Goblins!

Monday, April 2, 2018

Ever since the goblin song from page 12 of 2007's Pathfinder Adventure Path #1: Burnt Offerings, goblins have been a key part of what makes Pathfinder recognizable as Pathfinder. When we first started looking at what would become the ancestries in the Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook, we knew that we wanted to add something to the mix, to broaden the horizon of what it meant to be a hero in Pathfinder. That naturally brought us to goblins.

The trick was finding a way to let you play a goblin who has the feel of a Pathfinder goblin, but who is also a little bit softer around the edges—a character who has a reason to work with a group of "longshanks," as opposed to trying to light them on fire at the first opportunity. Let's look at an excerpt from the goblin ancestry to find out a bit more.

Illustration by Wayne Reynolds

As a people, goblins have spent millennia feared, maligned, and even hunted—and sometimes for understandable reasons, as some rural goblin tribes still often direct cruelty, raiding, and mayhem toward wandering or vulnerable creatures. In recent decades, however, a new sort of hero has emerged from among these rough-and-tumble tribes. Such goblins bear the same oversized heads, pointed ears, red eyes, and jagged teeth of their crueler kin, but they have a noble or savvy streak that other goblins can't even imagine, let alone understand. These erstwhile heroes roam Golarion, often maintaining their distinctive cultural habits while spreading the enthusiasm, inscrutable quirkiness, love of puns and song, and unique mirth that mark goblin adventurers.

Despite breaking from their destructive past, goblin adventurers often subtly perpetuate some of the qualities that have been characteristics of the creatures for millennia. They tend to flock to strong leaders, and fiercely protect those companions who have protected them from physical harm or who offer a sympathetic ear and sage advice when they learn of the goblins' woes. Some goblins remain deeply fascinated with fire, or fearlessly devour meals that might turn others' stomachs. Others are inveterate tinkerers and view their companions' trash as components of gadgets yet to be made. Occasionally, fellow adventurers find these proclivities unsettling or odd, but more often than not goblins' friends consider these qualities endearing.

The entry in the Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook has plenty more to say on the topic, but that should give you a sense of where we are taking Pathfinder's favorite troublemakers.

In addition to the story behind the goblin, its ancestry entry has a lot of other information as well to help you make a goblin player character. It includes the base goblin ability boosts (Dexterity and Charisma), ability flaw (Wisdom), bonus Hit Points (6), base speed (25 feet), and starting languages (Common and Goblin), as well as the rules for darkvision (an ability that lets goblins see in the dark just as well as they can see in normal light). Those are just the basics—the rules shared by all goblins. Beyond that, your goblin's unique ancestry allows you to choose one ability score other than Dexterity or Charisma to receive a boost. Perhaps you have some hobgoblin blood and have an additional boost to Constitution, or you descend from a long line of goblin alchemists and have a boost to Intelligence. You could even gain a boost in Wisdom to negate your flaw!

Then you get into the goblin ancestry feats, which allow you to decide what type of goblin you want to play. Starting off, let's look at Burn It. This feat gives you a bonus to damage whenever you cast a fire spell or deal fire damage with an alchemical item. On top of that, it also increases any persistent fire damage you deal by 1. Goblins still love watching things burn.

Next up is one of my favorites, Junk Tinkerer. A goblin with this feat can craft ordinary items and weapons out of junk and scrap they can find almost anywhere. Sure, the items are of poor quality and break easily, but you will never be without a weapon if you have this feat.

We could not have goblins in the game without adding the Razor Teeth feat. This grants you an attack with your mouthful of razor-sharp teeth that deals 1d6 piercing damage. To be honest, the target of your attack should probably also attempt a Fortitude save against whatever you ate last night that is still stuck between your teeth, but we'll leave that for the GM to decide.

Finally, there is the appropriately named feat Very Sneaky. This lets you move 5 feet farther when you take an action to sneak (which normally lets you move at only half your normal speed) and potentially renders your target flat-footed against a follow-up strike!

There are plenty of other goblin feats for you to choose from, but that's all we have time for today. Come back on Friday when we'll look at some of the feats from the other ancestries in the game!

Jason Bulmahn
Director of Game Design

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Playtest Wayne Reynolds
451 to 500 of 1,765 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
The Exchange

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
eddv wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:
eddv wrote:

Possibly because a new edition already needing the "play whatever you want as long its not XYZ" from its first printing doesn't sound all that appealing.

