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
851 to 900 of 1,765 << first < prev | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
The ARG can assume that all it wants, if the GM says no, the answer is no.

Ofc, but that doesnt change how they work in the system.

To begin with some here are concerned for games they cant control. Since unless you are the GM, you arent the one listing the changed rules, like in PFS.

Others clearly dont want to have a list of banned things from the very core book of the game. Like golbin clearly will be by many who currently play 1.0.

Ultimately everyone has a view formed by their own reasons, everyone would rather have that view be the one valid. Lets see how it goes once they start to actually take in feedback during the play test, since apparently nothing should be set in stone.


Jason Bulmahn wrote:

3. There is more to the shift in goblins that I can honestly talk about here. Some of it would be a spoiler for things that are still in the planning phases, making them way to premature to talk about. Even if I could, I would not want to ruin the reveals.

Methinks my instincts were right!

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
TheFinish wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Also the Advanced Race Guide posits that Dhampir aren't an actual race, so f#+# that noise.

I mean, no? It says:

"Some particularly zealous scholars even
contest dhampirs’ status as a unique race, instead viewing
them as humans suffering from an unholy affliction.
Indeed, this hypothesis is strengthened by dhampirs’
seeming inability to reproduce, their offspring inevitably
humans (usually sorcerers with the undead bloodline).
Regardless, they live and die just like any other mortal
creatures, despite possessing a supernatural longevity
akin to that of elves."

It never says those scholars are right, only that it's a train of thought they have. It also calls them out as radicals.

I did say posit, and I'm not seeing "radical" in there.


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

There is a ten year gap between PF1 and PF2. That is enough time for a change in attitude. In our own history, there are a number of instances where significant changes in attitudes happened in less time than that.

I have to say, I really like the idea of the tribe of garbage collector goblins working with a city.

Goblins would not have been my first choice of a race to add to core. I am still undecided on if this is a good change or not. As I stated earlier in this thread, Paizo really needs to work on their messaging for this one. Still, in discussing this with a friend I came up with an idea for a Goblin alchemist that could work within a city and I would find interesting to play. It is even a background that I think would fit in PFS with their "Explore, Cooperate, Report" motto -- although the last part would likely get them in trouble with other Goblin tribes.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

"Zealous" scholars? Perhaps another way to say "Radical?"

Second Seekers (Luwazi Elsbo)

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

1. NO decision in this game is final. We have ordered art, its true, but that does not mean that anything is set in stone. We playtest because we want your feedback, we want your ideas, and yes, we want your criticism. Anyone who played through the Alpha and Beta of the first version knows that the comments made significant changes to the game... the fighter got reworked from the ground up, the skill system got replaced. We take playtesting very seriously and we will be incorporating the feedback the surveys and these boards when making our final decisions. This includes feedback on the goblin.

Thank you, this is all I was trying to get an answer for.

PS There has been nastiness on both sides of this argument Jason not just the con side and its a little disappointing that you would frame it that way

I am also really curious why you think this is worth upsetting the applecart so much for.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Edymnion wrote:

Another point of view from this old grognard:

I remember the days of pre-D&D 3e. I remember the days when every single table had so many house rules that you simply COULD NOT take a character you rolled in one game and plop them into another game.

One of the biggest, perhaps THE biggest things D&D 3e changed about the entire tabletop RPG scene as a whole was the idea that "Hey, whats in these core rulebooks is universal. Everybody accepts this stuff by default. If you make a character using this, it will simply work in any D&D 3e game you play in."

People today either never experienced how hard it was to move between games before that, or they have forgotten it.

I experienced that, and I started with 3.5.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:
Lets see how it goes once they start to actually take in feedback during the play test, since apparently nothing should be set in stone.

I honestly don't buy that.

Their timescales are WAY too short. They will tweak things, but large branches of the ruleset are pretty much fixed.

They say "Oh well we commissioned art, but that doesn't mean anything", but there is going to be more to it than that. They are surely planning adventure paths as well, and either those adventure paths don't have goblins in them in any meaningful way (which is incredibly unlikely, as the push is going to be to legitimize the race as a standard), or they are going to have to rush to rewrite their APs as well.

The fact they made a goblin an iconic character tells me they are already married to the idea. The fact they've already commissioned artwork for them tells me they are already married to the idea. The fact that they keep talking about secret other stuff that is so integral to the system as a whole that to merely mention it would cause everything to unravel tells me that they are married to the idea.

