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
1,051 to 1,100 of 1,765 << first < prev | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
GentleGiant wrote:
And yet the typical AP could upend huge parts of the world in a couple of months. But 10 years won't apparently make a dent in one particular area to some people, as it somehow strains their view of the world, despite plenty examples of goblin PCs (even by the same people). I'm finding it increasingly...

And if Paizo releases an AP that upends how the world views goblins, I bet a bunch of people will be fine with goblin PCs.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Partly the bonus to Charisma can be read as metatextual- reflecting how much goblins have endeared themselves to Pathfinder fans.

I mean, insofar as their ability to make Pathfinder *players* smile, Goblins have earned the Cha bonus more than gnomes have.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Subparhiggins wrote:

And if I love Goblins, and I just really want to play one because I have a great character idea? What if goblins are my favorite race? I should just forget about it because my GM doesn't really like them that much. Despite the fact that it is my character, and not theirs. And the fact that I might be the only goblin in their entire campaign. And the fact that I would be perfectly fine with them ignoring the fact that I was a goblin and having an NPCs never ever comment on it.

I actually had a DM who banned Stryx from his table for no reason other than, "he didn't like them". No reason given other than he wasn't feeling them. This wasn't made apparent until I approached with the express purpose of wanting to play one because I thought they were really cool both aesthetically and lore wise. Nope. Banned. Why? I still don't know. To this day, still never gotten the chance to play one.

This same GM also banned Gunslingers because he didn't like them. It didn't keep him from playing them exclusively as GMNPCs though. He liked them enough for that I guess. But hey, not everyone's fun is equal.

Then you can do what the other people here have suggested, you can find a new GM/friends to play with.

Subparhiggins wrote:
Isn't there a story about how Pathfinder almost didn't have Dwarves because one of the developers just didn't like them?

Banning core material feels weird doesn't it? Imagine trying to justify banning goblins once they become core.


Sahuagin for funny underwater adventures when then?


BadMojo0777 wrote:
so instead of a -2 penalty to strength for a creature who is barely 3 ft tall ( which makes perfect sense) they are instead giving a -2 penalty to wisdom? while removing the additonal +2 to dex in favor aof a +2 to CHARISMA? for GOBLINS? this makes no sense, and whiel ive had a generally positive opinion about most of the mechanic changes ive read about this is just completely WRONG

I definitely agree that +Cha doesn't make sense, but not having a penalty to Str also makes sense. They're not humans, or humans with funny ears like all the other demihumans. Most other creatures are just stronger pound for pound than humans are; just look at big cats in the human-weight range. It makes sense to me for goblins not to have a Str penalty, given that they'd probably have a Str bonus if they were human sized.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, this is pretty rambling and disjointed, but I can't go to sleep with it rolling around in my head, so... spoiler block for those who don't want to bother with more goblin apologist stuff.

More types of goblins sounds fun!:
I've long thought that goblins are mainly fringe dwelling nuisances. They don't have the motivation or courage to be real threats and as much as the lurid tales drum up frights around the campfire, they simply can't be a green tide of baby eating menace or they wouldn't be tolerated living near settlements. Sandpoint lived side by side with Thistletop in a quiet, simmering animosity for how long? Years? Decades?

Nobody WANTS goblins living within walking distance, but aside from campfire horror stories I think that the majority of people have more to worry about from ordinary rats and local criminals than they do those little green bastards picking through the trash heap outside of town. You can go years and years with goblins living right over there and hardly anything happens to get worked up about.

What goblins have started to notice is that when the longshanks get mad enough to do something about their fun and games, the longshanks eventually win. Small groups of adventurers in particular can beat down large numbers of their kin and leave only straggling survivors.

They have to be doing something right, don't they?

So some of them have started emulating longshanks. They've started wearing clean clothes and walking on roads in full view of others and not killing things. Better still, some of them learn that killing the RIGHT things can get them rewarded! Get this, if you save the heads of rats you eat, sometimes you can get MORE food!

They figure out they can worship other gods and Lamashtu won't eat them! Sure, those are mostly Norgorber goblins, but also some Gorum goblins, Gozreh goblins and the occasional Caydenite orphanage that had a rather bashful paladin drop off a few infants saying "honestly, I have no idea what to do with these."

