Pathfinder 2E 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.

​

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

 

[Staffan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Celtavian]

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]

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]

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.