• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

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

MockingBird

Explorer
I wonder how many new PF1e gamers, who got on board after the 4e/3.5e transition, are moving to PF2e? These gamers may have no idea what 4e is or how it plays so they are oblivious to some of its similarities. I wonder how many hardcore PF1e/3.5e players who rejected 5e are moving to PF2e? Also how many 4e gamers who rejected 5e are moving to PF2e?
 

Redbadge

Villager
Then your not looking very hard. Both the Paizo forums and reddit have people (who aren't me) making the comparison.
Multiple threads even! It’s been one of the major topics for the last year. But not everyone sees the 4e similarities as a bad thing like John Lynch. I kind of like it. Not sure about the ratio of positive reactions to negative reactions on this development just yet, but as some have said on the Paizo forums, PF2 will attract all those 4e fans that felt disenfranchised during the D&D Next Playtest and that perhaps want to try something beyond 13th Age or other similar systems.

But Celtavian, not only are you blowing in the wind with your opinion, consensus seems to be solidifying in the venues I frequent, both online and in person, for better or worse. Square pegs in round holes indeed.
 

Jer

Explorer
I wonder how many new PF1e gamers, who got on board after the 4e/3.5e transition, are moving to PF2e? These gamers may have no idea what 4e is or how it plays so they are oblivious to some of its similarities. I wonder how many hardcore PF1e/3.5e players who rejected 5e are moving to PF2e? Also how many 4e gamers who rejected 5e are moving to PF2e?
I wonder how many of them will just stick with PF1.

I know a group that still plays only D&D 3.5. Not Pathfinder - 3.5. They have so many books in their libraries they will never need to buy a new book again if they don't want it. The DM has told me his players still haven't tried all of the different combos of classes that they want to try for characters, and he has plenty of material to work with, so why switch?

PF1 has even more material available for it than 3.5 does. I'd think you could run campaigns for decades and never need to buy another book if you had even half of the books for PF1 on your shelf and wanted to stick with PF1 instead of going anywhere.
 

Tony Vargas

Adventurer
I wonder how many new PF1e gamers, who got on board after the 4e/3.5e transition, are moving to PF2e? These gamers may have no idea what 4e is or how it plays so they are oblivious to some of its similarities.
I doubt there are many of those, you usually got to PF1 by defecting from (or rejecting out of hand) 4e, typically because you didn't like the changes it made from 3.5 - that was the point if PF1, being 3.75 D&D.
If you come to D&D with no preconceptions, and don't care for it, the naive conclusion is RPGing just isn't for you, not that you should look for something else kinda like it.

Of course, there's always a few random players who luck into a non-D&D game their first time out or get recruited by a fan of some other system, and don't follow the stereotype - and they /do/ love chiming into threads.

I wonder how many hardcore PF1e/3.5e players who rejected 5e are moving to PF2e?
Where else're they gonna go?

Well to whomever rips the SRD to make 3.875, first, I suppose.

Also how many 4e gamers who rejected 5e are moving to PF2e?
There wasn't a lot if rejection of 5e - disappointment, sure, but virtually no edition warring, no pointedly lining up to wallet-vote for the first remotely credible 4.75 (13A is as close as it came).
Most D&D fans turned out not to be quite so single-ed-insistent as all that, and fans of 4e, in particular, were necessarily drawn from those most willing to give a new ed a chance.

5es succeeded in being acceptable to loyal fans of D&D. Maybe not always beloved - but nothing theyd want to burn to the ground.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Zardnaar

Adventurer
I imagine you will have a few Pathfinder Grognards. They don't need to go anywhere.

2E through 4E and Pathfinder have enough material to last a lifetime.

Only real advantage to a new system is player recruitment and playing in your flgs.
 

doctorhook

Adventurer
I imagine you will have a few Pathfinder Grognards. They don't need to go anywhere.

2E through 4E and Pathfinder have enough material to last a lifetime.

Only real advantage to a new system is player recruitment and playing in your flgs.
Yep, this. And Pathfinder has been big enough and successful enough that Paizo is sitting on some valuable IP these days; PF will not disappear into the wallpaper like so many other retroclones and spin-offs.
 

Staffan

Explorer
Where else're they gonna go?

Well to whomever rips the SRD to make 3.875, first, I suppose.
You're never going to get a repeat of the Pathfinder phenomenon. The particular alchemical soup of:

  • A reasonably established company, who
  • to a large degree consisted of people with extensive D&D experience and game credits,
  • had until recently been involved with creating pretty solid official D&D material,
  • including highly acclaimed serialized adventures,
  • and had a setup that gave them a pretty big audience that was accustomed to game subscriptions

is never going to happen again.
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
You're never going to get a repeat of the Pathfinder phenomenon. The particular alchemical soup of:

  • A reasonably established company, who
  • to a large degree consisted of people with extensive D&D experience and game credits,
  • had until recently been involved with creating pretty solid official D&D material,
  • including highly acclaimed serialized adventures,
  • and had a setup that gave them a pretty big audience that was accustomed to game subscriptions

is never going to happen again.
This does in no way even address the question of how Paizo should have approached a new edition of Pathfinder...
 