So even mercenary adventuring goblins might not be allowed into most taverns, but some of them have graduated from having things thrown at them when they are stealing what humans have already thrown away (which is just insane, humans are crazy) to being able to walk down the street and only get kicked at sometimes!

It is an exciting time to be a goblin!

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

4 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

Jason,

I'm curious how you'll evaluate feedback on the inclusion of goblins as a core race. I completely agree that you take playtest feedback seriously and have made significant changes in the past, going all the way back to Alpha and PE1 based on playtest feedback. However, in every case I can recall, those changes have been related to the rules and how they work in play, with a strong preference to actual playtest feedback rather than opinions, theory crafting, etc.

In the case of goblins though, I'm pretty sure most of the criticisms are related to the rules (though I still think there's not a need for 2 Small core PC races which are both known for being good at stealth and have related abilities). The issue at hand is one of opinion on if goblins make an appropriate PC race for inclusion in the core book without watering down their inherent "goblin-ness" and what makes them a wonderful, flavorful enemy in the game.

Since this is a very different way to evaluate feedback from rules,

I'm hoping that there are some clear success criteria already established for whether or not playtest feedback will change the decision to include goblins as a core race. In my line of work, we regularly test different ideas in a limited fashion with actual customers, and then use statistical analysis on a test vs. control group to see which drives better performance on a variety of metrics. Before launching a test though, we have clear definitions on what we consider a success, such as providing a positive lift on one metric while having a non-negative impact on another metric. If the test meets those criteria, then it becomes a success and we publish it.

Clearly for the PF 2E playtest, you're not going to have statistical A/B testing in place, but I hope for issues like this there's a clear bar set for what it will take to change course and not include the goblin as a core race. I'm not asking to find out what the criteria is, since sharing that publicly could influence the results, but I hope it exists. Otherwise, it feels like this is a decision which the playtest simply can't change your minds about.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Partly the bonus to Charisma can be read as metatextual- reflecting how much goblins have endeared themselves to Pathfinder fans.

I mean, insofar as their ability to make Pathfinder *players* smile, Goblins have earned the Cha bonus more than gnomes have.

I've never been big on Charismatic Gnomes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Laird IceCubez wrote:
Banning core material feels weird doesn't it? Imagine trying to justify banning goblins once they become core.

It has never felt weird when I did it in the past. Like what was the last game you played in where everybody took Leadership as their level 7 feat?

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Looking back through the early Goblin stuff in Classic Monsters Revisited and Burnt Offerings, I'm super confused where the idea that most people would kill goblins on sight came from.

I mean, pretty much all of that stuff reads very much like goblins are thought of as a joke. An annoyance. Common pests. Which is certainly a prejudice, but not really a kill on sight one.

Sandpoint in particular might well be an exception after Burnt Offerings, but most places? That really shouldn't be a thing. Not going by the actual books.

Second Seekers (Roheas)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
BadMojo0777 wrote:
so instead of a -2 penalty to strength for a creature who is barely 3 ft tall ( which makes perfect sense) they are instead giving a -2 penalty to wisdom? while removing the additonal +2 to dex in favor aof a +2 to CHARISMA? for GOBLINS? this makes no sense, and whiel ive had a generally positive opinion about most of the mechanic changes ive read about this is just completely WRONG
I definitely agree that +Cha doesn't make sense, but not having a penalty to Str also makes sense. They're not humans, or humans with funny ears like all the other demihumans. Most other creatures are just stronger pound for pound than humans are; just look at big cats in the human-weight range. It makes sense to me for goblins not to have a Str penalty, given that they'd probably have a Str bonus if they were human sized.

That's not how that works.

They would have a strength bonus if they were due one because carrying capacity is influenced by size (though maybe it isn't anymore, the assault on size as a thing that actually matters was one of the defining attributes on Starfinders design).

That said goblins are described as having tiny spindly bodies with comically large heads that they can barely support which certainly sounds like a candidate for str penalty just as strongly as the spindly gnomes. The trouble is goblins are like NOTABLY really stupid so they need a penalty in one or possible all of their mentals which isnt going to work for a player race so things need to be cut. Notably that would work out great for a monster race designed to be encountered by low level adventurers....just saying.

Halflings on the other hand probably could stand to lose the penalty.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll say it again though, goblins having a boost to Charisma makes sense in my eyes.

