| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And, to respond to a couple other snipes:
So you'd rather there be only two games
at least 2 =/= only 2.
those for people incapable of saying no to players and allowing every ridiculous thing imaginable
Already addressed ad nauseum, and the fact you're wilfully ignoring it now is telling. As a DM, I still generally prefer problems fixed by rule, not by DM fiat. That makes the game more accessible to new players, and reminds experienced ones what the expected baselines are. Clear rules =/= everything goes. It is, in fact, the exact opposite of that.
I see the need for true, common sense
There is no such thing -- this thread is proof of that. To me, it's common sense that reaching into a pouch and rummaging for bat guano, while making complex hand gestures and chanting in arcane syllables, would require more concentration than swinging a sword a couple of times. Yet a caster can move 30 ft. and cast, and a fighter loses iterative attacks if he moves more than 5 ft. That's "common sense" to the game designers, but to many people, it's the exact opposite.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, battle enders assuming that you can line all the enemies up in a single tiny cone?
If color spray is ever hitting more than 2 of the bad guys there is something wrong with this situation.
Move around a bit, or lure them into an advantageous bit of dungeon where they're nicely bunched up.
And Daze? To be honest, you are better off crossbowing, because Time Walk the Both of us isn't great.
Except that everyone else also gets to take an action. Suppose Team Monster is two goblins. I daze one, the fighter kills the other. Next round the fighter kills the other goblin. The goblins never got the chance to cause us damage.
Basically, Daze buys time for the fighter to do his job. It's not great but in the first couple of levels it has its place. By the time you can spam better effects it won't work on monsters anymore anyway.
And grease is not a battle ender. Not even close. And again. . . its a 10 ft square so it stop 1 maybe two enemies.
It does horrible things to charging or pursuing enemies, makes enemies that move into it flat-footed so the rogue gets sneak attack, disarms weapons, stops climbing and helps against grapples.
And if the enemies are even vulnerable to Color Spray that means that the Fighter who has +7 to hit (+9 on his charge) is one shotting them.
It's great for monsters like orcs, that have a reasonable chance to kill low-level fighters with 1-2 hits. Remember that orcs have a +5 to hit, 18-20/x2 crit range and deal 2d4+4 damage with those falcions. They have Ferocity that means they effectively have 18 hp before they stop trying to hurt you. At CR 1/3! They can really ruin a fighter's day.
But a Color Spray targets their -1 Will save.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, battle enders assuming that you can line all the enemies up in a single tiny cone?
You don't need to take out "all". Taking out 2 of 4 or 1 of 2 is enough to decide the battle. When people say battle ender they don't mean the spell literally kills every enemy, they mean that if successful it decides the outcome of the battle.
If you're beset by 4 goblins at level one, and manage to take out two of them, you've more than done your share of the work, and can save the rest of your 1st level spells for later that day, relying school abilities, daze, or mundane armaments for those mopping up round.
If color spray is ever hitting more than 2 of the bad guys there is something wrong with this situation.
Yeah, so, if the party regularly encounters groups of 6+ enemies (accounting for the chance to save) at level one the wizard won't be able to do their share of the combat. Granted, 6 goblins is a CR 4 encounter and thus should be considered very hard for a 1st level party, so in that circumstance, blowing an extra spell or two might be warranted.
And Daze? To be honest, you are better off crossbowing, because Time Walk the Both of us isn't great.
Uhm... If you're numerically superior it is great. So, when your first level party encounters an ogre, having a 65-75% chance to negate its action every round is far better than doing 1d8 damage.
And grease is not a battle ender. Not even close. And again. . . its a 10 ft square so it stop 1 maybe two enemies.
Grease can very well be a battle ender, if applied intelligently. In dungeons, caves, and anywhere else with tight spaces it can create a debuffing bottleneck allowing your martial characters to chop down melee enemies without them standing a chance (or if the enemies refuse to close, allowing your martials to shoot them down), or against the above mentioned ogre, forcing it to drop its weapon and fight barehanded (going from 2d8+7 to 1d4+5 damage and provoking AoOs for every strike) makes a difficult and potentially deadly encounter into a joke.
I've seen grease end many battles, and its a battle ender that keeps giving and working good for more levels than for example Sleep and Cause Fear.
And if the enemies are even vulnerable to Color Spray that means that the Fighter who has +7 to hit (+9 on his charge) is one shotting them.