See my former post about Leadership (or other people's posts about "Well, I'm certainly not going to use the criticals/resonance/personal pet peeve rule"). There's always going to be stuff like that.

Well its certainly my hope that they're not going to include the same broken leadership rules again!

The point is crits/resonance/etc all of that has a pretty strong possibility of winning people over once they see it in action. With goblins there is a much lesser chance of that happening because so many of the objections are based in experiences with having players who play chaotic stupid/kenders/etc prior to this or in it seeming to not gel with the established lore which isn't something time at the table is really going to be able to fix.

Sadly there is no rules system that can be invented to fix crappy players.

There isn't but there can be limitations put in place designed to curb destructive/anti-fun/anti-group behavior. That's why Pathfinder Society doesn't allow evil characters or PvP for instance.

For many, including myself, Goblins as a race fall into the category of things that shouldn't be core access for those reasons.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
eddv wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Monsters are already confirmed as using different rules from player characters. So, yes.
So we will never again fight enemies with class levels? That seems really unlikely, but if thats what you need to believe right now then fine.

I'm sure there will be the option to make NPCs with class levels, but your typical goblin in the Bestiary is going to be a statblock using NPC/Monster-Builder rules.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
eddv wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
eddv wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:
eddv wrote:

Possibly because a new edition already needing the "play whatever you want as long its not XYZ" from its first printing doesn't sound all that appealing.

See my former post about Leadership (or other people's posts about "Well, I'm certainly not going to use the criticals/resonance/personal pet peeve rule"). There's always going to be stuff like that.

Well its certainly my hope that they're not going to include the same broken leadership rules again!

The point is crits/resonance/etc all of that has a pretty strong possibility of winning people over once they see it in action. With goblins there is a much lesser chance of that happening because so many of the objections are based in experiences with having players who play chaotic stupid/kenders/etc prior to this or in it seeming to not gel with the established lore which isn't something time at the table is really going to be able to fix.

Sadly there is no rules system that can be invented to fix crappy players.

There isn't but there can be limitations put in place designed to curb destructive/anti-fun/anti-group behavior. That's why Pathfinder Society doesn't allow evil characters or PvP for instance.

For many, including myself, Goblins as a race fall into the category of things that shouldn't be core access for those reasons.

Goblins in PFS will probably not allowed to be evil or engage with PvP either.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm pretty sure the decision here involved asking PFS VCs/VOs "hey guys, did people playing goblins blow up games in your area?".

The Exchange

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
I'm pretty sure the decision here involved asking PFS VCs/VOs "hey guys, did people playing goblins blow up games in your area?".

Given that only an incredibly small number of goblin boons were EVER issued and that that was a long time ago I don't think VOs could even GIVE that kind of feedback if it was asked of them.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
eddv wrote:

I mean that's fine and all, but to put it another way would redeeming Mogo have been fun or interesting in any way if a member or three of the party was already a goblin or if goblins weren't as rare in civilized society as they are currently?

Because the answer to me FEELS like a big no.

Have you never had a player try to redeem a human/elf/dwarf/etc. character in a game before?

It can be pretty fun and/or interesting.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

What if one of the major setting changes that leads up to Pathfinder 2nd Edition is a Goblin of particular renown and merit reaches some important standing in the Pathfinder society, who takes as a personal cause the recruitment of promising goblins (who were most likely going to end up accidentally blowing themselves up otherwise) and putting them on a new path, as it were, while holding them to the highest standards of conduct, behavior, and penmanship.

Silver Crusade

15 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

PFS allows currently Tengu who are, by their bestiary entry, thieves roughly 50% of time and have kleptomaniac tendencies. PFS didn't blow up as a result.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

It really feels like a check-box marketing mentality that ignores their current popularity is in context of their exceptionality, their existence outside norm of the acceptable. Normalize nice-guy cooperative Goblins, and then what is the point of We Be Goblins line again? Goblin PCs are supported in P1E Bestiary, which nobody is playing the game without, so they aren't really helping anybody by shoving them in Core. If they want to allow more Goblins in PFS, they don't need them in Core Rules to do so, if anything keeping them in B1(2E) will get more non-GM players to buy B1 to play with them, if they want to cash in on popularity. If Goblins are popular they can do more stuff with them, that doesn't necessitate Core Race status with intensive "they aren't all like that" moral rehabilitation questioning the basis of the trope.