Goblins are PC races, and I don't think ANY amount of negative feedback will change that. They appear to already be too well ingrained to simply chop out and still make those print deadlines.

At most they will change the flavor of the goblin based on feedback, but they're not going to take it out entirely at this point.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Edymnion wrote:

Another point of view from this old grognard:

I remember the days of pre-D&D 3e. I remember the days when every single table had so many house rules that you simply COULD NOT take a character you rolled in one game and plop them into another game.

One of the biggest, perhaps THE biggest things D&D 3e changed about the entire tabletop RPG scene as a whole was the idea that "Hey, whats in these core rulebooks is universal. Everybody accepts this stuff by default. If you make a character using this, it will simply work in any D&D 3e game you play in."

People today either never experienced how hard it was to move between games before that, or they have forgotten it.

Standardization was and is a HUGE deal. And what is core in a ruleset is the default standard. It is what the written and unwritten rule says "You can play this at virtually any table, everything in here is legit and pre-approved to be used. Any DM/GM that changes this core material is the one that has to provide a reason and an explanation as to why it isn't being used."

Core is Core, it is the default, it is what everyone expects to be accepted everywhere. If the answer to the concerns of a large portion of the playerbase is "well then just don't use it", we have then destroyed the compatibility between games and gone back to the bad old days of AD&D where you have to build a new character at every table you play at.

And yet, even the CRB and the 3.0/3.5 PHB all said that the GM has veto rights to anything within the books.

What you claim is what the culture of gaming evolved into; it was never an official rule in the books. It was just an assumption the community made.

Hell, Paizo even defines it as "The Most Important Rule" and it's right in the beginning of the first rule book and on the introductory page of the PRD.

And every time I try to argue that 3.X provides Player Protection against bad GMs by provideing rules that allow players to do things, I'm reminding by my fellows of The Most Important Rule.

So while I agree with you that the community and the culture that sprung up around the time of 3rd edition believes what you say, the actual books completely disagree.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Also the Advanced Race Guide posits that Dhampir aren't an actual race, so f#+# that noise.

I mean, no? It says:

"Some particularly zealous scholars even
contest dhampirs’ status as a unique race, instead viewing
them as humans suffering from an unholy affliction.
Indeed, this hypothesis is strengthened by dhampirs’
seeming inability to reproduce, their offspring inevitably
humans (usually sorcerers with the undead bloodline).
Regardless, they live and die just like any other mortal
creatures, despite possessing a supernatural longevity
akin to that of elves."

It never says those scholars are right, only that it's a train of thought they have. It also calls them out as radicals.

I did say posit, and I'm not seeing "radical" in there.

So "particularly zealous" isn't supposed to be radical? Especially given the context of the paragraph and the implication that they're the minority.

Shadow Lodge

13 people marked this as a favorite.
eddv wrote:
PS There has been nastiness on both sides of this argument Jason not just the con side and its a little disappointing that you would frame it that way

I didn't notice Jason discriminate to either side.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Edymnion wrote:

Another point of view from this old grognard:

I remember the days of pre-D&D 3e. I remember the days when every single table had so many house rules that you simply COULD NOT take a character you rolled in one game and plop them into another game.

One of the biggest, perhaps THE biggest things D&D 3e changed about the entire tabletop RPG scene as a whole was the idea that "Hey, whats in these core rulebooks is universal. Everybody accepts this stuff by default. If you make a character using this, it will simply work in any D&D 3e game you play in."

People today either never experienced how hard it was to move between games before that, or they have forgotten it.

I experienced that, and I started with 3.5.

Heck, I experienced this in 2nd edition. When there was campaigns that was combining 1st and 2nd, and others that were using 2nd edition exclusively, and others that had homebrew fixes for things to bring certian things from 1st edition. (Nothing like wanting that Assassin class in 2nd edition)

3.0 was a godsend!!!

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
TheFinish wrote:
Rysky wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Also the Advanced Race Guide posits that Dhampir aren't an actual race, so f#+# that noise.

I mean, no? It says:

"Some particularly zealous scholars even
contest dhampirs’ status as a unique race, instead viewing
them as humans suffering from an unholy affliction.
Indeed, this hypothesis is strengthened by dhampirs’
seeming inability to reproduce, their offspring inevitably
humans (usually sorcerers with the undead bloodline).
Regardless, they live and die just like any other mortal
creatures, despite possessing a supernatural longevity
akin to that of elves."

It never says those scholars are right, only that it's a train of thought they have. It also calls them out as radicals.