That +7, is it +5 str, +1 WF, +1 what? Personally I don't like 20 strength on a mad character. But yes, the fighter can one-shot a lot of enemies at first level, and will have a to-hit percentage nearly as high as the to-fail percentage enemies have against spells.
Note how I didn't say the fighter had a hard time at these levels. I think they're quite greatly balanced; the caster being more effective against groups and out of combat, and the fighter being able to dish out serious pain, being superior against tough single opponents and enemies immune to mind-affecting, and not having to conserve resources as much (though hit points is still very relevant at these levels).
Neither is worthless against what the other is strong at either, which makes it less likely that characters are forced to more or less "sit out" fights which can happen for certain characters at higher levels (not that they can't act, just that the effect is to neglible to matter).
Until level 5 for Wizards 6 for Sorcerers the disparity is definitively in the other direction.
You still have shown no kind of argument for this, just repeating unfounded claims.
And level 10 only gives you 5th level spells, which barring teleport aren't that great.
Uhm... I don't even know how to respond to this. 5th level spells are incredibly powerful, and can do so much stuff martials can't even dream of. Need your own plane? Rope trick. Got cursed? Break Enchantment. Need to go somewhere? Overland flight. Need to dive to the bottom of the ocean? There's a dozen spells for that. Need healing? Summon something. Attacked by something you cannot fight? Throw up a wall. Et cetera.
Need to hit something with a stick? Well, call the fighter.A 10th level wizard in Pathfinder can do more stuff than near everything but the most mythical of mages in literature, movies or computer games.
And I'm not talking about showing Gandalf the door, there are only a handful of non-D&D-based fictions I can think of that includes mages of that stature as anything less than demigods.
Sure, battle enders assuming that you can line all the enemies up in a single tiny cone?Not that hard to do, considering that PF lets you take a full move before you cast.
Which is fine. If you have ever hit more than 2 enemies with either of those spells your DM has handed it to you.
Enemies don't tend to clump themselves up into 15 ft cones or 10 ft cubes unless they are strictly suicidal.
I may see why you think Wizards are so powerful. . .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That sounds pretty meta-gamey Nathanael. I don't see why a goblin would have knowledge related to combating arcane magic. They don't seem that likely to be that studious.
How is it meta-gamey in a world where everyone knows magic exists to know to not stand in tight 15 ft clumps?
Is the goblin's intelligence 2?
Basic infantry tactics in modern militaries teach to spread out 3 meters or 5 meters due to the effective radius of grenades. This is BASIC tactics. Taught in basic training or in some cases even BEFORE shipping to basic training.
Why on earth would you assume that in a world where the magical equivalent is common they wouldn't have similar tactics?
Unless you are slaughtering civilian goblins?
Yes-- wizards are super good at fighting much weaker enemies and enemies who go out of their way to make it easy for them. But that's a skewed result due to skewed gameplay.
And Flashohol-- in that situation its not the Wizard that's winning the situation, its the melee characters doing the flanking and hacking. . .
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Nathanael
Yea. That was the point. They're spreading out because the Wizard is there and become easier to pick off because they are not ganging up on any one PC something they wouldn't do if there was no wizard around.
I don't see Spellcraft or K. Arcana on a goblins statblock so how do they know not to stand in 15ft clumps in the off chance they encounter a human capable of AoE?
Are goblins constantly besieged with burning hands and color spray? So much so they need to teach every goblin capable of picking up a sword how to fight a wizard?
And why would any character use modern day military tactics?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would the goblins still spread out if there were no AoE-throwers in the party? Or is the GM secretly metagaming?
Also, clumping together is often a side-effect of dungeons where you don't actually have the luxury of going wherever you want to, because you constantly run into walls.
I love these popcorn threads.
I'm in an odd position, because while I agree with Kirth about the relative power level of casters (for the most part) I don't want anything to change because I like playing easymode.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You won't get anywhere with that one, every post might as well be "Wizards are fine, I won't let you nerf them!"
Would the goblins still spread out if there were no AoE-throwers in the party? Or is the GM secretly metagaming?
Also, clumping together is often a side-effect of dungeons where you don't actually have the luxury of going wherever you want to, because you constantly run into walls.
The goblins would be spread out regardless of who is in the party because just like every PC party ever is spread out to not be TPKed by fireball regardless of what the enemies are?
