin Warrior and Goblin Commando. Gone are their base abilities, just the modifiers (Str +0 Dex +3 Con +1, Cha +1). HP are fixed at 6 (commando fixed at 18). Saves are all pretty close (F5 R7 W3 or F7 R8 W5). Their ability, Scuttle grants a "Step" (capital S) when an ally moves adjacent to it. They use dogslicers and horsechoppers, as we know Paizo's goblins are cunning enough to invent their own weapons (but we don't really have any of the old flavor text of how these might be derived from salvaging human gear). This edition piles on more keywords (agile, backstabber, finese, trip, versatile) into the 2 goblin variants that any prior.


At any rate, I think you have to take the PF2E feels like 4E as honest feedback from a gamer who has played 1E through to 3E and PF1E before choosing not to embrace 4E. 4E is the first time they no longer saw a good amount of space dedicated to the GM who wants to build adventures and had copious amounts of flavor text about lairs, treasures, armanents, diets. They just saw a fixed HP amount and no longer a range where they could discretionary choose low, medium or high HP based on their own table. They had a mechanic which really only meant sense if they did grid play in the free Shift. And then probably the ultimate insult to their brains were the words "Cutter" and "Blackblade". Again, the best example I can say is that it felt like the internal design document for a video game company rather than the old Monstrous Compediums of old in how it would stoke your imagination - it was more about "here's how to run these guys on a grid map once you buy our minis."

For someone who is still sitting in 3E/PF1E land and refused to go onto 4E because they saw a game that removed a lot of the "what's going on around these goblins?" in paragraph/story form and replaced it with grid-play abilities and Twitter-length synopses and clever keywords.. they are seeing the same thing again when they greet PF2E the first time (which like the 3.5E to 4E first impression, their 3.5E to PF2E impression sees the HP range gone, things like treasure or lairs or such gone and proper noun Steps abilities that really don't translate to a theater of mind game as well as they maybe could have and 2 goblin "types" - the dogslicer goblin and the horseshopper goblin commando).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Staffan

Adventurer
I have been saying this since we first started seeing Pathfinder 2 playtest stuff: of course some of it is going to look like 4e. Pathfinder 1 is essentially 3.5e, and has pretty much the same flaws. 4e set out to fix the flaws of 3.5e, and PF2 sets out to fix the flaws of PF1. Since they're fixing the same flaws, some of the fixes will look similar.
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
I have been saying this since we first started seeing Pathfinder 2 playtest stuff: of course some of it is going to look like 4e. Pathfinder 1 is essentially 3.5e, and has pretty much the same flaws. 4e set out to fix the flaws of 3.5e, and PF2 sets out to fix the flaws of PF1. Since they're fixing the same flaws, some of the fixes will look similar.
Yeah, no.

5E didn't just set out to fix 3.x it actually succeeded. Spectacularly so, in the case of LFQW and NPC building ease.

That's where PF2 should have set their bar.

Just starting from the same place as 4E and trying to invent the same wheel sounds *horrible*

Not only should "avoid 4E similarities" have been a mandatory instruction,

But since 5E has *already* solved the problem, not learning from that edition is goddamn inexcusable..!

Does that mean I'm saying PF2 must arrive at the same solution as 5E? No.

I'm only saying they needed to make sure PF2 solves at least the problems 5E solves (even if in another way).

For good or bad, 5E is the new standard. Few current gamers will have patience with a system that allows casters to run circles around martials, for example. This is because that issue has been solved by 5E. Anything less will appear retrograde, and not in the warm fuzzy nostalgic way.
 

Zardnaar

Adventurer
They had some 4E designers work on PF2. From the sounds of it one of the main guys from PHB3 was involved.

If I was in charge superficially the classes would look similar to 3.5/PF1.

They would all be rewritten though, buffed or nerfed as appropriate, feats spells etc all redone/removed.

Math would be completely redone probably using a proficiency bonus a la 4/5E.

Try and make the transition from PF1 as easy as possible while fixing things to appeal to casuals and fans of 4E/5E.
 