I did say posit, and I'm not seeing "radical" in there.
So "particularly zealous" isn't supposed to be radical? Especially given the context of the paragraph and the implication that they're the minority.

Minority yes, but zealous and radical are antonyms I would say.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Edymnion wrote:

Or, to put this all another way:

If we want to say Pathfinder goblins are iconic, yet to make them a playable core race we literally have to get rid of EVERYTHING that makes them iconic, then whats the point?

At this point you've got two separate races in everything but name. Either they are the goblins we have now, or they aren't. And if they aren't the iconic goblins we have now (who are intentionally made to be as unfit for PCs as humanly possible), why are we pretending they are?

Except, we don’t.

Someone posted the list of “10 fun facts about goblins” back on page 9. Virtually everything on that list is completely compatible with goblins being a Core ancestry. Core goblins can still hate dogs and fear horses, they can still love trash and fire, and they can still be easily distracted and make crazy choices.

The idea that goblins are primarily and/or solely violent psychopaths who eat babies, or that removing that element from goblins makes them somehow not-goblins is simply wrong. There’s so so much more to goblins than that.


A little something for gobos and nobos.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Paladinosaur wrote:
So I'm guessing either Return of the Runelords or next AP will change the goblin status quo.

So what you're saying is, there's a chance that the reason goblins are accepted is because "A Runelord Did It."


Rysky wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
Rysky wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Also the Advanced Race Guide posits that Dhampir aren't an actual race, so f#+# that noise.

I mean, no? It says:

"Some particularly zealous scholars even
contest dhampirs’ status as a unique race, instead viewing
them as humans suffering from an unholy affliction.
Indeed, this hypothesis is strengthened by dhampirs’
seeming inability to reproduce, their offspring inevitably
humans (usually sorcerers with the undead bloodline).
Regardless, they live and die just like any other mortal
creatures, despite possessing a supernatural longevity
akin to that of elves."

It never says those scholars are right, only that it's a train of thought they have. It also calls them out as radicals.

I did say posit, and I'm not seeing "radical" in there.
So "particularly zealous" isn't supposed to be radical? Especially given the context of the paragraph and the implication that they're the minority.
Minority yes, but zealous and radical are antonyms I would say.

How do you even arrive at that conclusion? Zealous = with zeal = fervor for a person, cause, or object. Zealot is also a synonym of fanatic. And what else is also a synonym of fanatic but: Radical.

Not anotnyms, by any stretch of the imagination.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kringress wrote:

My problem is that you have the goblins better than all the other core races. You are giving them a 12 point buy instead of a 10 point buy. I don't understand how the writers can even justify this. Look at the advanced races guide +4 DX, -2 ST, and -2 CH. This is another example of the Aasimars and Tieflings an overpowered race that if you had the book you would take the race.

As I put it in another post why would I play any other race but goblin with this advantage? Please give me a reason to play a Dwarf instead of a goblin. Background? please like that matters. Steady movement? Minor. The only other race that make sense to play is the Elf because of spell penetration.

have we seen the stays for the other races yet?

I have not seen any but the goblin so far and only a few ancestry feats oso far.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Edymnion wrote:

Or, to put this all another way:

If we want to say Pathfinder goblins are iconic, yet to make them a playable core race we literally have to get rid of EVERYTHING that makes them iconic, then whats the point?

At this point you've got two separate races in everything but name. Either they are the goblins we have now, or they aren't. And if they aren't the iconic goblins we have now (who are intentionally made to be as unfit for PCs as humanly possible), why are we pretending they are?

Yep. Another aspect of the problem I mentioned earlier. The main things that make goblins popular as PCs is the same things that make them unsuitable as a core race.

And again, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the popularity of goblins falling if the race is described as not consisting of 99.999% crazy baby-eating homicidal pyromaniacs. I mean, if that stops being the case, I believe a lot of people who currently finds the goblin a really attractive option would simply lose interest. I mean, a big reason for playing a goblin is because of how extremely unlikely it is as an adventuring hero, and because of how many and radically different RP challenges a goblin PC presents because of the race's "default" behavior.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
Edymnion wrote:

Or, to put this all another way:

If we want to say Pathfinder goblins are iconic, yet to make them a playable core race we literally have to get rid of EVERYTHING that makes them iconic, then whats the point?

At this point you've got two separate races in everything but name. Either they are the goblins we have now, or they aren't. And if they aren't the iconic goblins we have now (who are intentionally made to be as unfit for PCs as humanly possible), why are we pretending they are?

