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
901 to 950 of 1,765 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Edymnion wrote:
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.

Hmm... not sure how you figure that written flavor text would even be considered for change in the play test, but that the race being core would not. Erik Mona has already stated that the PF2 Bestiary is likely to be out at a similar time as the Core Rulebook, so art could be included in that book.

Additionally, Jason has just said that art orders and work already done will not negate any chance of a change happening. I know you said you didn't believe it. I'm not sure what you are trying to imply with that, but I'm going to assume you are just speaking metaphorically with foresite and not indicating that the statement was disingenuous.

But in my opinion, its far more likely for them to change significant mechanics than it is for them to change flavor text during the playtest. Especially since we may not actually find out this flavor reason for the Goblin "change-of-heart" until August of 2019, and then it will really be too late. We honestly have no idea when, or if we will find out before that date. And especially if that flavor text affects other products that also have a deadline to go to print (that a different designer/developer is working on.)

So I'm not sure you are as plugged into how things work as you think you are. I'm not sure I'm completely plugged in either, but then I'm pretty sure I'm right on this one.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society 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.

Replacing goblins might be incredibly difficult, but probably not impossible.

1. We have a PF1 alchemist iconic to fall back to, if necessary.
2. New artwork can be commissioned.
3. What happens in APs is going to happen anyway. It doesn't really affect PF2 if it goes ahead.


I have nothing against saying a monstrous race can be played as a good aligned PC. I would be totally against if there's a rule saying they couldn't be played as good or as evil, that's for sure. Even aasimars can be played as demon worshippers...

I just hope that we are getting a book updating all 1E races into this new set of rules.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MerlinCross wrote:
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.

Goblin Dogs are indeed rodentine. But they are riding animals, is the point, so there's definitely options for mounted goblins.

And again, the player who makes that excuse would find a way to be disruptive whatever race they played, and would have a very similar excuse with an existing core race.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Revan wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
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.

Goblin Dogs are indeed rodentine. But they are riding animals, is the point, so there's definitely options for mounted goblins.

And again, the player who makes that excuse would find a way to be disruptive whatever race they played,...

So we need to give them another excuse?

Again I'm not fully against the idea of Goblins being PCs. Core, and thus useable at launch when they are trying to get new players? I can see it being a possible problem. How wide spread remains to be seen.

Also Goblin would totally eat the Calvier's horse or something and be withing their right to do so. Actually do they even eat horses or is that hate so much they won't touch the meat?

Grand Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Edymnion wrote:
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.

What if they predicted people may not like these changes, and for every big changes, they already have alternate ones ready to swap and adjust?

I'd be more inclined to believe them than you. Sorry.

Dark Archive

Edymnion wrote:
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.

This is not necessarily true. They will make use of it in the playtest and there's nothing that can be done to change that. But they've already provided at least one example that they are willing to really reconsider things based on the feedback. They couldn't very well remove the Fighter completely but they rewrote it from scratch based on the feedback they got.

However, this thread now has nearing 1000 posts going back and forth on this. Which means it is by no means a universally disliked option. So, yes, if it is shown that a solid majority of people are against the Goblin race as a core race and those people can provide solid ground for this, I believe they will change their mind. But if this forum is showing much, it's not a good, clear majority one way or the other. And that is likely to make it hard to sway them.

Myself, personally, I am not bothered one way or the other. If it is in, I am fine with that. I've known plenty of players to play Goblin characters and not a single one of them has been annoying as the rogues that use their class as an excuse to try and shaft their own party members at every opportunity. Stealing from them as they sleep, taking a cut of treasures before others can see what is there, etc..

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
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).

Any post that quotes a deleted post gets deleted automatically. It's just the way the boards work.

So it's unlikely they objected to your joke, they probably just objected to some other part of the conversation, possibly the reference to lynching, but maybe something else entirely.

Shadow Lodge

Okay, looking at this, I like how they're going with ancestries, stat modifiers, and potentially a bunch of biological/cultural options to have, making the old "Alternate Traits" in Core.
Though I'm still one of the ones who'd prefer kobolds becoming a core option, and I also want to know what's going to happen to Damiel, I am fine with a culturally CE species moving away from that. Yes, they're backing up from their initial portrayal, and it is necessary to avoid situations like that April Fool's thing, but shouldn't it be seen as a sort of progress? I didn't know so many people here were from Isger, with their, "In my day, goblins were always CE forever, and that's the way we likes it!"
Maybe my Return PC should be a kobold wizard who's out to teach goblins the Power of Literacy.