Sure, goblins almost never leverage their Charisma to be likable or good company for most folk, but they can be defined as shrewd when dealing with people, surprisingly intimidating, cunningly deceitful and shockingly adept with certain kinds of magic. Putting being nice aside, that is basically Charisma right there.

The only thing that isn't in theme for them is calm, moderated diplomacy, but if one was trained in it well enough to survive I could see a crude negotiator coming out of that bargain. At the very least they probably have the begging for mercy function of diplomacy down pat given their nasty, brutal, and short upbringings.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Laird IceCubez wrote:
Banning core material feels weird doesn't it? Imagine trying to justify banning goblins once they become core.

I actually don't think I've ever run a game of Pathfinder where something from core wasn't banned.


Laird IceCubez wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:
And yet the typical AP could upend huge parts of the world in a couple of months. But 10 years won't apparently make a dent in one particular area to some people, as it somehow strains their view of the world, despite plenty examples of goblin PCs (even by the same people). I'm finding it increasingly...
And if Paizo releases an AP that upends how the world views goblins, I bet a bunch of people will be fine with goblin PCs.

Goblins existing as a PC race in PF1 literally does that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Common pests.

Do you not kill common pests? I think the majority of non-druidic people have NO issue killing a roach, mouse, fly, ect in their house: you know, common pests. ;)

Second Seekers (Roheas)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Laird IceCubez wrote:
Banning core material feels weird doesn't it? Imagine trying to justify banning goblins once they become core.
I actually don't think I've ever run a game of Pathfinder where something from core wasn't banned.

This isn't exactly a positive attribute you know and is like almost explicitly one of the justifying reasons given for having a new edition.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Common pests.
Do you not kill common pests? I think the majority of non-druidic people have NO issue killing a roach, mouse, fly, ect in their house: you know, common pests. ;)

Sure, I do this sometimes (actually, I tend to take insects outside, but that's beside the point). And if the goblin was in someone's house without permission I'd definitely expect a violent reaction. Of course, I feel that's pretty reasonable behavior for most people or things breaking into your house.

But I don't go out of my way to hunt rats and bugs on the streets when I see them, and I certainly don't kill someone's pet rat. Heck, the latter is pretty appalling behavior, and likely the closest analogy to trying to kill a PC goblin (since they're clearly with their party most of the time).


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Laird IceCubez wrote:
Banning core material feels weird doesn't it? Imagine trying to justify banning goblins once they become core.

My personal preference is not to ban things like races and classes. The most common Core related thing I've seen banned is Gnomes, because they were either 'potentially disruptive' (like Goblins?) or because they were 'too anime' what with the big eyes and colorful hair, or too 'lol random'.

In my experience, it just seem like a way to make the players feel like the GM is super ready to pre-judge them on their character preference alone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Common pests.
Do you not kill common pests? I think the majority of non-druidic people have NO issue killing a roach, mouse, fly, ect in their house: you know, common pests. ;)

I mean, it depends. If it's a fly or a mosquito? Smash it, and don't look back. A spider, bee, moth, or butterfly I will escort outside, to say nothing of the occasional mouse the cat has not yet eviscerated or confused bird that got in the basement somehow.

I would think goblins are a lot more like mice than mosquitoes.

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Common pests.
Do you not kill common pests? I think the majority of non-druidic people have NO issue killing a roach, mouse, fly, ect in their house: you know, common pests. ;)

Not if they're an intelligent creature capable of free-will and not currently trying to hurt anyone, or burn anything down. If I did that I'd be actually evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Laird IceCubez wrote:
Banning core material feels weird doesn't it? Imagine trying to justify banning goblins once they become core.
It has never felt weird when I did it in the past. Like what was the last game you played in where everybody took Leadership as their level 7 feat?

Two of my players took Leadership in my Skype-based Runelords game. After a dozen games or so, I offered them a deal: they would get a free Feat to replace Leadership, their Cohorts would trail behind the party and prevent ambushes, and they would no longer be used in the main fights.

Funny. Having five PCs and two Cohorts made the fights far too long and cumbersome. It's like... oh... keeping track of these characters and their hit points and locations and the like took time from the game. (And I had to increase the number of monsters to make the game remain interesting.)