Except, we don’t.

Someone posted the list of “10 fun facts about goblins” back on page 9. Virtually everything on that list is completely compatible with goblins being a Core ancestry. Core goblins can still hate dogs and fear horses, they can still love trash and fire, and they can still be easily distracted and make crazy choices.

The idea that goblins are primarily and/or solely violent psychopaths who eat babies, or that removing that element from goblins makes them somehow not-goblins is simply wrong. There’s so so much more to goblins than that.

Cavilers are out then and probably racial locked. No Dog/wolf companions then either for the goblin or group. The Writing thing can be particalry bothersome depending on the group but most of of all

Quote:
[6]: They're A Little Crazy: The fact that goblins think of things like ovens as good hiding places reveals much about their inability to think plans through to the most likely outcome. That, and they tend to be easily distracted, particularly by shiny things and animals smaller than them that might make good eating.

I don't want "MY character is crazy, it's in his race to cause problems" to be a valid excuse. Combined with Fire and well you have a possible ticking time bomb for the party to deal with.

This however will depend on the player in question.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
BryonD wrote:
OK, so you are personally guaranteeing that Paizo will ignore Goblins as NPC fodder in a post core-goblin-PF2 publishing world?
There have been plenty of elements of NPCs published by Paizo I have disliked or didn't fit my group as a GM. Guess what happened, I changed them!

(A) You seem to be confirming that you think this will happen then, correct?

(B) What core elements of PF1 do you think that a significant fraction of the existing fanbase are expected to frequently ignore?

(C) How many people do you think will choose to just play a game that doesn't require them to ignore "core" elements?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
TheFinish wrote:
Rysky wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
Rysky wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Also the Advanced Race Guide posits that Dhampir aren't an actual race, so f#+# that noise.

I mean, no? It says:

"Some particularly zealous scholars even
contest dhampirs’ status as a unique race, instead viewing
them as humans suffering from an unholy affliction.
Indeed, this hypothesis is strengthened by dhampirs’
seeming inability to reproduce, their offspring inevitably
humans (usually sorcerers with the undead bloodline).
Regardless, they live and die just like any other mortal
creatures, despite possessing a supernatural longevity
akin to that of elves."

It never says those scholars are right, only that it's a train of thought they have. It also calls them out as radicals.

I did say posit, and I'm not seeing "radical" in there.
So "particularly zealous" isn't supposed to be radical? Especially given the context of the paragraph and the implication that they're the minority.
Minority yes, but zealous and radical are antonyms I would say.

How do you even arrive at that conclusion? Zealous = with zeal = fervor for a person, cause, or object. Zealot is also a synonym of fanatic. And what else is also a synonym of fanatic but: Radical.

Not anotnyms, by any stretch of the imagination.

?

Zealous = utterly devoted

Radical = advocating for a complete and extreme change

So while you could have a Zealous Radical, Zealous by itself does not mean Radical.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

So suppose Goblins got their act together and proposed the following to a city-

- We will provide bins and you put junk in it you don't want.
- At night once a week, we will carry away junk and leave bin.
- We promise we will not hurt anybody, burn anything, or otherwise make a problem because that hurts our continued access to precious junk.

How many Golarion cities say "no" assuming the goblins make a reasonable case that they are not up to anything?

This is more or less how goblins integrated into Discworld :-)


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, I wish they would have gone with another race other than Goblin. Goblins are not welcome in most civilized settlements so that severely limits a PC's options.

Grand Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Edymnion wrote:

You have deadlines already set for when the game will go to print. You are already commissioning art. 2e will launch, I don't think there is ANY feedback we can give that can stop that at this point.

He is speaking of print deadlines for the playtest products. Not the 2E hardcover releases. There is no way the 2E print runs are being locked in over a year from release.


Wild Spirit wrote:
Edymnion wrote:
*long post crying crocodile tears*
Just because you don't like something doesn't mean the rest of the world things that way. You know what, let them put it to a vote! I can tell you for sure that my whole group would vote for goblin inclusion simply because "HERE BE GOBLINS, MATE".

The point he seemed to be making is that no amount of complaining, vaild or otherwise, will seem to effect much given the work and money put in and how close the release seems to be.

The math might change, but we're stuck with goblins. That is if the GM says so.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Sara Marie wrote:
I'm going to be reviewing the flags in this thread, probably for most of today.