Customer Service Representative

24 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed a post. You can discuss an issue and disagree with someone without making personal attacks. Likewise, you can be critical of Paizo without leveling accusations of malicious intent at employees. Our staff works very hard, and often very long hours trying to make the game as fun as possible. If you are coming to a point in the thread where you are writing posts that attack it may be worth stepping away for a little while to catch your breath, and collect your thoughts in a less aggressive way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

After sleeping on the subject of Goblins being a core race, I'm starting to become more and more warm to the idea of their inclusion in the perspective of Golarion; a lot of their ancestry feats are likely going to be equivalent to racial feats that they had in P1e, so if you could build around it in P1e it should just be more of the same in P2e, and at least in Golarion I'm warming up to it on the grounds that, in the Inner Sea, Goblins are so commonplace geographically that you're bound to run into them eventually wherever you are on the continent.

Again, I'm hoping that outward perspective of them as a core race is justified in Return of the Runelords, but I'm also now hoping that the inclusion of Goblins as a PC race means that races like Orcs and Kobolds and maybe Drow but I'm not getting my hopes up with them will be getting similar elevation beyond "always chaotic evil" and can be seen as more justifiable for PCs now, instead of using this perspective as justification to keep Goblins out of core.

I know I won't have any issues with Goblins as a core race in my games (Hell, it actually gives me a reason to flesh them out more now instead of treating them as just a Halfling equivalent to Hobgoblins), but I know it might have a negative affect on other GMs' home games. If that's the case, and you can't really find a way to work around Goblins being a core option, like at all, then I do encourage just not making them available to PCs, much like how some GMs restrict access to the Paladin class (at least in my experience).

Grand Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Darius Alazario wrote:
Edymnion wrote:
[...]

This is not necessarily true. They will make use of it in the playtest and there's nothing that can be done to change that. But they've already provided at least one example that they are willing to really reconsider things based on the feedback. They couldn't very well remove the Fighter completely but they rewrote it from scratch based on the feedback they got.

However, this thread now has nearing 1000 posts going back and forth on this. Which means it is by no means a universally disliked option. So, yes, if it is shown that a solid majority of people are against the Goblin race as a core race and those people can provide solid ground for this, I believe they will change their mind. But if this forum is showing much, it's not a good, clear majority one way or the other. And that is likely to make it hard to sway them.

Myself, personally, I am not bothered one way or the other. If it is in, I am fine with that. I've known plenty of players to play Goblin characters and not a single one of them has been annoying as the rogues that use their class as an excuse to try and shaft their own party members at every opportunity. Stealing from them as they sleep, taking a cut of treasures before others can see what is there, etc..

I agree with you.

I've had a player make an half-drow rogue... THE reason the character (uh, I guess more like the player) got disruptive is when she tried to stop ALL the other heroes from saving the world because she wanted to marry an NPC and have children and she didn't care about saving the world so the others should stay with her. The problem wasn't that she was half-drow, it was because of the player.
I really wanted to play a Goblin for a while, and never I wanted to play it to piss off other people.
And really, the Goblin player in the podcast is a good example of what they envisions for PC gobs.
A "Goblin Pool" to try to predict what will make the push will be would be cool. Personally, I figure that a big "World end" event will almost happen within one of the two last APs and some(all?) goblins will defend Golarion with the other races, to protect their own. I mean, already in the RotR AP, there's one goblin druid ready to promise a truce for the greater good of his tribe, also, he was against the attacks VS the towns, because he knew the Longshanks would retaliate. More like him could happen if the situation was dread enough.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

An interesting tidbit:

Another GM in my gaming group has been looking forward to Pathfinder 2.0 since he wants more balanced and streamlined rules. However, once I told him that goblins were going to be a core race his immediate reaction was essentially this: "Darn it, now it will be much harder to keep our problem player from playing a goblin and making our games into jokes. I guess we won't be doing Pathfinder 2.0."

The sad thing is I kind of found myself agreeing with him. This 'problem player' is a friend, but we have to work hard to keep him from derailing our games. If he gets his hands on a goblin character it is going to be terrible. I guess I now have a better understanding of why so many people here are dead-set against core rulebook goblins. It is basically the Chaotic Neutral alignment all over again.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:
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.

