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]

That is not how I've seen things go at all in any game group I have been a part of. If you encounter an ogre, it has exactly the stats from the MM, with the exception of the DM maybe rolling the hit points instead of using the average.

Weird. I never would have imagined. YMMV, I guess.

And if you say you don't have to remember the ability exactly, why do you think you need to remember the ability exactly for PF2e monsters or 4e monsters but not for 3.5 or PF1e monsters?

If you go way, way back up-thread, this whole tangent started when I said that it felt like I needed to learn the monsters from scratch, every time I ran an encounter in 4E; because every monster had its own complicated abilities, and there's no way to predict what any of those abilities would be without reading the stat block.

If you tell me that a redcap wears spiked boots, then it doesn't automatically follow that it would be able to move half of its speed and make a stomp attack as one action, which deals bleed damage only if the target is prone. I can figure out how to use it, and work out some sort of tactics for running the monster that would make use of it, but it's going to require some effort. If I need to do that for ten new monsters every session, then that's a significant burden to running the game.

If you tell me that a winter wolf has a breath weapon, then I know what that means. Even if I didn't know the damage or the save DC off the top of my head, I already know what a breath weapon is and how it works and how to use it. Likewise, if something has a spell-like ability, then I already know what that is and how to use it. I don't need to learn the monster from scratch in order to run it effectively. It's very user-friendly in that way.

 

[Dalamar]

If you tell me that a winter wolf has a breath weapon, then I know what that means. Even if I didn't know the damage or the save DC off the top of my head, I already know what a breath weapon is and how it works and how to use it. Likewise, if something has a spell-like ability, then I already know what that is and how to use it. I don't need to learn the monster from scratch in order to run it effectively. It's very user-friendly in that way.

It's different strokes, it seems. Since no 4e monster ability is as complex to parse as half the spells are in 3.x, I've had no trouble assimilating monster powers. But give a monster a spell-like ability, and I'll have to go hunting through the books for the effects and what save it allows and if it is affected by SR.

Heck, I could probably play any of the 4e characters for my players effectively with a brief refresher, but I will be hard-pressed trying to tell you what the Holy Word spell does in 3.x.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It's different strokes, it seems. Since no 4e monster ability is as complex to parse as half the spells are in 3.x, I've had no trouble assimilating monster powers. But give a monster a spell-like ability, and I'll have to go hunting through the books for the effects and what save it allows and if it is affected by SR.

Right, but my point on that was there was less barrier in transitioning between player and DM. Spells are objectively more complex that ad hoc monster abilities, but it's work which I already did way back when I was a player, so the added burden was less.

And to its credit, the precise technical language and formatting of 4E tried to minimize that burden by making abilities even easier to parse. And unfortunately, it doesn't look like Pathfinder 2E is copying them on that point.

 

[Dalamar]

Right, but my point on that was there was less barrier in transitioning between player and DM. Spells are objectively more complex that ad hoc monster abilities, but it's work which I already did way back when I was a player, so the added burden was less.

See, to me that just isn't the case. I started DnD with 3.0, and did play an assortment of characters over the time (still playing an Incarnate/Ironsoul Forgemaster in a campaign that's been stretching on for years, just hit level 20 last week), but as soon as I stop playing a character, I start losing any rules specific to that character. I can tell what Close, Medium, and Long ranges are for spells, but the only spell I can say for certain has one of those is Fireball with Long. When a monster has a list of spell-like abilities, that for me is harder than an ad hoc ability in its description because in addition to having to assimilate it, I have to get another book to do so.

I think part of our different experience might be outright bias. I love monsters having something that makes them unique. The redcap's run'n'stomp seems like an amazing ability, and I can't wait to have one run circles around the party, stepping on everyone's toes in process.

And to its credit, the precise technical language and formatting of 4E tried to minimize that burden by making abilities even easier to parse. And unfortunately, it doesn't look like Pathfinder 2E is copying them on that point.

Yeah, I don't think Paizo can copy the presentation too much because they are already being negatively compared to 4e with as little as they have moved in that direction. Shame, really.

 

[Starfox]

I quite like the new organization; Role-playing info first, then combat info. I never really got familiar with the PF1 statblocks.

The susceptibility to holy symbols ability uses the word "bolster". I wonder if this is a game-defined term? I guess it is, as the paragraph doesn't make much sense otherwise.

 

[Kaodi]

I really just want to see a dragon statblock. The other day I made up a hypothetical "Universal Dragon" for PF1 with a slightly different take on resistances and damage reduction. Not sure if there is point in posting it though.