Ugh. Sorry, Sara. :(


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Just gonna say, not a fan of this. I'm a guy who like to play the "villain" races too. Set them up as heroes and the like, or at least even handed NPCs. But not as core options. Because I'm also the guy running the game. Giving an unlimited license for players to play the most destructive race to story is just asking for problems. And while evolving a setting can be a good thing, forcing an evolution to make an option viable becomes messy. Forgotten Relms had that problem too.


Rysky wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
Rysky wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
Rysky wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Also the Advanced Race Guide posits that Dhampir aren't an actual race, so f#+# that noise.

I mean, no? It says:

"Some particularly zealous scholars even
contest dhampirs’ status as a unique race, instead viewing
them as humans suffering from an unholy affliction.
Indeed, this hypothesis is strengthened by dhampirs’
seeming inability to reproduce, their offspring inevitably
humans (usually sorcerers with the undead bloodline).
Regardless, they live and die just like any other mortal
creatures, despite possessing a supernatural longevity
akin to that of elves."

It never says those scholars are right, only that it's a train of thought they have. It also calls them out as radicals.

I did say posit, and I'm not seeing "radical" in there.
So "particularly zealous" isn't supposed to be radical? Especially given the context of the paragraph and the implication that they're the minority.
Minority yes, but zealous and radical are antonyms I would say.

How do you even arrive at that conclusion? Zealous = with zeal = fervor for a person, cause, or object. Zealot is also a synonym of fanatic. And what else is also a synonym of fanatic but: Radical.

Not anotnyms, by any stretch of the imagination.

?

Zealous = utterly devoted

Radical = advocating for a complete and extreme change

So while you could have a Zealous Radical, Zealous by itself does not mean Radical.

By the same token, neither does zealous preclude the implication of radicalism.

And given how the text is strcutured, with the "even contest dhampir's status as a unique race", it's a safe assumption to make that the ARG is painting this people as extremists presenting a radical view, ie a view that is in opposition to the commonly held belief of the setting (that being, Dhampirs are a distinct race, and hold such status).

Though really, I don't see this as relevant to the Goblin discussion. Particularly in the sense you used it in the beginning, as a sort of way to ignore the ARG as a source. The ARG is absolutely relevant as a source when discussing races.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Edymnion wrote:

You have deadlines already set for when the game will go to print. You are already commissioning art. 2e will launch, I don't think there is ANY feedback we can give that can stop that at this point.

He is speaking of print deadlines for the playtest products. Not the 2E hardcover releases. There is no way the 2E print runs are being locked in over a year from release.

They've said playtest is summer 2018 and 2e launch is 2019.

That is not enough time to rework any major system and go through playtesting again. Exact wording can change, small details can change, but there is not enough time to make any major changes/additions/deletions.

The core system is locked and loaded.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Edymnion wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Edymnion wrote:

You have deadlines already set for when the game will go to print. You are already commissioning art. 2e will launch, I don't think there is ANY feedback we can give that can stop that at this point.

He is speaking of print deadlines for the playtest products. Not the 2E hardcover releases. There is no way the 2E print runs are being locked in over a year from release.

They've said playtest is summer 2018 and 2e launch is 2019.

That is not enough time to rework any major system and go through playtesting again. Exact wording can change, small details can change, but there is not enough time to make any major changes/additions/deletions.

The core system is locked and loaded.

Some of us have already been through this with P1e. I can assure you, things changed from Alpha to Beta to final ruleset, with a similar window of time. The final rules weren't just Beta in hardback.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Edymnion wrote:
The core system is locked and loaded.

One would hope after two years of internal playtesting, major changes would not be needed. Even then, I do not agree with your assessment that it can't happen. It would be a very bad thing to do, but if they change is important enough I do not doubt Paizo would do it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Joana wrote:
Some of us have already been through this with P1e. I can assure you, things changed from Alpha to Beta to final ruleset, with a similar window of time. The final rules weren't just Beta in hardback.

I'm not saying things won't or can't change.

I'm saying there will be no MEANINGFUL, SYSTEM ALTERING changes at this point.

Like I said, they reworked the Fighter for 1e, but they didn't remove the fighter, and they didn't change how melee combat worked. They changed the skills, but they didn't change how skills worked. They aren't going to ditch their 3 part action economy at this point, I don't think they're going to rewrite spellcasting from the ground up at this point.

The house is already built. The furniture is already ordered. The only thing playtesting feedback will do is change what color the house gets painted and what fabric the sofa is upholstered with.


eddv wrote:

Yup "Core Player Race" is really like 80% of the issue here.