The thing is, Leadership can be used effectively. For instance, if a group doesn't have a cleric, then having a Cohort Cleric who does nothing but buff and heal but remains out of the fight otherwise isn't a bad idea. Likewise, having a Cohort Wizard who is busy making the group's magic items while the group is off adventuring... or even (say) a Goblin Rogue whose sole purpose is to reload his savior's crossbows so that said adventurer can just snag and shoot while the goblin is busy reloading the thing works quite well.

There are Feats that when used improperly drag down the game. But there are ways around this that allow these features to function better and bring more enjoyment to the game. That even includes Goblins as a Core Ancestry. ;)


JoelF847 wrote:

Jason,

I'm curious how you'll evaluate feedback on the inclusion of goblins as a core race. I completely agree that you take playtest feedback seriously and have made significant changes in the past, going all the way back to Alpha and PE1 based on playtest feedback. However, in every case I can recall, those changes have been related to the rules and how they work in play, with a strong preference to actual playtest feedback rather than opinions, theory crafting, etc.

In the case of goblins though, I'm pretty sure most of the criticisms are related to the rules (though I still think there's not a need for 2 Small core PC races which are both known for being good at stealth and have related abilities). The issue at hand is one of opinion on if goblins make an appropriate PC race for inclusion in the core book without watering down their inherent "goblin-ness" and what makes them a wonderful, flavorful enemy in the game.

Since this is a very different way to evaluate feedback from rules,

I think that first of all they're not evaluating feedback that isn't based on the actual rules and ancestry write-up. So people actually have to have the playtest rules in hand and, as you said is their standard method, the'll have to have actually playtested them.

Right now people are complaining without having read the actual ancestry write-up, just the titbits given in the blog post.


eddv wrote:
This isn't exactly a positive attribute you know

Not necessarily a negative one either considering I like running homebrew campaigns with only non-standard races.

Quote:
and is like almost explicitly one of the justifying reasons given for having a new edition.

Yes? I have no problem with the new edition existing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Subparhiggins wrote:
And if I love Goblins, and I just really want to play one because I have a great character idea? What if goblins are my favorite race? I should just forget about it because my GM doesn't really like them that much.

MY suggestion is to find a group that likes your character concept as much as you do and to NOT try to shoehorn it into a game that doesn't.

Subparhiggins wrote:
That's not fun. I'd find another GM and have my fun with them.

Sounds like a plan: Go someplace you have fun.

Subparhiggins wrote:
And if I love Goblins, and I just really want to play one because I have a great character idea? What if goblins are my favorite race? I should just forget about it because my GM doesn't really like them that much. Despite the fact that it is my character, and not theirs. And the fact that I might be the only goblin in their entire campaign. And the fact that I would be perfectly fine with them ignoring the fact that I was a goblin and having an NPCs never ever comment on it.

It's THEIR game though. If you LOVE goblins, DM and have fun with ALL the goblins. You don't have a right to dictate rules in a game unless YOU are the DM: the players either agree and play or disagree and leave.

Subparhiggins wrote:
I actually had a DM who banned Stryx from his table for no reason other than, "he didn't like them". No reason given other than he wasn't feeling them. This wasn't made apparent until I approached with the express purpose of wanting to play one because I thought they were really cool both aesthetically and lore wise. Nope. Banned. Why? I still don't know. To this day, still never gotten the chance to play one.

"he didn't like them" is as valid as "I love Goblins": Dm trumps player though.

Subparhiggins wrote:
This same GM also banned Gunslingers because he didn't like them. It didn't keep him from playing them exclusively as GMNPCs though. He liked them enough for that I guess. But hey, not everyone's fun is equal.

There is a difference in PC's and NPC's. He might not like certain combo's or grit or any other number of things that a player might do. Without 'looking under the hood' it's impossible to see if he was really playing one as/is. Or it could be that he just didn't ant anyone to step on his 'niche'. Either way, as the DM he gets to make the rules.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Common pests.
Do you not kill common pests? I think the majority of non-druidic people have NO issue killing a roach, mouse, fly, ect in their house: you know, common pests. ;)

1) I always escort pests outside. No need to kill so carelessly. 2) If I could reason with pests, I could probably work out good boundaries that work for everyone. 3) If these now intelligent mice decided to gang up and try to kill me, I still wouldn't try to kill every mouse in sight.

I think, ultimately, viewing an intelligent species that is equally smart as a human is really gross. If including goblins as core is an attempt to squash this attitude, I full support it.

