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
1,301 to 1,350 of 1,765 << first < prev | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Serum wrote:
Can you imagine what it would be like to play one of the pre-gens in an AP with a group of core races?
Yes. However, it is not having the effect you might be suggesting it should have on me.

That completely disarmed me.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

If you overestimate the magnitude of the change ahead, it is pretty easy to think the rate of change is much greater.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
We don't want to ruin our goblins, making them something they are not...

maybe you should reconsider the +2 ancestral charisma bonus for goblins then

Grand Lodge

I think it will be interesting to explore the "Nature vs. Nurture" theme as regards to goblins. When raised by non-goblins, in say, a Sarenrae orphanage, or by a foster family of Halflings, which parts of the Goblin personality will be informed by one or the other. The ravenousness may be attributed to the speed at which they grow, while fear of horses or obsession with fire could be completely cultural.

Anyway, I approve of the inclusion of Goblins in core, and look forward to playing one in the play test.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ragni wrote:
I'm not a fan of the logic of goblins being core. Them being core has the implication that they should be more common in games than the other races to come. There hasn't really been a shift in the lore to support goblin adventures being more common than the Outsider-kin or beast races from my view point. While it is certainly not impossible for a goblin to be good and/or adventurous it seems unlikely that people living in the world will just accept them without good reason. There is also the fact the goblins disdain for writing, dogs and horses has not been addressed what so ever when those will be big obstacles to being a hero in the setting.

i would point out that not liking horses, dogs etc can also just be cultural trait's that goblin pcs choose not to have , or if they have them they use them for role play possibilities .

i know real like people that hate dogs and horses but that does not mean there irredeemable human beings :)

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
TheFinish wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
If you overestimate the magnitude of the change ahead, it is pretty easy to think the rate of change is much greater.
Shouldn't it be underestimate? If the rate of change is much greater?

No. If you think the magnitude will be greater than it actually is, you will think the rate of change is greater than it actually is. The time span stays the same, so rate is proportional to magnitude.

If you underestimated the magnitude of change, you would think the rate of change was much slower than it might actually be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

What I expect is that goblins aren't going to go from a despised minority to a normal part of society overnight, or in fact at all. They will suffer as much and likely more prejudice than half-orcs, which are also deeply mistrusted by most people. They won't be allowed in a lot of places and assaulting one isn't likely to be a crime.

I also don't expect that there will be a gluten of neutral goblins and hardly any good ones. Most adventuring goblins are still going to be evil, but I expect them to be more pragmatic than their tribal kin. They will largely be regulated to mercenary and criminal work and remain untrusted and feared. A goblin going into a nice part of town is still going to get harrassed at best.

This could be part of their mechanical makeup as well. They could have an ancestry trait that alters their results on diplomacy tests to peacefully deal with certain groups. Say, within a given community they count as one rank lower, or more, when trying to use diplomacy until they can develop a better reputation. Even though they have a boost to Charisma, it would be easy to add in another flaw preventing them from being diplomancers.


KingOfAnything wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
If you overestimate the magnitude of the change ahead, it is pretty easy to think the rate of change is much greater.
Shouldn't it be underestimate? If the rate of change is much greater?

No. If you think the magnitude will be greater than it actually is, you will think the rate of change is greater than it actually is. The time span stays the same, so rate is proportional to magnitude.

If you underestimated the magnitude of change, you would think the rate of change was much slower than it might actually be.

Ah, thanks, I always get those confused. English is hard sometimes (especially when it's not your mother tongue.)


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Stone Dog wrote:
I also don't expect that there will be a gluten of neutral goblins

Well, that explains the widespread intolerance towards goblins ;p


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Glut. Stupid phone.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I remember seeing stuff on Goblin young a while back that showed they were still unpleasant even if someone truly decent and patient was trying to raise them - they'd try to kill each other, eat everything, and act in a very Gobliny way. And that was fine. It was their nature.