Celtavian

Dragon Lord
So is it that you don’t think things like feat-based multiclassing, items with levels and rarity (whose greater versions with higher pluses are included in a table in the item stat block just like 4e) available via wishlist, and the entire character framework being a unified automatic level based progression (not only automatic scaling of attacks, defenses, skills, and initiative every level, but also the assumption of a starting 18 in the prime stat, and multi-ability boosts and assumed item bonuses at certain levels baked into the unified math) are reminiscent of 4e... or that 5e has a greater percentage of these types of mechanics that are superficially similar to PF2? Perhaps you agree with Zaardnaar that many of these 4e type inspirations are also present in other games, in which case I feel that perhaps 4e was also inspired by those games when developing mechanics (and it turns out that 4e and PF2 were both inspired by the same design). Most of things that PF2 has in common with 5e, such as short rests and nonmagical healing, consolidated skill lists, subclasses, and more powerful at-will cantrips based on the caster’s primary stat, are all things that I find that 5e also has in common with 4e (obviously because they were some of the better 4e elements that were retained when designing 5e).

As for things like the free action 5’ step and flat-footed being in Pathfinder, my point wasn’t that these concepts weren’t present in Pathfinder, but were present in Pathfinder 2 and 4e, it was that both PF2 and 4e updated these concepts in exactly the same way. A Step is practically identical to 4e’s Shift and Flat-Footed is practically identical to Combat Advantage. To say so otherwise would be debating in bad faith.
This is the only place I've seen anyone characterize PF2 as being like 4E. Some of you are working very, very hard to make that comparison. I'll just say one last time I don't see it. I don't feel that way at all. The people that left 4E to play PF have not mentioned such a comparison. It seems to be a comparison on this forum only. If that's how you want to see it, have at it.

My experience is PF2 is more a mix of PF1, 5E, and some unique mechanics maybe pulled from some game system I haven't seen.
 

D1Tremere

Villager
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.
You are the only one measuring similarity to 4E by push and pull mechanics. I think of 4E as being tactical rpg video game like in nature, as I have stated, because it uses a ton of conditions/key words/triggers and minute tracking of grid space and position.

If you look at 5Es Pack Tactics.[FONT=&quot]
advantage on an attack roll against a creature if at least one of the monkey’s allies is within 5 feet of the creature and the ally isn’t [/FONT]
incapacitated[FONT=&quot].
vs
[/FONT]
Pack Attack The gnoll’s Strikes deal 1d4 extra damage to creatureswithin reach of at least two of the gnoll’s allies.
This is a good example. 5E: Is an ally next to target? If so, advantage. PF2: Do atleast two of your allies have a reach attack that could hit the target? If so, specific damage bonus dice.
 

D1Tremere

Villager
This is the only place I've seen anyone characterize PF2 as being like 4E. Some of you are working very, very hard to make that comparison. I'll just say one last time I don't see it. I don't feel that way at all. The people that left 4E to play PF have not mentioned such a comparison. It seems to be a comparison on this forum only. If that's how you want to see it, have at it.

My experience is PF2 is more a mix of PF1, 5E, and some unique mechanics maybe pulled from some game system I haven't seen.
I get your opinion, and it is fine to see it that way. What I do not understand is why you are so defensive about people having a different opinion. If you do not see the 4E like nature of the numerous things I posted that is fine, you do not have to see it that way.

My experience with PF2 is that of a streamlining and programmer like integration of mechanics from PF1/3.5 that is too mechanically reliant for my use.
 

Celtavian

Dragon Lord
Right, so earlier in this thread, I posted that IMHO the new stat block reminds me of 4E and that that’s hilarious to me, given the Edition Wars of a decade ago. Apparently that comment must have struck a chord because it really blew up, with lots of people agreeing and noting lots of other similarities between 4E and PF2, and a few people vigorously denying it because “4E bad but I like PF so they can never ever be similar!1!” Is this a hot button issue for some of you?You 4E haters need to take a deep breath here, because I’m not trying to trash PF2.

In particular, [MENTION=5834]Celtavian[/MENTION], you’ve most strenuously argued that PF2 is more like 5E than 4E. I suspect you’re one of those people who refuses to acknowledge how much of 4E went into 5E (hint: a ton). At a passing glance, not having followed PF2 closely, it looks to be far more in the “gamist” tradition than the “simulationist” school that 3.5E/PF1 lived in. (Surely these were always oversimplifications anyway.) Evidently I’m not the only one who thinks so.