Second Seekers (Roheas)

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
eddv wrote:
This isn't exactly a positive attribute you know

Not necessarily a negative one either considering I like running campaigns with only non-standard races.

Quote:
and is like almost explicitly one of the justifying reasons given for having a new edition.
Yes? I have no problem with the new edition existing.

Putting out a new edition that already has its standard boilerplate isn't the best news.

"Everything is legal except goblins, fumbles, and somehow they still left the broken leadership feat in so that too"

Those kinds of flaws with the system that everyone knows about just chooses to deal with are the sorts of things 2e is trying NOT to have


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Common pests.
Do you not kill common pests? I think the majority of non-druidic people have NO issue killing a roach, mouse, fly, ect in their house: you know, common pests. ;)
Not if they're an intelligent creature capable of free-will and not currently trying to hurt anyone, or burn anything down. If I did that I'd be actually evil.

LOL If THAT'S the criteria then nothing would EVER get killed in pathfinder. [other than vermin/animals] Even demons/devils have free will. I guess every PC ever that doesn't exclusively use non-lethal is now EVIL!!!

Albatoonoe wrote:
graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Common pests.
Do you not kill common pests? I think the majority of non-druidic people have NO issue killing a roach, mouse, fly, ect in their house: you know, common pests. ;)
1) I always escort pests outside. No need to kill so carelessly. 2) If I could reason with pests, I could probably work out good boundaries that work for everyone. 3) If these now intelligent mice decided to gang up and try to kill me, I still wouldn't try to kill every mouse in sight.equally smart as a human is really gross. If including goblins as core is an attempt to squash this attitude, I full support it.

LOL I can tell you that around where I live, pests get murdered on a regular basis: we don't peacefully catch a mouse and take it outside as they just means that it'll come right back in. It gets killed. I don't think it's an uncommon attitude. I have yet to see someone collect ants, termites and/or roaches to relocate them: they get bombed/gassed to death.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm cool with the Cha bonus for goblins, but I hope they mix things up with halflings and we don't end up with a ton of Dex/Cha races like in PF1.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Common pests.
Do you not kill common pests? I think the majority of non-druidic people have NO issue killing a roach, mouse, fly, ect in their house: you know, common pests. ;)
Not if they're an intelligent creature capable of free-will and not currently trying to hurt anyone, or burn anything down. If I did that I'd be actually evil.

LOL If THAT'S the criteria then nothing would EVER get killed in pathfinder. [other than vermin/animals] Even demons/devils have free will. I guess every PC ever that doesn't exclusively use non-lethal is now EVIL!!!

There's a difference between protecting your village from goblins actively trying to burn it down, and killing a goblin who is shopping for pickles.

There's a difference between going into a goblin village to kill them and take their stuff, and going to a goblin village to rescue a kidnapped NPC.

Don't extrapolate things that I'm not saying from the point I made.

Scarab Sages

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I do understand the Cha bonus. Goblins really put themselves out there, no holds barred, no inhibitions. They’re the ultimate extroverts, and they make natural Sorcerers.

Charisma is not about being universally liked or attractive, it’s how well you can exert your force of personality on the people and the world around you.


eddv wrote:


Putting out a new edition that already has its standard boilerplate isn't the best news.

"Everything is legal except goblins, fumbles, and somehow they still left the broken leadership feat in so that too"

Those kinds of flaws with the system that everyone knows about just chooses to deal with are the sorts of things 2e is trying NOT to have

It's more likely for me to ban Elves and Dwarves than it is Goblins considering they might force cultural flavour into it's mechanics.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
GentleGiant wrote:
And yet the typical AP could upend huge parts of the world in a couple of months. But 10 years won't apparently make a dent in one particular area to some people, as it somehow strains their view of the world, despite plenty examples of goblin PCs (even by the same people)? I'm finding it increasingly difficult to see any rationality in people's opposition to including goblins in the core rulebook (but apparently not other races, since they, of course, like those better).

The rationale is that goblins are murderous vagrants who spit upon the fundamental tenets and customs of our sophisticated, civil society. The common fellow of any of the core races, in the vast majority of nations, does not have positive interactions with goblins.

If an individual goblin happens, by some miracle, to perform a service to the world and commit a deed of goodness, then great! They are an exceptional individual. The key phrase of course being "exception". A goblin adventurer (Aroden forbid) that performs deeds of good does so in light of the nature of their blood and stands as an exception to the base nature of their race.