Doesn't PFS have rules for not being a jerk? Again, it seems like people are afraid of disruptive players. If disruptive players are a problem in PFS that's something to take up with those running the games, not by taking things out of the core rule books for everyone else, including all the people who don't play PFS.

Nox Aeterna wrote:
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.

But the game can't cater to every idiosyncrasy in every home game either. Opting for more choices seems to be superiour to limiting choices.


Pappy wrote:
At first it will be those of us familiar with the brand is what I'm saying.

They are releasing the playtest at GenCon, where thousands of people who are not currently playing will be given a chance to try it. So, no, I don't agree that "those of us familiar with the brand" are going to have any kind of unique access.


CrystalSeas wrote:
Pappy wrote:
At first it will be those of us familiar with the brand is what I'm saying.
They are releasing the playtest at GenCon, where thousands of people who are not currently playing will be given a chance to try it. So, no, I don't agree that "those of us familiar with the brand" are going to have any kind of unique access.

As I mentioned in my earlier reply, I hope that you are right and the new edition is wildly successful in drawing in new players. I see this as initially unlikely, but will be glad to be proven incorrect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:

I'm seriously underwhelmed by this decision. Being a product identity is the ONLY reason goblins are going to be a core race - and that is not a good reason - very WOTC Dragonborn, if you ask me.

It also relegates the other monstrous races to a lower status as far as the rules are concerned that legitimately would be more realistically integrating into regular society (kobolds - because lawful, trolls - because Kaer Maga, etc).

... outside of The City of Strangers (and Irrisen) where do trolls integrate into society?

Where do goblins?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Matrix Dragon wrote:


The sad thing is I kind of found myself agreeing with him. This 'problem player' is a friend, but we have to work hard to keep him from derailing our games. If he gets his hands on a goblin character it is going to be terrible. I guess I now have a better understanding of why so many people here are dead-set against core rulebook goblins. It is basically the Chaotic Neutral alignment all over again.

Sounds like you need to have an out of game discussion with said player, or don't play with him.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Matrix Dragon wrote:

An interesting tidbit:

Another GM in my gaming group has been looking forward to Pathfinder 2.0 since he wants more balanced and streamlined rules. However, once I told him that goblins were going to be a core race his immediate reaction was essentially this: "Darn it, now it will be much harder to keep our problem player from playing a goblin and making our games into jokes. I guess we won't be doing Pathfinder 2.0."

How is it 'much harder?' Just use a two-letter word: No.

I'll also point out that you used the terms "goblin" and "player" in your post...and you pasted the adjective "problem" in front of player. That is telling.

Second Seekers (Roheas)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matrix Dragon wrote:

An interesting tidbit:

Another GM in my gaming group has been looking forward to Pathfinder 2.0 since he wants more balanced and streamlined rules. However, once I told him that goblins were going to be a core race his immediate reaction was essentially this: "Darn it, now it will be much harder to keep our problem player from playing a goblin and making our games into jokes. I guess we won't be doing Pathfinder 2.0."

The sad thing is I kind of found myself agreeing with him. This 'problem player' is a friend, but we have to work hard to keep him from derailing our games. If he gets his hands on a goblin character it is going to be terrible. I guess I now have a better understanding of why so many people here are dead-set against core rulebook goblins. It is basically the Chaotic Neutral alignment all over again.

So I said I wasnt going to get into my Inside Baseball stuff here but this kind of lets me slide into it.

I am already going to lose 4 regular players over the edition change and several other players have preemptively drawn a line in the sand over goblins. The new edition may get lots of new people but if it completely ravages my playerbase as a cost then I dont think its worth doing and that's not something I want.

Second Seekers (Roheas)

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I like how peoples suggestion is just to dunp your friend. Like come on guys you all have the PERFECT friends who dont on occasion make for crappy gamers? Tailoring system choice to playerbase is a pretty sensible thing to do.

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
eddv wrote:
I like how peoples suggestion is just to dunp your friend. Like come on guys you all have the PERFECT friends who dont on occasion make for crappy gamers? Tailoring system choice to playerbase is a pretty sensible thing to do.