There is nothing wrong with having Redeemed Goblins crop up once in a while. There are enough of them out there, there are circumstances where they can be taught how to be less nasty and how this benefits them... but these are the exceptions to the rule.

This does not spell out "Core Ancestry" to me. Half-orcs? You can have someone with a loving family raising a half-orc. Hell, you could have a loving and attentive Orc mother or Orc father with a human parent... or have the half-orc be born of more "traditional" methods and yet the mother chose to love their child because this IS their child... or even a loving orphanage that raised the half-orc as a person rather than a monster.

Half-orcs are very much an example of nurture over nature. Goblins are an example of nature over nurture from what we've been shown.

Being Neutral evil, Goblins can exist in cities and towns and obey the laws of the land, especially if there is someone in charge who is more powerful than them. Even then, if they can get away with something they will - for their own benefit and amusement.

As a writer, I come up with ideas that I love... but just don't work. If I want to better myself as a writer I have to look at that bad idea or that beloved piece of writing that just doesn't honestly work within the whole of the story, and say "this has to be cut out of my story."

Goblin Ancestry as Core is one of those beautiful but unwise decisions that should be cut from Core. Include it as one of the key races for the Expanded Ancestry Book or whatever you choose to call it. But for Core Rules... Goblins don't belong.

Liberty's Edge

Tangent101 wrote:
I remember seeing stuff on Goblin young a while back that showed they were still unpleasant even if someone truly decent and patient was trying to raise them - they'd try to kill each other, eat everything, and act in a very Gobliny way. And that was fine. It was their nature.

Was this canon? Because if not I'm having trouble seeing its relevance.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Paladinosaur wrote:

So, someone asked if goblins did indeed eat babys or it was just a song.

Well, in Burnt Offerings, a starving one tries to eat a boy alive. He then kills the boy's father and eats him.

sure but how many other npc villains from other races have also done awful things? because i can think of a ton of awful things human and other race npcs have done.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

As for people saying that this change in goblins comes out of nowhere or 'too quickly', I feel like people are ignoring all the Canon examples of goblins integrating into society at large. This stuff has been happening in adventures as well as fiction. The textual support for goblins not all being baby eating maniacs is already there.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As I'm coming late to this well-reasoned discourse - what is the essential argument against goblins? Is it that they are being considered for inclusion in the CRB? Is it the stat bonuses? Is it that a 'core' race is someone equated with some elevated prestige or standard in the campaign world when no such prestige was evident previously?

Just trying to understand the acrimony of the commentary.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Full disclosure--I'm about 5 pages behind in this thread but just had a revelation/compromise that maybe someone else has already suggested:

Why not brand goblins as a BONUS ANCESTRY in the core rulebook and include a HANDLE WITH CARE sidebar to warn GMs of potential pitfalls?

Shadow Lodge

to those that complain that goblin pcs would be killed on sight...the majority of bandits are humans...when i play a human i never assume that i will be mistaken for a bandit and killed...because people aren't that reactionary...maybe if a party of all goblins storms into town with weapons raised they might be attacked on sight...but a goblin or two in a mixed party walking calmly into town will be treated with the same cautious skepticism that all strangers are subjected to...


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I think adding Goblins to core is a poor decision. Reminds me of Ewoks in Return of the Jedi. It sounds cute but in the end detracts from the overall product.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

So last night at our weekly game I mentioned the new goblins as core race addition to PF2. Each player has decades of gaming experience. It is worth mentioning that all players loved the We Be Goblins modules as a zany departure from the norm. Even so, not a single player was happy with the change to core for goblins. Lots of head scratching all around.