For every allegedly good goblin, there are a hundred ones that seek to slit the throat and gnaw the marrow of humanity itself. A goblin participating in the "Rise of the Runelords", whatever that was, does nothing to sway or alter the conduct of other goblins for the better. Those tribes of savages will still steal my pigs if they get the chance and they'll do so without remorse!

The so-called "core" races are deemed such because they are the ones that are most widely accepted in most nations. They have the distinction of "core" because they have the full capacity to decide their morality person by person. They are "core" because they make up the fabric of civilized society. Finally, regardless of my utter disdain for the adventuring profession, "core" races are those with the greatest inherent capacity to function as adventurers in a vast array of circumstance and setting. To be "core" is to be representative of what is typical, expected, and accepted.

As to your suggestion that I would not object to another beastly race, I must respectfully, but strongly, dissent. No race that is widely reviled and despised or feared should be given the honor of "core". No race that wantonly slaughters innocents should be "core". The half-orcs were enough of a stretch as the matter stands.


Wild Spirit wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:


The Ranger picked "Favored Enemy - Elves". What sort of horrible upbringing and personality must this person have to have decided to make this choice? Let us shun them away from our tables.

Favoured enemy is not racism. Going out of your way to hurt an NPC because they are goblin/elf/human/centaur is.

If you HAVE to be evil, be at least equal opportunities evil.

Yeah, I'm hoping they'll be a bit more clear about this with Favored Enemy. The idea that it's just because of hatred is common, but has all sorts of unfortunate implications if you think of it as a racism bonus. I always look at Favored Enemy as simply studying and being good at fighting a given species (not everyone keeps their vital organs in the same places). I'd imagine Favored Enemy: Human is possibly the most common choice, any military ranger would find it helpful to fight soldiers from enemy nations, as well as anyone tracking down bandits, or any law-enforcers at all.

In a campaign that just wrapped up our ranger had favored enemy: elf. The character also /was/ an elf (and the player is very big on elves). This campaign also happened to be Second Darkness (Drow are still elves for the purpose of favored enemy).

Renaming traits like Hatred for Dwarves would probably be a good idea too.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
There's a difference between protecting your village from goblins actively trying to burn it down, and killing a goblin who is shopping for pickles.

Clearly the guards missed one and it's looking for someplace to burn down... The GAME assumes they are pests and not productive citizens picking up lunch. Why do the villagers assume the outlier and instead of the tried and true?

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
There's a difference between going into a goblin village to kill them and take their stuff, and going to a goblin village to rescue a kidnapped NPC.

'boy, goblins keep stealing our livestock and burning out building... Lets go hug the next ones we see on the off chance it's one of those super rare nice ones!'... :P

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Don't extrapolate things that I'm not saying from the point I made.
I'm not sure where I did that or can see where it would be an issue if I did. If something you said comes across different to me than you meant it, all you have to do is point out that's not what you meant: if you disagree on a logical extension of your argument, say THAT so we can at least be on the same page.

All of your responses are coming from pretend people from an imaginary world. If you can't imagine a world where some goblins steal livestock, and some don't and people can give some goblins the benefit of the doubt if they aren't doing anything suspicious then that's a failure of imagination on your part, not a failure of the game.

Second Seekers (Roheas)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
eddv wrote:


Putting out a new edition that already has its standard boilerplate isn't the best news.

"Everything is legal except goblins, fumbles, and somehow they still left the broken leadership feat in so that too"

Those kinds of flaws with the system that everyone knows about just chooses to deal with are the sorts of things 2e is trying NOT to have

It's more likely for me to ban Elves and Dwarves than it is Goblins considering they might force cultural flavour into it's mechanics.

You don't think Burn It! is cultural flavor?

Interesting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Going through this (I haven't read every post because, that's a lot of posts), one thing surprised me. It isn't the dislike of gobllins, I expected that. But the particular call for Kobolds caught me off guard. I really didn't know there was such a contingent of Kobold fans. I'm not opposed or anything, I just didn't expect it. So maybe this will at least entourage Paizo not to make them so weak when the rules for Kobold PCs are introduced (I'd expect the first bestiary to have at least the basics). The PF1 rules makes them a pretty horrible choice, -4 str and -2 con with only a single +2 in Dex makes them really under-powered compared to everyone else.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, it's totally plausible that a herder would have some opinion on goblin rustlers akin to-

"Sure, the goblins will steal a sheep or a head of cattle from time to time, but I lose a lot more to human thieves than goblin ones. Plus, any time I lose part of the herd to disease or falling off a ledge or supernatural causes, the goblins make quick work of the carcasses... don't know what they do with it- meat's not okay for eating, but it saves me from having to deal with it."