Life's too short for gaming with crappy gamers.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Look, I never said that Goblins shouldn't be a core race - I said that the reasoning of them having strong brand identity was poor game design. If they added other 'new' races, especially ones that are far more populous in typical 'class-based' form, it would be much easier to swallow.

Get rid of half-elf, get rid of half-orc, implement half-breeds in the heritage feat system, and make the 8 core races as such:
Dwarf; Elf; Gnome; Goblin; Halfling; Human; Kobold; Orc


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Why not just run a campaign specifically for the player who is inclined to make things into a joke- a straight up farce of a game. Let everybody know this is the goal and let people lean into it. I find this family of games devolves into wacky comedy pretty naturally.

If you throw the guy a bone, he might not want to do that all the time. Perhaps insist that in the game after the farcical one, everybody has to play a different class and ancestry than they did he last time.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Dumping the friend and not playing D&D with them are two different things. Yet a third is having an actual conversation with them about disruptive behavior.

The point is that disruptive behavior at the table is not a *mechanical, in-game* issue, but a social, out-of-game one, and goblins or no goblins will not change that.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

...

1. NO decision in this game is final. ... This includes feedback on the goblin.

...

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.

...

I get that not everyone will agree, but I hope that you can give us the chance to show you what we've got in store.

Hmm, Ok. I was complaining earlier in the thread, I'm still not super stoked on the core goblin but I'll wait for the reveals and the playtest. I do think I'm going to like the new ancestry thing

Silver Crusade

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
eddv wrote:
I like how peoples suggestion is just to dunp your friend. Like come on guys you all have the PERFECT friends who dont on occasion make for crappy gamers? Tailoring system choice to playerbase is a pretty sensible thing to do.

I ask my friends not to be bad players, to agree to the tone of the game and if they won't act like an adult and respect the wishes of the majority of the players then I don't play with that person. Instead I do other things with that person.

I'm sad to hear that you have four people who are just making a snap judgement about a game even though they haven't seen the rules yet, but on the other hand, Pathfinder 1st Edition isn't going anywhere, and you'll still get to play that game with those friends.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
eddv wrote:
I like how peoples suggestion is just to dunp your friend. Like come on guys you all have the PERFECT friends who dont on occasion make for crappy gamers? Tailoring system choice to playerbase is a pretty sensible thing to do.

sure , i just don't play rpgs with those friends.

player issues are player issues


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel for folks who have problem-player friends that they can't just dump. I've been there. I don't anticipate the goblin causing much trouble at my table though. Some of our most cohesive parties have been CE murderers, demon cultists, and indeed, goblins. Good players can handle this stuff without screwing it up for everyone.

On a side note, I'm actually pleased to see the +Dex/Cha, -Wis change. I've houseruled it that way for a while already. Pathfinder Goblins have never fit as a negative-charisma race. They're little energetic balls of strong personality, and that's totally positive Charisma, lack of table manners be darned.

Reduced Charisma was baggage from D&D's goblins: Unfunny, wretched little cowards. It just doesn't fit the direction Paizo went with their fearless (aside from that stuff with the horses), bombastic little murdermunchkins.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I am incredibly disappointed with this cynical corporate mandated retcon, and I am frustrated and distressed to see people defending it. It is utterly ridiculous to suppose to suppose that a goblin could openly walk around any normal human City on Golarion not be at least confronted by the guards. Games with Goblin PCS will either have to constantly be distracted by the fact that that player is there, or completely abandon the idea that a serious story is being told in the same universe as pf1. Those same games will be plagued by horrible player misbehavior, as any GM not in a position to either ban Goblin PCS or harshly police player Behavior, two things that Pathfinder Society GM's cannot do, will struggle pathetically to stop players acting so disruptively as to worsen the experience for everyone except themselves.

That's not to say all goblins will be that way. However, having Goblin PCS as an option will put it in some players heads that that's how they're supposed to be acting if they want to role play their characters, and arm both those players and more malicious ones with an "it's what my character would do" excuse that no Society GM will be able to refute because it will be objectively true.


eddv wrote:
I like how peoples suggestion is just to dunp your friend. Like come on guys you all have the PERFECT friends who dont on occasion make for crappy gamers? Tailoring system choice to playerbase is a pretty sensible thing to do.

You don't have to by held hostage by your abusive friends out of fear of losing them. Don't be afraid, speak up!