Its fine though-- if your DMs don't play the bad guys with intelligence or tactics, you got it-- you can hit 7 goblins in your 15 foot cone and auto win at 1st level.
And yes-- I'm pretty sure that on the whole goblins both 1. have spellcasters in their society and 2. fight spellcasters often enough to teach all goblins not to clump up pointlessly.
And I disagree that spreading out makes them easier to pick off-- besides avoiding AoE it also keeps fighters from being able to five ft step between them and full attack reducing the numbers of attacks they are taking.
They also position themselves to set up flanks, ect. . . the same way a party of characters would since they are thinking creatures not mindless bots to be slaughtered.
Nathanael... how often do you fight 7 goblins at level one? Sure it happens sometimes (particularly in a campaign wherein the early levels is goblin-centric) but I find groups of 3-4 adversaries far more common at level 1.
Furthermore- against the level of opponents the goblins could have any reasonable hope of defeating- the only time that dodging a 5' step would have any meaning is against dual-wielders, which I tend to view as being uncommon.
Idk? Sometimes?
Depends how many people are in your party?
Depends who the enemies du joir are?
If its 3-4 goblins vs. 4 party memebers you have to do that level of encounter something like 10 times to reach level 2 on the fast chart? And since basic goblins are CR 1/3rd then even taking out all four of them with one spell is hardly impressive--
Defeating a very easy encounter by yourself is not "mvp" worthy?
Which is fair.
Just saying, for colorspray to really be astoundingly powerful you have to be able to get 3+ enemies into a 15 ft cone, have those enemies be 2 HD or less, have them all fail saving throws. . .
1st level Wizard isn't more powerful than 1st level Barbarian or Ranger or Fighter by any stretch of the imagination, so assertions that "at 1st level Wizard is the MVP" are really off base and stretch the credulity of the source.
I mean, Pathfinder 1st level Wizards no longer fear for their lives against common house cats (two attacks at 1d3 per needing only a 9 or better to hit versus your 4 hit points), but they aren't world beaters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1st level Wizard isn't more powerful than 1st level Barbarian or Ranger or Fighter by any stretch of the imagination, so assertions that "at 1st level Wizard is the MVP" are really off base and stretch the credulity of the source.
It seems to me that you equate party MVP with the guy who's dealing the most damage or taking the most hits. It's much more complicated than that. A well placed spell can turn the tide.
You also seem to meta game really, really hard. You also sandbox everything. You have low level, and notably dumb I might add, creatures use advanced tactics. Your argument that those are 'basic' military tactics is a bit of misnomer. Those tactics are trained skills and that training has evolved over tens, hundreds or even thousands of years. So I assume goblins in your campaigns do military drills every day? In between trying to build houses out of mud and trying to catch and eat rats I assume.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If its 3-4 goblins vs. 4 party memebers you have to do that level of encounter something like 10 times to reach level 2 on the fast chart? And since basic goblins are CR 1/3rd then even taking out all four of them with one spell is hardly impressive--
Defeating a very easy encounter by yourself is not "mvp" worthy?
Just a bit of math. For funsies.
4 bog standard goblins would be 540 xp, putting it about 2/3 of the way between a CR 1 and a CR 2 encounter. The CR system indicates that for APL=CR encounters, it should consume roughly 1/4 of PARTY resources.Remember that the game is balanced for play at 4 encounters of APL=CR a day, and any CR above that skews it.
If it takes 1/4 of one character's resources (the wizard) to take out the encounter, that's 1/16 of the party resources. So more than 4x the purported balance curve of the game (since that 4 goblin encounter is more than CR 1) isn't impressive?
How often do you play on wide, open, featureless planes as opposed to twisty tunnels or deep, dark, claustrophobic dungeon hallways? For me it's usually the latter. Rooms usually not larger than 25x25. Except the big bad boss room.
I dunno, that's how most APs are written, and APs, modules and PFS scenarios are the best idea we have about how the game is intended by the designers to be played.
|
You have low level, and notably dumb I might add, creatures use advanced tactics. Your argument that those are 'basic' military tactics is a bit of misnomer. Those tactics are trained skills and that training has evolved over tens, hundreds or even thousands of years.
Grenades have existed for thousands of years? Maybe 1200-1300 or so, if you count Greek Fire grenades. And how long exactly has magic existed on Golarion (or most other campaign worlds)? Hint: It's usually measured in MULTIPLE thousands of years, if not more. I'd wager that goblins on Golarion have been dealing with mages throwing blast spells at them for far FAR longer than humans have been dealing with grenades.
