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
1,451 to 1,500 of 1,765 << first < prev | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
On an unrelated note, I really hope that all of the "half-human" peoples - geniekin, aasimar/tieflings, dhampir, changelings - remain separate and distinct ancestries. Grinding them up as mere human subgroups really doesn't feel interesting to me.

Same!

I especially think it would be a bummer if I had to burn my first ancestry feat to play a geniekin/changeling/etc, as I’ve seen some people suggest.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I hope for 2 things from all this:

1, a truly good and worthwhile explanation by Paizo as to how and why Goblins can be played by a player, and expect to not (in the majority of cases) be instantly treated with hostility

And

2, a reevaluation of the core races in general by Paizo.

EDIT: 3, that if Goblins remain Core, that they are not the sole change to the Core races(ancestries).

Sovereign Court

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

I didn’t realize how much goblins have been getting just a little bit tamer over the years until I started researching rebuttals for this thread. It really has been a long time coming, and I think I’ve convinced myself that goblins should be core.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

So regarding the "doesn't fit with lore" argument, what if in 4218 AR a goblin passes the test of the Starstone, and it turns out that goblin had a good alignment (let's say NG to split the distance between Cayden and Iomedae).

A goblin attempting the test isn't really news, since all kinds of people get themselves killed doing this all the time. But no one has passed it in ~900 years, so it would be major news if someone passes it, but it's still just "one person being awesome" so it's not a major change. "One Goblin is Neutral Good" and "One Goblin is awesome" are both plausible things, so...

But as soon as that happens, a lot of people's eyes are going to be opened. Both people who now have reason to reconsider how goblins are, since one of them literally just achieved apotheosis, and also goblins who may have a new role model to emulate.

I mean, if the intention is for Goblins to be in the core rulebook, it's probable that there should be a good aligned deity which is goblin-oriented added somewhere along the line.

As much as that would clear up some problems with Goblins in-universe, that doesn't seem to be happening.

And I quote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
...That change is not going to happen overnight. Its not going to happen by decree.

As for me? I really don't want goblins in Core primarily because they are described as few in number. While it may or may not be written down, Core races/ancestry have the distinction of being some of the most common races to be seen as adventurers, as well as being not uncommon sights in taverns. You aren't going to turn heads for being a dwarf in a common pub, but a goblin? 'Kill-on-sight' or not, people will be immensely wary and more than a little abrasive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
I especially think it would be a bummer if I had to burn my first ancestry feat to play a geniekin/changeling/etc, as I’ve seen some people suggest.

It was generally understood that a lot of the "half-human" options are mechanically weaker than "just being a human" was in PF1, right? So I would hope that if they made me burn a feat to be a Sylph, it would at least be worth it.

But I hope that we just map PF1 races to ancestries (use ancestry feats to differentiate between Peri-Bloods and Angel Bloods or Slag Mays and Waker Mays).


6 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a super intimidating thread to comment in, but I'm going to say why I'm excited for this given Jason's posts and after having read through all the (currently 1435 - you guys are passionate!) comments.

A lot of the debate back and forth seems to hinge on some core concepts (no pun intended) that people have different opinions over (what is core, what are goblins like, why are problem players problem players?, racial alignment: good or bad?), and so it seems like adding to those particular debates is moot at this point. I see the reasoning for both sides, and I know where I fall along the spectrum.

However, there was one thread that I wanted to pull out and respond to, because it has a bearing on why I'm very excited for this change.

Given what Jason has said about there being some kind of PF1 AP stuff to do with goblins coming up (and you know, being the last AP it's going to be a big epic affair), and then what he's said about the start/continuation of a change in views about goblins going into PF2E, I can't think of a better narrative time to be a goblin PC. I think it would feel very stunted to me if all this change in how goblins are seen came into PF2E, and then we had to wait however many months to explore that as a goblin character in a further book. Similarly, I think it would feel jarring for whatever change is coming to hit after PF2E dropped. Narratively, this seems like the best time to introduce whatever they have planned, and the best time for goblin PCs to be released into PF2E.

This won't change any opinions, nor will it allay some of the fears shown in this thread (nor is it related to many of them), but if goblins are going to begin the journey from whatever part of the pests/mischief/murderers line you fall on, to being more widely accepted as adventurers/good guys in the world (which is a cool path that I think will be fascinating to explore), I can't think of a better time than this one.

I'm massively excited for this, am happy Paizo is looking to grow and evolve the setting (one thing that really gives a cool sense of history and development to the world), and I hope everyone can treat people nicely and fairly in the discussions.