I feel like anybody who has a friend who can't be trusted with certain character choices has already had to steer that person away from certain choices (I mean "chaotic evil" was a core alignment in PF1). So what do you do to keep "that guy" from playing a chaotic evil cleric of Cthulhu, or whatever? Goblins were an option in PF1 too.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

So I hate the Summoner. I strongly dislike both the concept and the execution and I don't understand the appeal at all.

If the Summoner, rather than the Alchemist, were the 13th Core class I wouldn't be mad. I would just continue banning the class in any game I run and refusing to play one.

I'm not totally sure how a hypothetical "core summoner" is not analogous to "core goblins" here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like anybody who has a friend who can't be trusted with certain character choices has already had to steer that person away from certain choices (I mean "chaotic evil" was a core alignment in PF1). So what do you do to keep "that guy" from playing a chaotic evil cleric of Cthulhu, or whatever? Goblins were an option in PF1 too.

We know of That Guy. New players don't know of That Guy or might even turn into That Guy after being given a character that basically says "Be a cartoon character".

We're good for the most part. New players well I feel the welcome mat that we're trying to throw out just caught fire. But again, this is guess work and we won't know how wide spread it is.

That and Goblins were a more outside the box choice in PF1. Now their in box with all the possible problems that come with it.

It's why I'm still on the fence. Goblins wont' bother me, I'll remove them from my game if I want, and my friends aren't jerks. But to throw Goblins in for the new players to use? I can see a host of issues for people that aren't as practiced as we.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
That's not to say all goblins will be that way. However, having Goblin PCS as an option will put it in some players heads that that's how they're supposed to be acting if they want to role play their characters, and arm both those players and more malicious ones with an "it's what my character would do" excuse that no Society GM will be able to refute because it will be objectively true.

I only play PFS once a year at a convention, its about all I can stomach. Playing unconnected adventures with a misc group of people is not what I consider a lot of fun. My home games will play with goblins and not really care, but my players are not problem players. Again, if you have a problem player, talk with them (you can do this in PFS too).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Toblakai wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
That's not to say all goblins will be that way. However, having Goblin PCS as an option will put it in some players heads that that's how they're supposed to be acting if they want to role play their characters, and arm both those players and more malicious ones with an "it's what my character would do" excuse that no Society GM will be able to refute because it will be objectively true.
I only play PFS once a year at a convention, its about all I can stomach. Playing unconnected adventures with a misc group of people is not what I consider a lot of fun. My home games will play with goblins and not really care, but my players are not problem players. Again, if you have a problem player, talk with them (you can do this in PFS too).

Debateable. Problem player might be the one that actually wants to have a normal game. You can find stories of down right horrid behavior even without goblins that the group approves and takes part in but 1 person has an issue.

Sure they leave. But if that's their first game that sours them on the game/system. I had to be dragged back to Pathfinder after PFS.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Look, I never said that Goblins shouldn't be a core race

I'm saying it. Goblins shouldn't be a core race. A lot of players are okay if you don't give them something that encourages their worst behavior. And this does.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
Right, because kicking a player from a table would in no way risk them running off and whining to the Venture captain, and them doing so could certainly Never Land you in trouble and in no way would cost you precious time at a time limited event.

Don't worry. We have community guidelines for that. It works much better when the VC is doing the kicking.

Silver Crusade

TriOmegaZero wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
Right, because kicking a player from a table would in no way risk them running off and whining to the Venture captain, and them doing so could certainly Never Land you in trouble and in no way would cost you precious time at a time limited event.
Don't worry. We have community guidelines for that. It works much better when the VC is doing the kicking.

Who's to say they'll be kicking the player though? I mean, they'll probably be more likely to side with the GM by default, but they weren't there, and might not know anyone involved. The player could lie, and if there are a few bad players at the table, and they do tend to travel in packs, someone could get in pretty big trouble for trying to police anything short of an obvious and absolutely indefensible violation of basic human decency.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:

I'm seriously underwhelmed by this decision. Being a product identity is the ONLY reason goblins are going to be a core race - and that is not a good reason - very WOTC Dragonborn, if you ask me.

It also relegates the other monstrous races to a lower status as far as the rules are concerned that legitimately would be more realistically integrating into regular society (kobolds - because lawful, trolls - because Kaer Maga, etc).

... outside of The City of Strangers (and Irrisen) where do trolls integrate into society?