Parmandur

Adventurer
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.

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.
Yeah, I've seen both PF1 fans and 4E fans point this out in multiple forums since the playtest dropped..
 

JesterOC

Explorer
Oof. That "As goblin warrior" reference is a little painful.
That is a fear of mine as well, but after looking at the whole book, they managed to cram a LOT of monsters and art in there, and this must have helped!
We shall see how bad it becomes in play!
 

Staffan

Explorer
This does in no way even address the question of how Paizo should have approached a new edition of Pathfinder...
Neither was it what I was responding to. [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] suggested, I suppose in jest, that the PF1 fans dissatisfied with PF2 would have to take refuge with a new company doing to Pathfinder what Pathfinder did to D&D. I was pointing out that that was quite unlikely to happen.

I think they could have done many things differently with Pathfinder 2. Ideally, the playtest period would have been longer and more iterative. Instead of releasing a complete-but-unpolished rules set and expecting people to stress-test it on a very aggressive schedule, they would likely have been better served by following the example set by Wizards and release it incrementally and ask if each step feels right. The stress-tests are probably handled better internally. But that's irrelevant because (a) that's not what they did, and (b) that's not the suggestion I was replying to.
 

MockingBird

Explorer
Does anyone have concrete evidence as to why the playtest was so short? I dont fully understand the rush because 5e has been out for 5 years at this point. Not to flog the dead horse but doubling down on dual stat APs, or simply releasing 5e conversions of past APs while developing 2e more slowly, listening to gripes some have about 5e and acting accordingly might have been a better approach. Just seems like a stark contrast from how PF playtest was handled to how this was handled.
 

Parmandur

Adventurer
Does anyone have concrete evidence as to why the playtest was so short? I dont fully understand the rush because 5e has been out for 5 years at this point. Not to flog the dead horse but doubling down on dual stat APs, or simply releasing 5e conversions of past APs while developing 2e more slowly, listening to gripes some have about 5e and acting accordingly might have been a better approach. Just seems like a stark contrast from how PF playtest was handled to how this was handled.
I don't know about "proof," since anybody in their board meetings isn't talking: but it seems that they had been working on PF2 for a good long while before the public playtest, and the goal of the public playtest was more to stress test the numbers, rather than make big design decisions.
 

MockingBird

Explorer
I don't know about "proof," since anybody in their board meetings isn't talking: but it seems that they had been working on PF2 for a good long while before the public playtest, and the goal of the public playtest was more to stress test the numbers, rather than make big design decisions.
Okay, I guess it was in development for longer than I realized. Fair enough but still seems a bit one sided if the playtest was released more for stress test than straight up feed back. I didnt really follow the playtest so I'm ignorant of how it actually went down and how much feed back was taken. How was it compared to 4e? Was 4e even given to the public to playtest at all?
 

Parmandur

Adventurer
Okay, I guess it was in development for longer than I realized. Fair enough but still seems a bit one sided if the playtest was released more for stress test than straight up feed back. I didnt really follow the playtest so I'm ignorant of how it actually went down and how much feed back was taken. How was it compared to 4e? Was 4e even given to the public to playtest at all?
I didn't participate in the playtest past downloading the rules, as it bored me and I didn't have an interested group. I understand that they provided a number of highly specific scenarios and requested detailed reports on encounter results to test game math, which does seem to have been refined in the final product.

4E had zero public playtesting, it was designed, bulit internally and released. TBF, Paizo introduced the giant mass playtest with PF1, believing in open gaming and having the technology.
 

Staffan

Explorer
Okay, I guess it was in development for longer than I realized. Fair enough but still seems a bit one sided if the playtest was released more for stress test than straight up feed back. I didnt really follow the playtest so I'm ignorant of how it actually went down and how much feed back was taken. How was it compared to 4e? Was 4e even given to the public to playtest at all?
Neither 3e nor 4e were publicly playtested. With 3e they touted that they had enlisted a lot of people to help playtest it - I believe "Meet the playtesters" was even a feature on their website in the year between 3e's announcement and its release - but it was still a closed playtest. I don't recall anything similar for 4e.
 

Zardnaar

Adventurer
4E was tested internally. Rumors had it RPGA were involved.

PF2 was in development for two years before the playtest iirc. Paizo mentioned it somewhere.

It's evolved out of Starfinder and late Pathfinder material much like every edition of D&D evolving out of late edition material.
 

Parmandur

Adventurer
4E was tested internally. Rumors had it RPGA were involved.
Oh, for sure, WotC is very big on internal playtesting: 5E had a large internal playtest going, that had a different purpose from the public test, is my understanding: the public test was for determining if people liked large concepts, while the internal test hashed out the math details once the direction was determined.
 

Advertisement

Latest threads

Advertisement

Top