As for notably dumb, I'd like to quote the PRD:
Goblin Racial Traits
+4 Dexterity, –2 Strength, –2 Charisma: Goblins are fast, but weak and unpleasant to be around.-------------------------------------
Kobold Racial Traits
+2 Dexterity, –4 Strength, –2 Constitution: Kobolds are fast but weak.
That's funny, neither of them have a penalty to INT. Which means they're just as smart as most of the PC races.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regardless, it would take a spellcraft or Know Arcana check to know anything about those spells in order to develop those tactics. Bog standard gobbos don't have ranks, and thus can't succeed in checks over 10, which any knowledge for even a first level spell would be.
I mean if we're talking rules...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's funny, neither of them have a penalty to INT. Which means they're just as smart as most of the PC races.
Not necessarily in the same way, however. Golarion goblins are notably anti-intellectual, and even refuse the written language. They are also uncoordinated and basically insane.
You will notice that a 5-year old (human with the young template) has the same intelligence as a 30-year-old. That does not mean they're equally likely to recognize a wizard (as opposed to say a druid), realize that that wizard is likely to have color spray, or that the spell the wizard is casting is in fact color spray and not, say, entangle - which is a spell where you WANT to be clumped up to prevent flanking, and where being spread out is to great detriment.
Regardless, it would take a spellcraft or Know Arcana check to know anything about those spells in order to develop those tactics. Bog standard gobbos don't have ranks, and thus can't succeed in checks over 10, which any knowledge for even a first level spell would be.
I mean if we're talking rules...
They don't need to make any spellcraft checks or Knowledge Arcana checks to know this.
They are at a minimum 12+1d4 years old. They have been trained to at a minimum 1 level of Warrior. That +1d4 years is their training or development time.
That means that standard goblins have spent at a minimum 1 years training to be a warrior or being a warrior.
You really think in that time the grizzled sergeant Goblin never said, "Listen up kid, those rotten murder hobos have this stuff called magic, so that's why when we're on patrol you have to back up and we move in a wedge."
And again, they don't have to recognize a Wizard. Goblins on patrol tactically move in a formation (I'd guess line or wedge depending on terrain). 4 goblins out patrolling a road would likely be 1 on the road in the front 10 ft back and 10 to one side a second, the third 10 back and 10 to the other side, and the fourth 10 back from the second set and on the road again. They don't see a wizard then spread apart, they just don't cluster up tightly to all be one shot by a spell.
Goblins guarding a building don't stand four on top of each other in front of a single door. They set one on either side of the door, one down as the edge of each corner, and the fifth guy up on the wall with a bow/crossbow. They don't spread out to that kind of formation when they see a wizard. That's just how you would guard a building.
Goblins in a dungeon don't crowd up so that there are two in melee, then 2-4 standing behind them incapable of hitting because their path is blocked.
Look-- if you really want to have the Goblins on your world be not only unintelligent but actively, suicidal and moronic (despite no negative to Int racially) then that's on you-- but I don't expect that would be the case.
Actually, I'm pretty sure the Monster Manual goblin has no class levels at all.
I also don't think that grizzled goblin sergeants are a thing. Unless they are in your own setting I mean.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/goblin.html#_goblin
Goblin. Warrior 1.
Look in the ecology section-- Goblin sergeant of 3rd level is right there in the Bestiary entry.
Again, a formation like that is impossible in a dungeon and insta-death against anyone with Entangle. It also makes them much easier to beat woth martials, and if goblins are so svared of wizards that they make themselves gar more vulnerable against everyoe else, what does that say?
Also, those tactics seem veeeery farfrom how golarion goblins are depicted. "1st level warrio" doesnt have to mean they have any training.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Grenades have existed for thousands of years? Maybe 1200-1300 or so, if you count Greek Fire grenades. And how long exactly has magic existed on Golarion (or most other campaign worlds)? Hint: It's usually measured in MULTIPLE thousands of years, if not more. I'd wager that goblins on Golarion have been dealing with mages throwing blast spells at them for far FAR longer than humans have been dealing with grenades.
I was actually talking about how tactics themselves evolve not just that one specific tactic. It strikes me as odd that goblins would have the discipline to create such tactics over any stretch of time.