(comments up to 1453, you all don't hang around, huh)


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I am definitely 100% down for Goblins as a Core ancestry.

Both as a person who has played a Goblin and has played with people playing a Goblin, I've never once found them a distraction, but instead found them perfectly fantastic additions to their respective games.

In fact, our next game is going to have a Goblin in the party, which is going to be fun (not me though, I wanted to, but I let the other player go for Goblin, I'm giving a Human Ranger a shot this time).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
I didn’t realize how much goblins have been getting just a little bit tamer over the years until I started researching rebuttals for this thread. It really has been a long time coming, and I think I’ve convinced myself that goblins should be core.

So, lore has already changed to make this a reasonable new ancestry?

Sounds like the people worried about the lore not supporting this change just need to do a bit more reading.

Then they can quit worrying about Paizo forcing their mascot into the game.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Interestingly enough, shouldn't most elves seen out of Kyonin, which would be... 90% of elven adventurers, be considered atypical and few in number? The iconic elf is even a Forlorn elf. Elves who have chosen to live outside of Kyonin among other races of lesser longevity are outside the norm in comparison to their entire racial demographic and culturally ingrained xenophobia.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
SortHac wrote:
I really don't want goblins in Core primarily because they are described as few in number. While it may or may not be written down, Core races/ancestry have the distinction of being some of the most common races to be seen as adventurers, as well as being not uncommon sights in taverns.

Aren't goblins incredibly common on the face of Golarion, whereas things like "Half-Orcs" are terribly rare? I don't understand this argument.

If you're saying "Goblin Adventurers were rare" then sure, I agree with that but all kinds of adventurers are pretty rare, and "adventurer demographics" have nothing to do with population demographics.

I mean we've already experienced things like "new kinds of Changelings are printed, so we get kinds of Changelings as adventurers that never were previously adventurers" already and can deal with it. For most of Pathfinder 1.0 there were no Shifters or Vigilantes, but suddenly they were always there.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:

Okay. I'm feeling guilty now. In every other Blog post, we've had interaction with the Creators but this time they're bunkered down and keeping their heads low because they don't want to get them chewed off.

So I'm going to try and draw this conversation onto a more constructive tangent (it's in my name and job description boys and girls, I'm allowed) and ask some game-related questions.

First: Are the Ancestry Feats going to improve over time - for instance the Bite Feat end up doing more damage at higher levels, or the Sneak Feat eventually adding 10 feet to the Sneak (or even allow a full move)?

Second: Are there going to be tiered Ancestry Feats - for instance, you start with say Junk Tinkerer and then you could take Junk Crafter to create more potent forms of items out of junk that Tinkerer wouldn't allow?

Third: Why did you choose Wisdom instead of Strength as the Stat Flaw, and why give Goblins a bonus to Charisma instead of Intelligence (seeing that in essence Goblins are getting a +4 net shift in Charisma as a result)?

Fourth: Will other Ancestries get some level of bonus hit points? (It seems almost like this is to help reduce the vulnerability of 1st level characters which is quite handy to be honest... and one reason why I always start people off at 2nd level.)

Fifth: How set in stone are you with existing Ancestries, seeing a number of people have suggested Half-Breed to encompass half-orcs and half-elves (and also Aasimar and Tieflings) and this actually sounds like a very good idea you might consider enacting?

Anyway, I'm sorry for the less-than-positive reactions a number of us have had. I know you guys have put a lot of your heart into this and were hoping we'd all be as enthused as you... only to have folk pull out pitchforks and torches (though with goblins involved, fire was to be expected!). And I know many of us look forward to your next Pathfinder Blog Update. :)

These are questions I'd like answered


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Goblins as a core race feel a little weird, but could be fun.

The CHA bonus is odd, but okay, I'll roll with it.

The one real concern I have is the lack of a strength penalty. Goblins are small and weak, and that's why they're generally seen as pests rather than a real threat. And that's before we get to the possibility that you can add an additional +2 to your strength on top of this? The possibility of 20 STR Goblins at level 1 just feels wrong.


I like the idea of having small characters without a strength penalty, and between goblins, gnomes, and halflings the goblins are probably the best candidates for "wiry strength."