Were it not for this aspect, I dont think this would be 1/10th as controversial

Because that is the basic starfinder build. Look at in these terms an additional 2 points on build you may as well have a 25 point character instead of a 20 point character


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Seems to me that taking away Goblins murderous attitudes waters them down to point that there largely no different from Halflings or Gnomes when it comes to their wackiness.

Why take that away? Let them stay psychotic pyromaniacs. It might not work for some tables, but I think you still have them in Core while still retaining most of their original flavor without pulling a "Well, some tribes are Good or friendly" retcon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MerlinCross wrote:
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
Edymnion wrote:

Or, to put this all another way:

If we want to say Pathfinder goblins are iconic, yet to make them a playable core race we literally have to get rid of EVERYTHING that makes them iconic, then whats the point?

At this point you've got two separate races in everything but name. Either they are the goblins we have now, or they aren't. And if they aren't the iconic goblins we have now (who are intentionally made to be as unfit for PCs as humanly possible), why are we pretending they are?

Except, we don’t.

Someone posted the list of “10 fun facts about goblins” back on page 9. Virtually everything on that list is completely compatible with goblins being a Core ancestry. Core goblins can still hate dogs and fear horses, they can still love trash and fire, and they can still be easily distracted and make crazy choices.

The idea that goblins are primarily and/or solely violent psychopaths who eat babies, or that removing that element from goblins makes them somehow not-goblins is simply wrong. There’s so so much more to goblins than that.

Cavilers are out then and probably racial locked. No Dog/wolf companions then either for the goblin or group. The Writing thing can be particalry bothersome depending on the group but most of of all

Quote:
[6]: They're A Little Crazy: The fact that goblins think of things like ovens as good hiding places reveals much about their inability to think plans through to the most likely outcome. That, and they tend to be easily distracted, particularly by shiny things and animals smaller than them that might make good eating.

I don't want "MY character is crazy, it's in his race to cause problems" to be a valid excuse. Combined with Fire and well you have a possible ticking time bomb for the party to deal with.

This however will depend on the player in question.

Goblins specifically actually like wolves. Wolves are *not* dogs, taxonomy to the contrary being longshanks lies! Plus there's goblin dogs. We already have examples of how to deal with goblin illiteracy in relation to class features--an alchemist's formula book as a 'scratch-and-sniff' for example.

As for being inherently a bit crazy, do you have the same concern for gnomes' driving need to be random and spontaneous or get bored to death, which was specifically called out in flavor text in the 3.5 era Inner Sea Guide as possibly manifesting in a fascination with, say, the sound of a neck snapping? And in my experience, PCs don't need a pyrophilic racial trait to suggest just burning a dungeon down...


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Oy! I wanted to read this whole thread before posting to make sure what I'm about to say wasn't covered already, but it seems to growing exponentially as I do, so fingers crossed I'm not re-treading.

I have a thought about a story reason for there goblins changing enough to be considered a core ancestry: what if that's happening right now? What if that's BEEN happening over the last 10 years or so?

Think about it, how many posts in this thread have talked about either playing goblin PCs or GMing parties with goblins in them? My favorite character I've played so far is Pointy K'nife, CG goblin rogue in ROTRL. He lived in the Rusty Dragon because Amikeo noticed that anytime she was stolen from, the money/goods soon found there way back to her because Pointy would steal it back. Not only did I have such a blast playing him, he was *easily* the most popular character among the other people in the group.

There's also been mention of goblin PCs is PFS via boons. That seems like a pretty big deal and would cause a lot of "civilized" people to take notice. I don't play in PFS myself, but it's my understanding that the adventures there have a tendency to shape canon in some aspect?

So with most if not all of the PF1 APs soon to be assumed to have "happened" when we see the PF2 version of Golarion, who's to say that some of those brave heroes who saved the world weren't goblins? Paizo has said they keep the specifics of those heroes vague on purpose so groups can "take credit," so I sincerely doubt there will be anything remotely close to text that reads "and none of them were goblins."

Re: goblins being "common" enough to be core
Honestly, I'd say there's argument for them being more widespread than humans. There's a well spoken goblin merchant on the plane of Axis in the "Death's Heretic" novel. They're in Tian Xa. We know they survive long enough to make it into space.They are literally almost everywhere, it's insane.