Which brings me to the question: What kind of campaigns do you all play where goblins are such pinnacles of success? They have training, tactics, and enough advanced knowledge of arcane magic to identify it on sight (or even before it's cast). I only know of one official campaign setting where goblins and their ilk were more than simple savages and that was Eberron (and that was thousands of years into Eberron's past). Everywhere else, that I've seen at least, they are sniveling, craven, superstitious, lazy, and primitive.
However, I feel that we're really getting off topic on this. We're literally arguing over the might of goblins.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The funny thing is that for large swaths of history, one of the best strategies was to create a tight formation. Shield walls and pike formations, to prevent cavalry from running you down.
If your opponents refuse to use such tactics because they're afraid of AoE stuff to the exclusion of all else, maybe your PCs should adapt to that and start using anti-skirmishing tactics. Pick off individual enemies because they're easy to surround, move directly towards enemy squishies - whatever you like.
And if a GM makes the monsters always use spread-out formations, he's predictable, and it becomes easy to take advantage of that, every time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is easy to adapt to as a caster anyway.
Enemies clustered? AoE damage spells.
Enemies spread out? Spam summons.
Very narrow path between enemies and you? Use a pit.
Very wide area between enemies and you? Use a wall.
@Ascalaphus-- if the enemies always do any one thing then they can become predictable sure, that's part of the challenge to DMs to keep coming up with interesting scenarios.
As to shield walls and pike formations-- the rules do not support it, and if they did it would require more feats than low level mobs like goblins have to take advantage of it.
If they actually go an advantage from clustering in the game rules as the shield wall provided in actual historical combat it would make sense, but doing something which provides no benefit under any situation I can't get behind doing even for mobs.
@meatrace I'd like to see the 1st level Wizard (or any caster) who has AoE damage, summons to spam, a pit and a wall all prepared at one time, since the entire goblins discussion and the tactics thereof was in relation to 1st level caster.
@gunsmith paladin-- yes, its very off topic. Regardless, I refuse to accept that any race of sentient creatures would act willfully and conspicuously against survival. I simply cannot abide by running goblins or kobolds or any race like they are video game monsters incapable of thought as a race.
I don't play a lot in published campaign settings, admittedly, but I think that if the goblins in them are truly as ill equipped for survival in these campaign settings, then I would suspect they would all be like the Dark Sun goblins by this point.
@kirth-- I missed your response earlier, but I contend that disallowing the use of traits, not allowing archetypes on level dips, disallowing mechanics which reduce the level cost of meta-magic from stacking, and limiting the lower limit for meta-magic level reduction to +1 level minimum ARE rules choices, not "dm fiat"
I don't see how these minor house rules are somehow any less valid than your own or anyone else sweeping nuclear options.
I understand you don't feel they go far enough, but they aren't somehow unworthy of being called rules because they are simple rather than sweeping.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@gunsmith paladin-- yes, its very off topic. Regardless, I refuse to accept that any race of sentient creatures would act willfully and conspicuously against survival. I simply cannot abide by running goblins or kobolds or any race like they are video game monsters incapable of thought as a race.I don't play a lot in published campaign settings, admittedly, but I think that if the goblins in them are truly as ill equipped for survival in these campaign settings, then I would suspect they would all be like the Dark Sun goblins by this point.
** spoiler omitted **
If I remember right in some of the monster manuals for older editions they basically stated that the only reason goblins haven't been wiped out is the fact that they breed like cockroaches and mature quickly.
Also, how is standing side by side acting willfully and conspicuously against survival? Hell, it's downright beneficial from time to time. How else are you going to use aid another?
This reminds me of my first DM from all those years ago. Everyone you ran into was the same guy. Sure they looked different, but they all had that same jerk personality. And it didn't matter if they were a farmer in a field, or a merchant on the street, if you got into a fight with them suddenly they were master swordsmen and genius tacticians.
Years later I know better. Sometimes a farmer standing in a field is just that. A farmer in his field. He doesn't know how to fight. He doesn't understand complicated battle plans. He only really knows how to tend his farm.
My point being is that not everything or everyone in the world is combat trained. They might know how to stab someone with a sharp stick, but so does a 5-year-old.
The farmers where I grew up sure knew how to fight :-)
@meatrace I'd like to see the 1st level Wizard (or any caster) who has AoE damage, summons to spam, a pit and a wall all prepared at one time, since the entire goblins discussion and the tactics thereof was in relation to 1st level caster.