I agree actual play testing is irrelevant to this question, it is really outside scope of any single game and not something that play test reports will have impact on, but that is why people discussing it now OUTSIDE of playtest is exactly appropriate. (mechanical details of the race are of course normal playtest fodder) It comes back to if the rationale for their inclusion is undermined by their very inclusion (weakening the stereotype which is basis of popularity), whether other races have stronger rationale for inclusion in that light... Goblins as Core PC Race is not exactly a linchpin of overall RPG system that it's presence is necessary for game concept to work. It just isn't, we all know that. They are the ones who announced the trope popularity rationale as reason for it's inclusion. If we find that very rationale undermined by it's inclusion, it would be intellectual pandering to NOT call that issue to attention.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Tengu are very rarely portrayed in that manner.

Goblins are, with the sole exception I know of being the goblin in Second Darkness, pretty universally portrayed as the destructive chaotic stupid nuisances we pretty well know them to be

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dastis wrote:
I love goblins. Their so much fun. However their not core race material. Guess 2e wanted to copy 5e's core drow scandal.

Drow scandal?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's really about time that goblins were made a core race. They make significantly more sense than half-X races or gnomes being core.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quandary wrote:

It really feels like a check-box marketing mentality that ignores their current popularity is in context of their exceptionality, their existence outside norm of the acceptable. Normalize nice-guy cooperative Goblins, and then what is the point of We Be Goblins line again? Goblin PCs are supported in P1E Bestiary, which nobody is playing the game without, so they aren't really helping anybody by shoving them in Core. If they want to allow more Goblins in PFS, they don't need them in Core Rules to do so, if anything keeping them in B1(2E) will get more non-GM players to buy B1 to play with them, if they want to cash in on popularity. If Goblins are popular they can do more stuff with them, that doesn't necessitate Core Race status with intensive "they aren't all like that" treatment questioning basis of the trope.

I agree actual play testing is irrelevant to this question, it is really outside scope of any single game and not something that play test reports will have impact on, but that is why people discussing it now OUTSIDE of playtest is exactly appropriate. It comes back to if the rationale for their inclusion is undermined by their very inclusion (weakening the stereotype which is basis of popularity), whether other races have stronger rationale for inclusion in that light... Goblins as Core PC Race is not exactly a linchpin of overall RPG system that it's presence is necessary for game concept to work. It just isn't, we all know that. They are the ones who announced that rationale as reason for it's inclusion. If we find that very rationale undermined by it's inclusion, it would be intellectual pandering to NOT call that issue to attention.

I will note that its ON PURPOSE that despite goblins being in the Bestiary 1 that they have never been a widely distributed race for players in an organized play setting.

That's like the exact reason people have so many races they can point to as more 'natural' to include in a core rulebook than goblins. Jason's language that adding goblins was just the natural way to do it feels incorrect in that context when for instance Kitsune are as popular as they are while holding none of this baggage.

Silver Crusade

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
eddv wrote:

Tengu are very rarely portrayed in that manner.

Goblins are, with the sole exception I know of being the goblin in Second Darkness, pretty universally portrayed as the destructive chaotic stupid nuisances we pretty well know them to be

So if Tengu are "very rarely" portrayed the way they are described in source material (thieving kleptomaniacs), why do you fear that goblins will be universally portrayed as destructive arsonists?


Gonna need you two to stop with the argues its making me irritable. You woulnd't like me when I'm irritable. can we just go back to the proper way to season a goblin discussion.. at least I think that happened at some point.. I might have actually dreamed that up...
...
...
Lets talk about the correct way to season a goblin!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
eddv wrote:

Tengu are very rarely portrayed in that manner.

Goblins are, with the sole exception I know of being the goblin in Second Darkness, pretty universally portrayed as the destructive chaotic stupid nuisances we pretty well know them to be

So if Tengu are "very rarely" portrayed the way they are described in source material (thieving kleptomaniacs), why do you fear that goblins will be universally portrayed as destructive arsonists?

Because the people who want to play goblins want to play them as destructive arsonists garnished with baby eating habits roughly 97% of the time.

Silver Crusade

12 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MidsouthGuy wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
eddv wrote:

Tengu are very rarely portrayed in that manner.

Goblins are, with the sole exception I know of being the goblin in Second Darkness, pretty universally portrayed as the destructive chaotic stupid nuisances we pretty well know them to be

So if Tengu are "very rarely" portrayed the way they are described in source material (thieving kleptomaniacs), why do you fear that goblins will be universally portrayed as destructive arsonists?
Because the people who want to play goblins want to play them as destructive arsonists garnished with baby eating habits roughly 97% of the time.