An earlier comment on this thread suggested that the introduction of goblins as a core option was targeted primarily at new players without years of experience (baggage now?) with the artists of carnage and mayhem formerly known as goblins. I'm inclined to agree with this sentiment. Obviously it isn't universally true as lots of experienced players on this thread love the change, but why would new players have any cause to object to goblins as a common option as heroes? Perhaps designers see goblins as a key differentiator between the new version and other popular table top games and a key push of future marketing campaigns.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Crager Muldoon wrote:

As I'm coming late to this well-reasoned discourse - what is the essential argument against goblins? Is it that they are being considered for inclusion in the CRB? Is it the stat bonuses? Is it that a 'core' race is someone equated with some elevated prestige or standard in the campaign world when no such prestige was evident previously?

Just trying to understand the acrimony of the commentary.

To me, "core" is what is most common, most representative of the fantasy world the game is reflecting. "Core" is what players play, most GMs run, where all other things are more likely to be far more optional and varied. Since it's first, the oldest, most experienced characters will be core. So "core race" -- or "core ancestry" as it will be now -- is the most common set of creatures you will see adventuring in the game's setting. Not anything to do with prestige at all--indeed, in fact the opposite, in a way. But indeed rather sentient being so common and seen in society in the adventuring world that the majority of adventurers you will find in the world will most likely be one of those creature-types.

If you or anyone else disagrees as to what a "core race" should be I'd be curious as to your definition.

So that said, I think there's 2-3 "against goblins" camps.

1. That the canon lore up until now was that goblins were generally irredeemably, deeply sadistic monsters; 2e will reinvent them, effectively, as now both redeemable and varied in personality enough they would be equally as common an adventurer as an elf, half-orc, gnome, or dwarf, etc. This indicates there's going to be quite a paradigm shift in the setting. There are subgroups from hereon that
-- a. Think goblins should stay sadistic monster cannon fodder, and so effectively "humanizing" them, for lack of a better word, removes that cannon fodder from the game
-- b. just don't want to deal for any number of reasons, mostly personal in nature, with that presumed paradigm shift/don't want to deal with goblin adventurers being as likely as elves or halflings

2. People who think goblins will encourage players of a disruptive nature to play even more disruptive characters than they are used to.

3. People who just hate Golarion goblins and their weird evil-cuteness and the idea that eating babies and burning people alive is supposed to be really funny or something, which is how they're usually written/presented/drawn. Their being a core race guarantees goblins will show up far more frequently in rulebooks, iconics, APs and Modules, and associated fiction, etc. Which limits what 2e materials those folks will want to buy.

Disclaimer: I do not necessarily endorse any of these options (though I feel a bit of 3 in particular). #2 I think is deeply flawed (Personally, I think disruptive players will disrupt no matter what mechanics are available, and other players/GMs need to develop the social finesse to talk disruptive players into changing or leaving their table, because no rules are going to help them).

(Edited for gud inglesh.)

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I blame Lundeen for this - not Bulmahn. This is exactly the kind of stuff Lundeen would pull when he was a Living Greyhawk campaign administrator back in the early 2000s. And then he's usually kill the thing he gave you in spectacular fashion.

Lundeen's a lawyer - so he knows how to screw over the players legally. And now he's got the biggest audience of them all. (shakes fist) Darn you Lundeen! Darn you to Heck!!!!!


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I am seriously stunned by this thread. People are talking AT each other rather than TO each other. Some are trying to listen and respond on both sides of the fence, but even they seem to missing the point the other is trying to make or are having their counter arguments ignored, misunderstood, or misconstrued. I hate threads like this. They add nothing to the game, are not helpful in the least, and crank quite a few of those involved up to accomplish, what? To give the Paizo staff a headache moderating it and trying to keep the conversation civil instead of their regular jobs.

I'm going to try and figure this out a little: The principle objections to adding goblins seem to be:

1) Goblins are evil in Pathfinder. This changes that.

2) The races available in the core book are common and are found and accepted everywhere. Goblins, being evil monsters, are not accepted everywhere.

3) It will allow players who tend to be disruptive an excuse to be disruptive.

Those holding with these beliefs do not seem willing to let them go. Those who are arguing against them are getting frustrated that their arguments do not seem to be accepted.