Maybe you are talking about goblins at first level, but my statement was more general.
The whole benefit of being an arcane caster is being prepared for any eventuality, and every one I've ever played (that's a lot by the way) has each of those memorized. When you have 30+ slots a day (plus wands, staves, scrolls, etc.), it's not hard...
Everybody play 4th edition!
I figure I'll have plenty of time to play 4E in hell.
@meatrace I'd like to see the 1st level Wizard (or any caster) who has AoE damage, summons to spam, a pit and a wall all prepared at one time, since the entire goblins discussion and the tactics thereof was in relation to 1st level caster.Maybe you are talking about goblins at first level, but my statement was more general.
The whole benefit of being an arcane caster is being prepared for any eventuality, and every one I've ever played (that's a lot by the way) has each of those memorized. When you have 30+ slots a day (plus wands, staves, scrolls, etc.), it's not hard...
The goblin discussion came up because of the discussion about 1st level.
You don't get to 30+ slots to have all of those memorized for quit a few levels, some of those you can't even cast for several spell levels and the goblin discussion was in reference to low level casters. Saying what a 6th level caster can do has no real bearing on a 1st level discussion. The fact that, if you get to 5 levels from now you can, is pretty useless now.
I suppose if I had been talking in reference to an Elvish Mage Tower you were fighting as enemies people wouldn't have argued against it so hard.
But in a world with magic why do you assume that only Arcane casters prepare to fight foes with magic?
Fighters aren't capable of preparing? They can't consider tactics and make plans to face Wizards at all?
The goblin discussion came up because of the discussion about 1st level.
Since you're having difficulty reading, I'll restate:
My statement was not about 1st level.
That's fine. The discussion was about 1st level.
My arguments and situations were about 1st level.
So stating that 6th level Wizard makes my 1st level goblin's tactics obsolete doesn't have any purpose.
Obviously I know that my 1st level goblins 1st level tactics for 1st level encounters don't do anything to help them against 6th level PCs.
I figure I'll have plenty of time to play 4E in hell.Everybody play 4th edition!
Which layer? And by what mode of transport?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's fine. The discussion was about 1st level.
My arguments and situations were about 1st level.
So stating that 6th level Wizard makes my 1st level goblin's tactics obsolete doesn't have any purpose.
Obviously I know that my 1st level goblins 1st level tactics for 1st level encounters don't do anything to help them against 6th level PCs.
You seem to still be having trouble understanding plain English.
I wasn't talking about 1st level, or any hypothetical goblin encounter. My statement was exogenous to any such conversation.It is in fact possible for people to talk in this topic about things other than your inane hypotheticals.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
But in a world with magic why do you assume that only Arcane casters prepare to fight foes with magic?
Fighters aren't capable of preparing? They can't consider tactics and make plans to face Wizards at all?
If your Goblins had fighter levels and not warrior levels, Maybe. Just because magic exists doesn't mean , let alone goblins, are knowledgeable about it or have the means or need to plan against spells being used against them.
They lock their young in cages where they're forced to fend for themselves to the point of cannibalism. If they can't be bothered to care for their own children why would they go out of their way to run combat drills targeted against magic users?
I can't find anything to suggest that goblins are militaristic or organized, in any way, enough to develop any combat tactics as a race. They grab whatever weapons they can find and they kill it until it stops moving. Then they eat it.
Violent but fecund, goblins exist in primitive tribal structures with constant shifts in power. Rarely able to sustain their own needs through farming or hunting and gathering, goblin tribes live where food is abundant or near places that they can steal it from. Since they are incapable of building significant fortifications and have been driven out of most easily accessible locations, goblins tend to live in unpleasant and remote locations, and their poor building and planning skills ensure that they dwell primarily in crude caves, ramshackle villages, and abandoned structures. Few goblins are good with tools or skilled at farming, and the rare items of any value that they possess are usually cast-off implements from humans or other civilized cultures.
At that point why even ever have goblins?
I hate races that exist only to be stereotypes/tropes and where their society write ups boil down to "these evil stupid creatures will make good fodder for any band of murder hobos-- don't feel bad about slaughtering the young and women, they aren't worth it anyways."
But that's an entirely separate topic
Ok, so what if these are my goblins . . can they know to not line up for fireballs if their king is a powerful wizard?
http://www.themoviescene.co.uk/reviews/_img/476-2.jpg