You have any ... data to back that up?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Well, running Rise of the Runelords, one of my player, a Dwarven Barbarian, suddenly decided to "rescue" a baby goblin in the Thistletop tribe (I put some babies in the cages to see how my players would react, to expose them a bit more to the "mores" of the gobs). She made arrangements with the school's headmaster and tried to bring him up in a civilised environment, as a test to see if Goblins were evil because of the culture or because of their blood. And she was doing this in Sandpoint. So... Gobs as playable races, ten years later, would be appropriate in "my" Golarion. :P

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
eddv wrote:

Tengu are very rarely portrayed in that manner.

Goblins are, with the sole exception I know of being the goblin in Second Darkness, pretty universally portrayed as the destructive chaotic stupid nuisances we pretty well know them to be

So if Tengu are "very rarely" portrayed the way they are described in source material (thieving kleptomaniacs), why do you fear that goblins will be universally portrayed as destructive arsonists?

Because without that what do they bring to the table that gnomes don't?

A healthy fear of horses?

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lazaro wrote:
Dastis wrote:
I love goblins. Their so much fun. However their not core race material. Guess 2e wanted to copy 5e's core drow scandal.
Drow scandal?

Drow were included as a core Elf option in 5e.

It turned out to be not a big deal as people made it out to be.

Extrapolate what you like from that.

Silver Crusade

12 people marked this as a favorite.

Didn't Paizo say they didn't want to include Gunslinger as a core class due to some people not liking gun rules even though they are an offiical part of Golarion lore.

Now they're adding goblins as a core race. Kinda odd they couldn't do the same with guns, it's been 10 years, technology spreads.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

It's kind of weird to me, seeing all of the people who are complaining about goblins getting a bonus to charisma instead of a penalty.

I've had a longstanding houserule in pathfinder games I run where goblins take their penalty to WIS instead of CHA. The pyromaniacs with their catchy songs and regrettable tactics have never made sense with the third edition bonuses and penalties, they really aren't the same race as Redcloak and his ilk. I'd say it's impossible to get a single session into Rise of the Runelords without realizing this, but apparently it is, indeed, possible.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
eddv wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
eddv wrote:

Tengu are very rarely portrayed in that manner.

Goblins are, with the sole exception I know of being the goblin in Second Darkness, pretty universally portrayed as the destructive chaotic stupid nuisances we pretty well know them to be

So if Tengu are "very rarely" portrayed the way they are described in source material (thieving kleptomaniacs), why do you fear that goblins will be universally portrayed as destructive arsonists?

Because without that what do they bring to the table that gnomes don't?

A healthy fear of horses?

Inventive little junk tinkers.

Which is something gnomes aren't, in Golarion gnomes are first world rejects, not particularly skilled tinkers.

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Laird IceCubez wrote:

Didn't Paizo say they didn't want to include Gunslinger as a core class due to some people not liking gun rules even though they are an offiical part of Golarion lore.

Now they're adding goblins as a core race. Kinda odd they couldn't do the same with guns, it's been 10 years, technology spreads.

D&D playerbase's vehement dislike of getting gunpowder (or any other post-medieval tech, for that matter) into fantasy settings won't go away quickly. You will be flying jetpacks and teleporting across the planet, yet D&D players will still cry foul if you try to force firearms down their throats.

If Paizo would announce Gunslingers going core, you'd have a 2k posts long thread on that by now ... and an inevitable mixing in of real-world politics, because the times we live in.

Goblins are much safer :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
MidsouthGuy wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
eddv wrote:

Tengu are very rarely portrayed in that manner.

Goblins are, with the sole exception I know of being the goblin in Second Darkness, pretty universally portrayed as the destructive chaotic stupid nuisances we pretty well know them to be

So if Tengu are "very rarely" portrayed the way they are described in source material (thieving kleptomaniacs), why do you fear that goblins will be universally portrayed as destructive arsonists?
Because the people who want to play goblins want to play them as destructive arsonists garnished with baby eating habits roughly 97% of the time.
You have any ... data to back that up?

It seems likely to me that MissouthGuy is speaking from experience, rather than conjecture. Expect table variation.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Similar to the way they might react to say.....a monstrous race that many still view as Always Evil and Destructively Stupid becoming a core option?