I guess I wonder what else comes from this other than a frustration vent that could literally go on for another four months until the play test is released.

I have liked some of the suggestions here: Orc as core with Half-Orcs being part of the ancestry feat choices, possibly doing the same with Elves/Half-elves and adding Kobolds. Neat concepts. I really like the peacemakers trying to come up with other compromises, even if I don't see those working.

I have nothing more to add besides wishing everyone here good luck and plead with everyone to try and treat each other and the work presented in the blog with respect, even if you are not a fan.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
DeathQuaker wrote:
Crager Muldoon wrote:

As I'm coming late to this well-reasoned discourse - what is the essential argument against goblins? Is it that they are being considered for inclusion in the CRB? Is it the stat bonuses? Is it that a 'core' race is someone equated with some elevated prestige or standard in the campaign world when no such prestige was evident previously?

Just trying to understand the acrimony of the commentary.

To me, "core" is what is most common, most representative of the fantasy world the game is reflecting. "Core" is be what players play, most GMs run, where all other things are more likely to be far more optional and varied. Since it's first, the oldest, most experienced characters will be core. So "core race" -- or "core ancestry" as it will be now -- is the most common set of creatures you will see adventuring in the game's setting. Not anything to do with prestige at all--indeed, in fact the opposite, in a way. But indeed rather sentient being so common and seen in society in the adventuring world that the majority of adventurers you will find in the world will most likely be one of those creature-types.

If you or anyone else disagrees as to what a "core race" should be I'd be curious as to your definition.

So that said, I think there's 2-3 "against goblins" camps.

1. That the canon lore up until now was that goblins were generally irredeemably, deeply sadistic monsters; 2e will reinvent them, effectively, as now both redeemable and varied in personality enough they would be equally as common an adventurer as an elf, half-orc, gnome, or dwarf, etc. This indicates there's going to be quite a paradigm shift in the setting. There are subgroups from hereon that
-- a. Think goblins should stay sadistic monster cannon fodder, and so effectively "humanizing" them, for lack of a better word, removes that cannon fodder from the game
-- b. just don't want to deal for any number of reasons, mostly personal in nature, with that presumed paradigm shift/don't want to deal with...

A solid wrap up. Part of my issue with that shift is that there aren't any others to go along with it. They aren't mixing up the core races, they are tacking Goblin on to them. Dwarf, Elf, Gnome, Halfing, Human, Kobold, Goblin, Orc or similar combination would be more palatable. We would know that the landscape is changing, that the core race concept is being updated.

Instead, things are going to most stay the same except for this massive face heel turn. A face heel turn that somehow also won't change things up and won't happen overnight even though they are releasing with core instead of a later date. It all just doesn't jive, and the stated explanations don't cut it.

There is also a feeling that Goblins are getting this promotion at the expense of others. That Kobold, Tiefling, or other popular race is more lore fitting, and more deserving of the promotion.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Wultram wrote:
There is another reason I don't want goblins in the core. And that is that I hate golarion goblins. I also hate gnomes, kender too. I have no use nor desire to have that sort of stuff in my rpgs.
I mean, do you allow gnomes in your game? I've seen gnome-haters ban gnomes from their games quite frequently. I don't see why anybody couldn't handle goblins just like they handle gnomes.

I would suggest reading the full message again. But in short, I am not always the GM. And yes I do ban Gnomes, but that is mostly due the homebrew I run doesn't have them, because originally I saw nothing of worth there to refluff them to be tolerable since halflings were a thing. Goblins in fact are allowed as a PC race, with the understanding that it comes with baggage, but then again my goblins aren't psychopathic 3 stooges that are considered a pest to be eliminated like rats.

As I admited it is a simple matter of my preference in playstyle and what sort of playstyle the RPG itself encourages. I like serious tone in my rpgs and the mentioned races are antithesis of that.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
DeathQuaker wrote:
Crager Muldoon wrote:

As I'm coming late to this well-reasoned discourse - what is the essential argument against goblins? Is it that they are being considered for inclusion in the CRB? Is it the stat bonuses? Is it that a 'core' race is someone equated with some elevated prestige or standard in the campaign world when no such prestige was evident previously?