Like as long as goblins make some sort of effort to be tolerable neighbors, some people are going to learn to live with them.

Second Seekers (Roheas)

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Cabbage in almost every post of yours it sounds like the goblins you are used to aren't the goblins I am used to.

Like goblins aren't "tolerable neighbors". The entire point of goblins is that they aren't that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Catharsis wrote:

I do understand the Cha bonus. Goblins really put themselves out there, no holds barred, no inhibitions. They’re the ultimate extroverts, and they make natural Sorcerers.

Charisma is not about being universally liked or attractive, it’s how well you can exert your force of personality on the people and the world around you.

They are also horrid little cowards. Whiny, conniving wretches. Not exactly endearing. I can see an argument for no Charisma penalty, but the bonus is a bit of an ask.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

All of your responses are coming from pretend people from an imaginary world. If you can't imagine a world where some goblins steal livestock, and some don't and people can give some goblins the benefit of the doubt if they aren't doing anything suspicious then that's a failure of imagination on your part, not a failure of the game.

And YOUR replies aren't from the point of view of the average citizen, commoner or merchant. They don't CARE if the odd goblin might 'buck the trend' of their race. All they know is that the majority are psycho, pyro murdering bastards. Making a mistake in IDing the difference is life and death to them. If there is a failure of imagination, it's your for not understanding the point of view from the average person. THEY don't have the luxury of high moral arguments on 'free will': what they know is 'those guy like to burn thing and kill livestock' and that MORE than enough for them to react with hostility.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Like as long as goblins make some sort of effort to be tolerable neighbors, some people are going to learn to live with them.

THIS is the biggest stumbling block to me. Single isolated non-crazy goblins I can see. A concerted effort by LOTS of goblins to be nice neighbors? That's SO against character that I just don't see it other than maybe a single 'unit' like an orphanage that raised them that way but that's be super rare and only relate to an incredible small location. Move 10 miles away and I wouldn't expect anyone to know about 'those goblins' let alone have it make a sea change in the whole world.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
eddv wrote:

Cabbage in almost every post of yours it sounds like the goblins you are used to aren't the goblins I am used to.

Like goblins aren't "tolerable neighbors". The entire point of goblins is that they aren't that.

Generally anyone that lives next to a pyromaniac doesn't have neighbors long cuz... arson maybe? Even at it's best, being a 'nice' sheep stealers is still enough to get you killed as a bandit/rustler...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jester David wrote:

With "We Be Goblins" being so popular, this makes sense. It's not like there's a "We Be Orcs" or "We be Tieflings".

There's been a desire to play goblins in Pathfinder for YEARS.

It sounds like there might be demand for "We be Kobolds!" If goblins become core, then having a group of adventures where the novel factor is playing goblins kind of loses it's effect. And I can totally see a kobold adventure with a trap making contest, coming up with gifts for the dragon overlord and defending the tribe from some invasion (including with those traps). That sounds like fun.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Hostile NPC wrote:

The rationale is that goblins are murderous vagrants who spit upon the fundamental tenets and customs of our sophisticated, civil society. The common fellow of any of the core races, in the vast majority of nations, does not have positive interactions with goblins.

If an individual goblin happens, by some miracle, to perform a service to the world and commit a deed of goodness, then great! They are an exceptional individual. The key phrase of course being "exception". A goblin adventurer (Aroden forbid) that performs deeds of good does so in light of the nature of their blood and stands as an exception to the base nature of their race.

For every allegedly good goblin, there are a hundred ones that seek to slit the throat and gnaw the marrow of humanity itself. A goblin participating in the "Rise of the Runelords", whatever that was, does nothing to sway or alter the conduct of other goblins for the better. Those tribes of savages will still steal my pigs if they get the chance and they'll do so without remorse!