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
eddv wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
eddv wrote:

Tengu are very rarely portrayed in that manner.

Goblins are, with the sole exception I know of being the goblin in Second Darkness, pretty universally portrayed as the destructive chaotic stupid nuisances we pretty well know them to be

So if Tengu are "very rarely" portrayed the way they are described in source material (thieving kleptomaniacs), why do you fear that goblins will be universally portrayed as destructive arsonists?

Because without that what do they bring to the table that gnomes don't?

A healthy fear of horses?

Distrust of writing.

Propensity for singing and practical jokes.

Ball-shaped heads.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MidsouthGuy wrote:
Also, in my experience, playing a goblin only gives disruptive players an excuse to be even more disruptive than usual and then pass it off with the whole just playing my character bit

I only agree here IF you have players who don't listen to their GM, or if the GM isn't great at communicating. These are Goblins who're different from the bestiary entry, and so long as the GM gets that across I don't see why every Goblin should be feared as a maniac played to character.

Not that you couldn't allow PCs to play bestiary Goblins, or indeed ban Goblins from play at all. It is always up to the GM.

Dark Archive

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I also don't like the idea of Goblins being a core race. It is mostly a lore reason for me. Goblins on the whole are evil and commit atrocious acts against other races.
I hear the argument that PCs are always exceptions by virtue of being PCs, but that sounds like a cop out when you're deviating that far from the race's culture. It's tantamount to making a stat block for a race tree people afixed to the ground, but also printing PC rules and giving them a racial trait that let's only the PCs move around.
Now, if something were to happen in the world where there's a tribe of not evil goblins trying to strike out in the world, that'd be something. So far there's not.

From a different standpoint: The description sounds like it steps a lot on the toes of halflings and goblins already. "Mirthful pranksters" is in the wheelhouse of both the smaller races already, and halflings and gnomes already got too little time in the limelight. Especially halflings. At least gnomes got their cool fey ancestry and bleaching lore. Halflings got next to no cool lore.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I had a player play a goblin in a game I ran. It was enjoyable and added some extra fun to the game. 2019 goblins for new core!


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I skipped a few pages, so forgive me if this has already been said.

I Hate the idea of Paizo goblins as a core race, but IMO, that wasn't the red flag of this blog post. The red flag was how boring and underwhelming ancestry feats appear to be.

Burn It: could be cool if the damage boost is significant or scales with level -both of which I doubt.

Junk Tinkerer: so I can make a broken, fragile improvised weapon? why wouldn't I just use a normal improvised weapon that isn't broken or fragile and save the feat slot for something useful.

Razor Teeth: This is probably the best of the 4 listed. a free bite attack sounds pretty cool, right? and might be if it's an extra attack, but more than likely it still counts against my 3 actions, which is less cool. Still, being always armed can be an advantage, so this one doesn't completely suck.

Very Sneaky: so I can use stealth to move 15 feet instead of 10 feet (assuming that you round down, 1/2 of 25 feet base speed is 10 feet), not all that impressive for spending a feat slot on.

If this is any indication of the overall scope and power underpowered level of ancestry feats in general, I fear players will only take them when forced to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think you can take other options for ancestry feats. like they don't replace any other feats you just get them. I think that's right anyways.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Childeric, The Shatterer wrote:

I skipped a few pages, so forgive me if this has already been said.

I Hate the idea of Paizo goblins as a core race, but IMO, that wasn't the red flag of this blog post. The red flag was how boring and underwhelming ancestry feats appear to be.

Burn It: could be cool if the damage boost is significant or scales with level -both of which I doubt.

Junk Tinkerer: so I can make a broken, fragile improvised weapon? why wouldn't I just use a normal improvised weapon that isn't broken or fragile and save the feat slot for something useful.

Razor Teeth: This is probably the best of the 4 listed. a free bite attack sounds pretty cool, right? and might be if it's an extra attack, but more than likely it still counts against my 3 actions, which is less cool. Still, being always armed can be an advantage, so this one doesn't completely suck.

Very Sneaky: so I can use stealth to move 15 feet instead of 10 feet (assuming that you round down, 1/2 of 25 feet base speed is 10 feet), not all that impressive for spending a feat slot on.

If this is any indication of the overall scope and power underpowered level of ancestry feats in general, I fear players will only take them when forced to.

Yeah I tried to get this conversation going too but it didn't take. My understanding is that you will be given feats whose only use is ancestry.