Starfall in Numeria, and a few River Kingdoms if I recall.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MerlinCross wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like anybody who has a friend who can't be trusted with certain character choices has already had to steer that person away from certain choices (I mean "chaotic evil" was a core alignment in PF1). So what do you do to keep "that guy" from playing a chaotic evil cleric of Cthulhu, or whatever? Goblins were an option in PF1 too.

We know of That Guy. New players don't know of That Guy or might even turn into That Guy after being given a character that basically says "Be a cartoon character".

We're good for the most part. New players well I feel the welcome mat that we're trying to throw out just caught fire. But again, this is guess work and we won't know how wide spread it is.

That and Goblins were a more outside the box choice in PF1. Now their in box with all the possible problems that come with it.

It's why I'm still on the fence. Goblins wont' bother me, I'll remove them from my game if I want, and my friends aren't jerks. But to throw Goblins in for the new players to use? I can see a host of issues for people that aren't as practiced as we.

I hope Paizo takes the opportunity with the new core rulebook to take some space for actual advice for playing and running the game. Talk about the real things that matter that go beyond the rules of how to play:

Discuss expectations.
Discuss consent with players.
Create a common cause for the party.

Also there is no reason why every town needs a "kill-on-sight" policy for goblins. A goblin who walks into a tavern and pays for a beer is not the same thing as a goblin throwing fire and screaming bloody murder. Goblins are crazy, and a bit whacky, but they don't have an intelligence penalty. They have a wisdom penalty, so they are a bit bad at impulse control, and sometimes don't notice things.

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
Who's to say they'll be kicking the player though?

Bad players tend to expose themselves very quickly. The community recognizes them, and word travels.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like anybody who has a friend who can't be trusted with certain character choices has already had to steer that person away from certain choices (I mean "chaotic evil" was a core alignment in PF1). So what do you do to keep "that guy" from playing a chaotic evil cleric of Cthulhu, or whatever? Goblins were an option in PF1 too.

We know of That Guy. New players don't know of That Guy or might even turn into That Guy after being given a character that basically says "Be a cartoon character".

We're good for the most part. New players well I feel the welcome mat that we're trying to throw out just caught fire. But again, this is guess work and we won't know how wide spread it is.

That and Goblins were a more outside the box choice in PF1. Now their in box with all the possible problems that come with it.

It's why I'm still on the fence. Goblins wont' bother me, I'll remove them from my game if I want, and my friends aren't jerks. But to throw Goblins in for the new players to use? I can see a host of issues for people that aren't as practiced as we.

I hope Paizo takes the opportunity with the new core rulebook to take some space for actual advice for playing and running the game. Talk about the real things that matter that go beyond the rules of how to play:

Discuss expectations.
Discuss consent with players.
Create a common cause for the party.

Also there is no reason why every town needs a "kill-on-sight" policy for goblins. A goblin who walks into a tavern and pays for a beer is not the same thing as a goblin throwing fire and screaming bloody murder. Goblins are crazy, and a bit whacky, but they don't have an intelligence penalty. They have a wisdom penalty, so they are a bit bad at impulse control, and sometimes don't notice things.

I also suggest they make it clear that the GM can remove any part of the rules/setting they want should they choose to do so and the players are on board with a change.

As for the Goblins; If they don't have an INT penalty, Paizo really doesn't want you to know it short of looking up the stats. Wacky, silly, stupid, impulsive and don't seem to learn other by doing. That screams INT and WIS penalties.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

This is just great. First, goblins attacked our flocks in their pastures and set up camp there. Second, we have adventurers come into town. Which, of course, means our economy is going to be absolutely buggered for the coming year and that rotten artificer down on Elm Street is going to be able to buy out another bloody politician.

Now of course we're going to have some bloody adventurer take a shine to one of the goblins we ask them to dispose of and opt to allow it to tag along with the rest of their bunch. No sirree, this is an awful idea and awful premise that in essence emancipates the goblin tribes after they have sullied our land and slain our kinsman. There is absolutely no way that we commonfolk should be subject to the abject whims of the powers that be when they decree that suddenly goblins should be regarded with a sense of normalcy.

This is an outrage. I am outraged. And I shall be petitioning the aristocracy to deal harshly with any suggestion that the goblinoid scum be forgiven or considered welcome on this material plane.

901 to 950 of 1,765 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Goblins! All Messageboards