Re: goblins, drow, and other "always chaotic evil" species
I'm relatively new to this hobby. Pathfinder is my first real system and I didn't start playing until 2010. My first campaign involved my then-girlfriend borrowing heavily from Second Darkness to supplement her own campaign. This is how I learned the concept of drow even existed.

Years later, I've caught the GM bug, and I'm reading thru SD to get an idea on how adventures are constructed. As such, I read the article on the PF version of drow. TO THIS DAY, I remember the sidebar titled "Are There Any Good Drow?" and that the VERY FIRST WORD is "No."

I remember this because of just how much it made me uncomfortable. And this was before I learned about all the social baggage associated with the "dark elves."

As the years go on, I join these message boards and mostly lurk, and the subject I saw almost has much as "fighters suck/Paizo hates martials" is that a VERY large portion of Paizo's fanbase wants the "always chaotic evil" trope to DIE.

Actual* thread title: "Lanturn Bearers: The Good Kind Of Genocide".
[*Or at least pretty darn close.]

And Paizo seems to have listened, possibly even realizing that maybe their fans have a point about of "imaginary racism is still racism." In the Advance Race Guide, it makes a point to stating that drow are NOT inherently evil. In the Adventurer's Guide, they detail that the Lantern Bearers organization is now determined to PROVE there can be good drow, specifically as a result of the events of Second Darkness.

Maybe the whole "baby goblins being taken to an orphanage" started as a joke, but in one of the Player Companion books shows the iconic samurai surrounded with crying goblin babies. Such an orphanage run by followers of Sarenrae is such a no-brainer I'm surprised it's not canon already.

I love how goblins were depicted in "Burnt Offerings" too, but the point I'm getting to here is that Paizo has been moving away from the "always chaotic evil" trope for a while now. Could they advertise it better? Maybe, since many here don't seem aware of it (please don't take that as an insult, it's just what I'm inferring, I know I could be wrong).

At the end of the day, you don't have to like it, but it's happening either way.

Personally, I'm super pumped for it, even if I'm a little sad now that my precious Pointy seems slightly less special.

(I also have my fingers crossed for orcs becoming core. It's never made sense to be that we get both elves and half-elves, but only half-orcs as "core" options.)

Paizo Employee Customer Service Representative

13 people marked this as a favorite.

Some posts and replies to those posts have been removed. There is a lot of lively and passionate discussion happening here, and we’d like to remind everyone to adhere to the community guidelines to keep the Paizo community a constructive place for opinions and play. Please remember that arguments can always be made without resorting to personal attacks on the people with whom we disagree with. This applies to both our community members and the Paizo team. The substitution of characters to bypass the profanity filter is not acceptable, and please refrain from using this language entirely. The use of character descriptions such as "Lazy" is always an attack on the person, and such language should be avoided to keep our discussions welcoming, on topic and friendly.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BretI wrote:

There is a ten year gap between PF1 and PF2. That is enough time for a change in attitude. In our own history, there are a number of instances where significant changes in attitudes happened in less time than that.

I have to say, I really like the idea of the tribe of garbage collector goblins working with a city.

Goblins would not have been my first choice of a race to add to core. I am still undecided on if this is a good change or not. As I stated earlier in this thread, Paizo really needs to work on their messaging for this one. Still, in discussing this with a friend I came up with an idea for a Goblin alchemist that could work within a city and I would find interesting to play. It is even a background that I think would fit in PFS with their "Explore, Cooperate, Report" motto -- although the last part would likely get them in trouble with other Goblin tribes.

Sure, I don't disagree with you, if somewhere in that 10 years there was some AP or module that detailed such a change. As far as I can tell, there hasn't been anything published that indicates such a change happened.

Therefore, I think that saying, "10 years has happened, changes could have happened in that time," without supporting material, is kinda like saying, "its been 10 years, gnomes could have permanently gone back to the First World and are no longer part of the Core World of Golarion."

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Edymnion wrote:
Joana wrote:
Some of us have already been through this with P1e. I can assure you, things changed from Alpha to Beta to final ruleset, with a similar window of time. The final rules weren't just Beta in hardback.

I'm not saying things won't or can't change.

I'm saying there will be no MEANINGFUL, SYSTEM ALTERING changes at this point.

Which category does goblins as a core race fall under?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Revan wrote:

Goblins specifically actually like wolves. Wolves are *not* dogs, taxonomy to the contrary being longshanks lies! Plus there's goblin dogs. We already have examples of how to deal with goblin illiteracy in relation to class features--an alchemist's formula book as a 'scratch-and-sniff' for example.