But I share your concerns with this and as I tried commenting earlier I am pretty disappointed that stat adjustments (to include vision, speed and hp) and these fairly underwhelming feats are all ancestry gets in terms of mechanics. I feel as though a PC could have all 4 of those feats at level 1 and be just about in line with what a normal race gets in 1e which is a resounding meh. I really do hope there ends up being more to it.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I know this thread has mostly turned into acrimony at this point but I thought I'd add some of my experiences playing as a goblin PC.

My first character ever in Pathfinder was a goblin my friends' Rise of The Runelords party convinced to join them in adventuring. He was a summoner whose eidolon was the most terrifying thing he could imagine: a flaming pony from his nightmares. That character was intended to be temporary so he eventually escaped into the wilderness having conquered his crippling fear of horses.

My favourite goblin character was for Legacy of Fire. She was a slave who had used her nimble fingers and expertise with explosions to become an assistant at a firearms importer, and was earning her freedom during the first chapter by working as the party's gunslinger. Since she was illiterate she kept a scrapbook diary with trophies from each of the monsters she'd killed.

Both of those campaigns had disruptive players in them. In neither campaign was it the goblin PC. In what is now my go-to example for player bad behaviour, our chaotic-neutral human Sorcerer in RoTR once blew up a shop after getting into an argument with the shopkeeper, then retconned it as "no I don't actually do any of that" after 10 minutes of roleplay.

Long story short: I like Pathfinder goblins and am pleased they'll get some love in 2nd edition. In my experience as both a player and a GM (I've run several short campaigns, including three of the We Be Goblins line, as well as all of the Carrion Crown adventure path) disruptive players will be disruptive no matter what race they choose to play as, and I'm all for goblins making it to Core.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I gotta admit, I am more okay with Goblins as a core race than Gunslingers as a core class, but it is more to do with the implications of those.

A goblin becoming a hero isn't that far fetched. There are probably millions of goblins in Golarion. Someone's really going to look me in the eye and tell me that none of them have turned their back on the murderous ways of their race, or been raised by someone who isn't a goblin and turned out okay?

Guns, on the other hand, have very logical ramifications to existing in a fantasy setting. Given magic having the plausible possibility of completely nullifying any downsides of guns (and the fact that I have seen official artwork of semi-auto guns in PF1), EVERYONE would use guns.

Your level 1 fighter would get laughed out of the tavern for being dumb enough to sling a greatsword over his shoulder and claim to be a serious adventurer.

You would have effectively 4 groups of adventurers:

1) Casters
2) Gunmen
3) Magical Gunmen
4) People who can't afford a gun or have some phobia or strange idiosyncrasy when it comes to guns. (And you are likely considered very strange for not using the most effective weapon available when you job description involves killing monsters.)

Either way, I'd rather have more options that less options.

Just because goblins are a player race, doesn't mean I HAVE to play a goblin, or even that I have to allow one at my home table. (I personally have no qualms with anyone playing any race at my table, assuming it isn't overpowered).

Likewise, with gunslinger, just because it exists, doesn't mean I have to be one or allow one in my game.

For anyone complaining about PFS, your playing with other people in an organized game. Limiting people because YOU don't like something is badwrongfun. If you care that much about what others get to play, GM your own game or find a group that agrees with you.


Asmodeus' Advocate wrote:

It's kind of weird to me, seeing all of the people who are complaining about goblins getting a bonus to charisma instead of a penalty.

I've had a longstanding houserule in pathfinder games I run where goblins take their penalty to WIS instead of CHA. The pyromaniacs with their catchy songs and regrettable tactics have never made sense with the third edition bonuses and penalties, they really aren't the same race as Redcloak and his ilk. I'd say it's impossible to get a single session into Rise of the Runelords without realizing this, but apparently it is, indeed, possible.

Wholeheartedly agree. I was unsure about goblins as a core race, both for the flavor implications (watered down goblins) and my assumption that the stat mods would effectively be the same. Now about half of my concerns are alleviated. An amusing side effect to the charisma bonus is that goblins have a slightly easier time amassing a magical Armada with the resonance system.

Still concerned that this hurts Golarion's base flavor of goblins (would like it if the core goblins were referred to as typically evil) but even if it does I doubt it will hurt my experience. That said, please include a sidebar explaining why playing a goblin does not remove a player from acting responsibly and respecting the game.

451 to 500 of 1,765 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Goblins! All Messageboards