Just trying to understand the acrimony of the commentary.

To me, "core" is what is most common, most representative of the fantasy world the game is reflecting. "Core" is be what players play, most GMs run, where all other things are more likely to be far more optional and varied. Since it's first, the oldest, most experienced characters will be core. So "core race" -- or "core ancestry" as it will be now -- is the most common set of creatures you will see adventuring in the game's setting. Not anything to do with prestige at all--indeed, in fact the opposite, in a way. But indeed rather sentient being so common and seen in society in the adventuring world that the majority of adventurers you will find in the world will most likely be one of those creature-types.

If you or anyone else disagrees as to what a "core race" should be I'd be curious as to your definition.

So that said, I think there's 2-3 "against goblins" camps.

1. That the canon lore up until now was that goblins were generally irredeemably, deeply sadistic monsters; 2e will reinvent them, effectively, as now both redeemable and varied in personality enough they would be equally as common an adventurer as an elf, half-orc, gnome, or dwarf, etc. This indicates there's going to be quite a paradigm shift in the setting. There are subgroups from hereon that
-- a. Think goblins should stay sadistic monster cannon fodder, and so effectively "humanizing" them, for lack of a better word, removes that cannon fodder from the game
-- b. just don't want to deal for any number of reasons, mostly personal in nature, with that presumed paradigm shift/don't want to deal with...

As far as I'm concerned - a Core race is one that appears in the Core Rulebook ("Core" being further generally defined to me as one of the essential components necessary for running the game, and without which running the game would not be possible).

So, within that framework - goblins as a "core" race causes me absolutely no discomfort or irritation at all.

As for how goblins fit into the campaign world - assuming that one is using Golarion - then I would expect the updated campaign materials to provide the necessary background for any possible shift in general attitudes. I think if the campaign world can generally accept medium-sized talking birds and anthropomorphic rats as non-threatening creatures, until individual exceptions prove otherwise - I think it can do the same for goblins. But that's just me.

I think any player predisposed to be a pain at the table will be a pain at the table, regardless of the tools at his or her disposal for facilitating that pain. I don't think we'll see an uptick in the number of problem players simply because of goblins. I do think we'll see an uptick in problem players who use goblins to be an irritant, but I expect that to die down as the novelty wears off.

Beyond that - all of this seems like little more than arguing on the minutae of a possible inclusion into a game, when the very play experience of that game is dominantly controlled by the people at the table and how they apply the rules.

Fundamentally, the game must be an enjoyable experience. And the tradition of home games is that the DM and the players usually customize the rules to some extent to improve on that experience. I expect nothing different here.

Silver Crusade

And thank you DeathQuaker for that summation. I tried to thread the twenty-some odd pages to get an idea of what the basic arguments were, but got lost in the weeds along the way. Very much appreciated.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Feros wrote:
Those holding with these beliefs do not seem willing to let them go. Those who are arguing against them are getting frustrated that their arguments do not seem to be accepted.

Friend, your post appears to fall clearly on one side of the AT versus TO spectrum to which you refer. I don't think its on the side that you think it is.

It certainly would solve things if we could just let go of what we consider important, but whose "important" should have prominence? Are those arguing for a big change always right? Maybe. I'm not convinced.


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

Incidentally, the very first adventure with goblins, the one that supposedly marked them in everyone's mind as mindlessly, universally, irredeemably evil featured a goblin specifically noted as thinking the raid on Sandpoint was a bad idea, and is willing, under certain conditions, to sue for peace to protect his tribe from being wiped out by the adventurers. Still evil, yes, but it shows that from the start at least some goblins are capable of pragmatism and forward thinking.

1,301 to 1,350 of 1,765 << first < prev | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Goblins! All Messageboards