As for being inherently a bit crazy, do you have the same concern for gnomes' driving need to be random and spontaneous or get bored to death, which was specifically called out in flavor text in the 3.5 era Inner Sea Guide as possibly manifesting in a fascination with, say, the sound of a neck snapping? And in my experience, PCs don't need a pyrophilic racial trait to suggest just burning a dungeon down...

To a new player/GM, the wolf differance is not something clear cut. And Goblin Dogs I thought was a form of Giant rat. And good for the Goblin Alchemist. Now he has to save the old longshank's soul due to his own writey book monster. He'll be so glad.

I wasn't around for the whole Gnome thing but there seems to be no end of dislike for them either. So that trend is continuing.

PCs don't need the trait no. But I can see "Goblins like fire, I was just playing my race!" as an actual valid in RP, in universe excuse for the Goblin that got board and started messing around with the Inn's kitchen in the middle of the night. Because Crazy and Wacky.

This will probably have no effect on the Vets as they'll ban Goblins as a race or have enough sense to play right or around each other. New players on the other hand? Espically with disruptive players that seem to hang around game shops and PFS?

I just can't put that much trust in after seeing the results first hand at times and hearing stories about it at others.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Sam Phelan wrote:
Some posts and replies to those posts have been removed. There is a lot of lively and passionate discussion happening here, and we’d like to remind everyone to adhere to the community guidelines to keep the Paizo community a constructive place for opinions and play. Please remember that arguments can always be made without resorting to personal attacks on the people with whom we disagree with. This applies to both our community members and the Paizo team. The substitution of characters to bypass the profanity filter is not acceptable, and please refrain from using this language entirely. The use of character descriptions such as "Lazy" is always an attack on the person, and such language should be avoided to keep our discussions welcoming, on topic and friendly.

Hello new person!

*offers hugs*


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Edymnion wrote:
Joana wrote:
Some of us have already been through this with P1e. I can assure you, things changed from Alpha to Beta to final ruleset, with a similar window of time. The final rules weren't just Beta in hardback.

I'm not saying things won't or can't change.

I'm saying there will be no MEANINGFUL, SYSTEM ALTERING changes at this point.

Which category does goblins as a core race fall under?

Considering they are on record as saying:

1) The alchemist iconic hero is a goblin

2) They have commissioned artwork for said iconic goblin

3) That there is "more to goblins" that they can't reveal right now "because it would give away too many other things"

The Goblin is a core race. I honestly do not believe ANY amount of negative feedback at this point will change that. The only thing the playtest feedback will likely change is the HOW of goblins becoming a PC race happens.

As in, they could have sketched out "All the goblins had a sudden change of heart because people started petting them!", people say thats stupid, and pitch "Maybe a good hearted goblin passed the Challenge of the Starstone and became a god, and that influence is why the race changed!". Piazo might go "Hey, thats a much better idea, we'll use that!".

The net effect is Goblins are a PC race and nothing will change that at this point. Only fluff and minor mechanics will be open to change, but the big ideas are likely set in stone at this point.


Sara Marie wrote:
I'm going to be reviewing the flags in this thread, probably for most of today.

So I made a joke that someone was personally insulting me because they were talking about lynching things and my surname is lynch. It looks like my post where I jokingly posted I was upset and the post that inspired my joke have both been deleted. Sorry for the silly joke (dunno if anyone got it before it was deleted).

Shadow Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Wild Spirit wrote:
I take it this forum doesn't give people bans, huh.

Speaking from experience, yes they do.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Edymnion wrote:
The net effect is Goblins are a PC race and nothing will change that at this point. Only fluff and minor mechanics will be open to change, but the big ideas are likely set in stone at this point.

I highly doubt that. Art can be very easily repurposed in most cases.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Edymnion wrote:
The house is already built. The furniture is already ordered. The only thing playtesting feedback will do is change what color the house gets painted and what fabric the sofa is upholstered with.

There will be an entire team of developers, working 40+ hours a week, who will be spending most of their time developing the game after the playtest document has been released. For 6-8 months.

What do we think they'll be doing all this time? Reclining in lawn chairs and sipping Mai Tais?

Paizo is not a big company, and they're investing an enormous amount of resources and man-hours to this. This is not an allocation of resources they can afford to waste by twiddling their thumbs and correcting typos.

851 to 900 of 1,765 << first < prev | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Goblins! All Messageboards