The so-called "core" races are deemed such because they are the ones that are most widely accepted in most nations. They have the distinction of "core" because they have the full capacity to decide their morality person by person. They are "core" because they make up the fabric of civilized society. Finally, regardless of my utter disdain for the adventuring profession, "core" races are those with the greatest inherent capacity to function as adventurers in a vast array of circumstance and setting. To be "core" is to be representative of what is typical, expected, and accepted.

As to your suggestion that I would not object to another beastly race, I must respectfully, but strongly, dissent. No race that is widely reviled and despised or feared should be given the honor of "core". No race that wantonly slaughters innocents should be "core". The half-orcs were enough of a stretch as the matter stands.

If you were always hungry -- like starving, man -- wouldn't you be cranky and crazy and bitey and mean all the time too?

1d4 ⇒ 3 of us goblin babies met this smarty smart blue goblin who clued us in. He taught us a meta-, meda-, medi-... something, a way of focusing our minds like how monkee-monks do with their chi-chi. Called it repletion. We not know what that word mean, but it helps a gob turn that stomach ROAR! into a rumble. Once you get your stomach to shut up, it surprising how much oxygenated (not sure what that word mean either) blood gets to your brain. Ya gets a whole lotta thinky thinky going on.

We just met a ratfolk -- the nice floofy kind, not the bitey kind who turns you into a rat -- who makes the best waffles. Would you like a waffle? C'mon, you can't stay mad eating waffles. I guess you can stay here and be mad, but we're gonna go get waffles.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hostile NPC wrote:
The so-called "core" races are deemed such because they are the ones that are most widely accepted in most nations. They have the distinction of "core" because they have the full capacity to decide their morality person by person. They are "core" because they make up the fabric of civilized society. Finally, regardless of my utter disdain for the adventuring profession, "core" races are those with the greatest inherent capacity to function as adventurers in a vast array of circumstance and setting. To be "core" is to be representative of what is typical, expected, and accepted.

Huh, you must have a different printing of the Core Rulebook than I have, because most of that isn't anywhere in the races chapter. In fact, in my Core Rulebook there's even a reference saying that you can play other races than the 7 listed... and wouldn't you know it, goblin is one of the examples given that are good choices as they're close in power with the other ones.

So one could technically say that goblins have been in the core rules of PF1 all along.

Grand Lodge

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

Is this with respect to PFS? Cause if not, why would an edition change have any impact on your gaming group at all? Just continue to run PF1E. I went through a similar experience when D&D3E was released. My home group refused to change and we just continued playing 1/2E for a number of years, even converting some of the 3E modules back to 2E because the content was good. It wasn't until after v3.5 that we warmed up to the "better" rules and converted.


eddv wrote:

You don't think Burn It! is cultural flavor?

Interesting.

Not as bad as things like elves and dwarves and half-orcs and gnomes all having very specific weapon training as racial traits. I probably wont allow the Goblin junk-based traits though.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
GentleGiant wrote:

Huh, you must have a different printing of the Core Rulebook than I have, because most of that isn't anywhere in the races chapter. In fact, in my Core Rulebook there's even a reference saying that you can play other races than the 7 listed... and wouldn't you know it, goblin is one of the examples given that are good choices as they're close in power with the other ones.

So one could technically say that goblins have been in the core rules of PF1 all along.

What book are you even talking about? Do you think I have the money to even buy it? Let alone the time to read it? I'm a pig farmer. Tomorrow morning I get to find out how many of my animals have been stolen by ravenous goblins and other monstrous ilk.

1d4 Goblin Babies wrote:

If you were always hungry -- like starving, man -- wouldn't you be cranky and crazy and bitey and mean all the time too?

1d4 ⇒ 3 of us goblin babies met this smarty smart blue goblin who clued us in. He taught us a meta-, meda-, medi-... something, a way of focusing our minds like how monkee-monks do with their chi-chi. It helps a gob turn that stomach ROAR! into a rumble. Once you get your stomach to shut up, it surprising how much oxygenated (still not sure what that word mean) blood gets to your brain. Ya gets a whole lotta thinky thinky going on.

We just met a ratfolk -- the nice floofy kind, not the bitey kind who turns you into a rat -- who makes the best waffles. Would you like a waffle? C'mon, you can't stay mad eating waffles. I guess you can stay here and be mad, but we're gonna go get waffles.

How- Why are you in my house?! HELP! GUARDS!

1,051 to 1,100 of 1,765 << first < prev | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Goblins! All Messageboards