None of this is a judgement on PF2 nor all y’all Paizo fans nor 4E nor anyone else. PF2 looks neat and I’ll probably give it a go, because it reminds me of 4E and 5E, which I enjoy. I continue to find the similarities ironic and hilarious, and the reactions of others have enhanced my amusement about all of this.
The parts of 4E I despised are not in PF2. I find it is more like 5E, which did not seem like 4E either. A few elements from 4E made it into 5E, but I'm sorry to say those things seem like renamed elements of 3E/3.5 like the reaction and minor action which was the swift and immediate action.

We could argue where mechanics entered the D&D system for a while. What 4E brought to the table that I did not like is gone from 5E and PF2.

Fact is immediate actions and swift actions were part of 3E/PF. Yet I hear folks claiming that was a 4E thing and it wasn't.

4E brought encounter powers which I hated. It brought this idea of controllers, tanks, strikers, and that type of stuff I did not enjoy. The monsters didn't have spell-like abilities and were very boring to run. 5E is more like 4E in that regard. I am extremely thankful PF2 kept spell-like abilities for monsters, so they can be something other than bags of hit points with a few battle only powers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Celtavian

Dragon Lord
I get your opinion, and it is fine to see it that way. What I do not understand is why you are so defensive about people having a different opinion. If you do not see the 4E like nature of the numerous things I posted that is fine, you do not have to see it that way.

My experience with PF2 is that of a streamlining and programmer like integration of mechanics from PF1/3.5 that is too mechanically reliant for my use.
I see. You're not a PF1 player looking to move to PF2. Whereas I'm a PF1 player looking to move to PF2. PF2 is very familiar as a PF1 player that also played 5E for a year. I'm used to all the mechanics as it seems like a blending of PF1 and 5E. I like some of the 5E mechanics they blended in, though I'm still on the fence with the spell duration shortening as I liked spell durations lasting longer with level, especially charms and dominations. I'm not sure I enjoy all the short-term durations. We'll see how they work in play.
 

JohnLynch

Explorer
I have been saying this since we first started seeing Pathfinder 2 playtest stuff: of course some of it is going to look like 4e. Pathfinder 1 is essentially 3.5e, and has pretty much the same flaws. 4e set out to fix the flaws of 3.5e, and PF2 sets out to fix the flaws of PF1. Since they're fixing the same flaws, some of the fixes will look similar.
Its even simpler then that: Its some of the same people who worked on 4e that they got to work on PF2e.

Logan has openly admitted they've reused ideas from 4e. But dont worry. They've reassured us that they only took the good ideas.

4e definitely had some good ideas. It just seems to be of dubious wisdom to reappropriate those ideas in a new edition of a game that was built on top of the rejection of 4e.
 

JohnLynch

Explorer
This is the only place I've seen anyone characterize PF2 as being like 4E.
Then your not looking very hard. Both the Paizo forums and reddit have people (who aren't me) making the comparison.

I did try to warn Paizo during the playtest that it looked too similar to 4e. I was shouted down in the playtest forums by those invested enough to playtest. Now that the game is getting released more and more people are seeing the similarities I pointed out.

For those who rejected 4e, it wont necessarily matter how dissimilar PF2e is from 4e. Enough of a similarity will be enough to get them to dismiss it out of hand.

I still plan to check out PF2e. Not as a successor game to PF1e. I think they have rejected 3.5 so hard as to make it a brand new game. I plan to check it out as it's own thing. Ultimately though I may decide to just house rule some of PF1e and not switch.

The people that left 4E to play PF have not mentioned such a comparison. 
Lol. My old gaming group had a quick look at the playtest, saw 4e and then promptly moved on. They didn't stick around long enough to point out the similarities to people on online forums. They simply saw it and silently moved on.

Hopefully my old gaming group was the exception. But those who I notice mention the similarities typically aren't sticking around long enough to argue the case. Simply observe and move on.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Advertisement

Advertisement

Top