Plus we already had in PF1 "small-sized aasimars and tieflings" so you could have a gnome-sized Angelkin who start out with +4 strength relative to other gnomes (+6 if you use the chart!) I like that there are less "obviously a corner case abuse" options for small characters who want to be strong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CraziFuzzy wrote:

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

This would be good by me.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
SortHac wrote:
I really don't want goblins in Core primarily because they are described as few in number. While it may or may not be written down, Core races/ancestry have the distinction of being some of the most common races to be seen as adventurers, as well as being not uncommon sights in taverns.

Aren't goblins incredibly common on the face of Golarion, whereas things like "Half-Orcs" are terribly rare? I don't understand this argument.

If you're saying "Goblin Adventurers were rare" then sure, I agree with that but all kinds of adventurers are pretty rare, and "adventurer demographics" have nothing to do with population demographics.

I mean we've already experienced things like "new kinds of Changelings are printed, so we get kinds of Changelings as adventurers that never were previously adventurers" already and can deal with it. For most of Pathfinder 1.0 there were no Shifters or Vigilantes, but suddenly they were always there.

Well, for the record, I actually didn't know Half-Orcs were that rare. Moreover, after reading the blog-post again, I'm not sure where I got that impression from. Hmm...

After thinking on it, I've narrowed down some of my problems with Goblins as Core (not as PC races, I'm perfectly fine with them.)

1.) Goblins are still considered as born inherently evil. (I draw this reasoning from the fact that they can and will eat each other as children/in the womb) I would much rather this be changed to 'culturally lean towards evil/chaotic'.

2.) There are no confirmed Good/Neutral goblin *communities*. If we were to have confirmed by Paizo that in the last ten years such a community were to exist, I'd be perfectly fine with that.

3.) As others have stated, why is it that Goblins made it in as the first PF core monster race? If you want monster races that can be reasoned with, why not Kobolds? Or Hobgoblins? Why not Catfolk or Lizardfolk or even Ratfolk? Jason himself has stated that it is *not* because of the popularity of Goblins, so then why them?

Second Seekers (Roheas)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I like the idea of having small characters without a strength penalty, and between goblins, gnomes, and halflings the goblins are probably the best candidates for "wiry strength."

Plus we already had in PF1 "small-sized aasimars and tieflings" so you could have a gnome-sized Angelkin who start out with +4 strength relative to other gnomes (+6 if you use the chart!) I like that there are less "obviously a corner case abuse" options for small characters who want to be strong.

Goblins are short, ugly humanoids that stand just over 3 feet tall. Their scrawny bodies are topped with over-sized and usually hairless heads with massive ears and beady red or occasionally yellow eyes.

vs

Gnomes are one of the smallest of the common races, generally standing just over 3 feet in height. Despite their small frames, however, gnomes are extremely resilient, and not as weak as many of their foes assume. Though their diminutive stature reduces their ability to move quickly, gnomes often train to take advantage of their size, especially when fighting foes much larger than themselves.

vs

Halflings rise to a humble height of 3 feet. They prefer to walk barefoot, leading the bottoms of their feet to become roughly calloused. Tufts of thick, curly hair warm the tops of their broad, tanned feet. Their skin tends toward a rich cinnamon color and their hair toward light shades of brown. A halfling’s ears are pointed, but proportionately not much larger than those of a human.

Of the three the only one explicitly called out as scrawny or weak is the goblin.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Can we stop using "half-breeds" to talk about mixed-race characters.

It's an offensive term.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SortHac wrote:
3.) As others have stated, why is it that Goblins made it in as the first PF core monster race?
KingOfAnything wrote:
I didn’t realize how much goblins have been getting just a little bit tamer over the years until I started researching rebuttals for this thread. It really has been a long time coming, and I think I’ve convinced myself that goblins should be core.

They've been working on it for a while


So, here is something that I haven't seen brought up. Maybe the core designation is not gonna be that important moving forward? There is that distinction in books like the ARG, but it feels like Pathfinder has been moving away from that.

Take, for instance, Ultimate Wilderness. It reinvents two very odd, fringe 0hd races and rebalances them as core, as well as introducing another plant race. In several splat books, they have new racial versions of races like the Cacaelia and the Tritons.

Maybe Paizo doesn't want to draw that hard of a line between core and non-core races anymore? Maybe core will just mean "it came first" going forward.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I am not convinced the core designation was ever important. It seems like "core vs. non-core" is not as relevant a distinction as "'those options we are using because we like them' vs. 'those options we are not using because we do not like them.'"

I mean, I have a hard time believing that people who think it's inconceivable to prohibit a "core" option in a game somehow managed to not run into a single problem with the Leadership feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I am not convinced the core designation was ever important. It seems like "core vs. non-core" is not as relevant a distinction as "'those options we are using because we like them' vs. 'those options we are not using because we do not like them.'"

I mean, I have a hard time believing that people who think it's inconceivable to prohibit a "core" option in a game somehow managed to not run into a single problem with the Leadership feat.

I'd agree if not for the fact that there was a specific section in the ARG and until fairly recently, new races were only introduced in bestiaries, rather than the core line.

But that is also part of my point. That has clearly changed. 3 very fringe races were in Ultimate Wilderness. 3 more are being released in Planar Adventure. And having checked my copy of Ultimate Wilderness, there is nothing saying "You should check with your GM" or "These are unusual".

Honestly, it looks like Paizo isn't keeping up the core distinction anymore.

Second Seekers (Roheas)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Its about organized play.

I feel like I have had to repeat that about a dozen times, but that's what the core designation issue is all about. None of those races from UW are allowed in PFS.

Also goblins have gotten a little softer around the edges, but they haven't REALLY been. The entire setting has gotten a bit less edgy along with them too, but theyre still basically the same pyromaniacal maniacs theyve always been and that doesn't look to be changing much if Jason's latest comments are any indication.

In fact that really does seem to be the source of the hardest divide. People who are home game forward have been more pro-goblin while people who go most of their gaming in an OP setting have been more anti and its over this exact issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CrystalSeas wrote:

Can we stop using "half-breeds" to talk about mixed-race characters.

It's an offensive term.

What would you call them, half-bloods? I don't think mixed-race really works.

The reasoning for calling them half-breed was because they're half-orc, half-elf. Technically, tieflings and aasimar are not half-blooded as there is a specific half-demon/half-devil and half-angel out there, but it still works.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:

Can we stop using "half-breeds" to talk about mixed-race characters.

It's an offensive term.

What would you call them, half-bloods?

Paizo goes with "bastards."


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I am not convinced the core designation was ever important. It seems like "core vs. non-core" is not as relevant a distinction as "'those options we are using because we like them' vs. 'those options we are not using because we do not like them.'"

I mean, I have a hard time believing that people who think it's inconceivable to prohibit a "core" option in a game somehow managed to not run into a single problem with the Leadership feat.

It happens.


KingOfAnything wrote:
I didn’t realize how much goblins have been getting just a little bit tamer over the years until I started researching rebuttals for this thread. It really has been a long time coming, and I think I’ve convinced myself that goblins should be core.

I'd really love to see a timeline of the changes. But I don't even know where to start. Can you PM me some of those sources you've discovered, and we can build a timeline of the changes together?


eddv wrote:

Its about organized play.

I feel like I have had to repeat that about a dozen times, but that's what the core designation issue is all about. None of those races from UW are allowed in PFS.

Also goblins have gotten a little softer around the edges, but they haven't REALLY been. The entire setting has gotten a bit less edgy along with them too, but theyre still basically the same pyromaniacal maniacs theyve always been and that doesn't look to be changing much if Jason's latest comments are any indication.

In fact that really does seem to be the source of the hardest divide. People who are home game forward have been more pro-goblin while people who go most of their gaming in an OP setting have been more anti and its over this exact issue.

Well, it is a matter of design. There is a lot of fluctuation in design when it comes to the non-core races. It could be that they are wanting to change that for Organized play as well? That is merely speculation, but I do acknowledge your point about organized play.

As for your second point, it sounds like a cop-out. It reads as "Yes, they have gotten about less evil but it doesn't count." I'm sorry if I misread you, but that is what it sounds like to me. I think enough people have offered up examples of "not so evil" goblins that justifies a narrative shift in PF2.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
I didn’t realize how much goblins have been getting just a little bit tamer over the years until I started researching rebuttals for this thread. It really has been a long time coming, and I think I’ve convinced myself that goblins should be core.

I'd really like sources on this, because AFAIK the ARG, Goblins of Golarion, and Inner Sea Races haven't been contradicted. They still depict goblins as nearly completely evil.


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

If Half-orc and half-elves become a ancestry variant let it be for Orcs and Elves and not for Humans.
I also think that Aasimar and Tieflings should remain their own thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
bookrat wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
I didn’t realize how much goblins have been getting just a little bit tamer over the years until I started researching rebuttals for this thread. It really has been a long time coming, and I think I’ve convinced myself that goblins should be core.
I'd really love to see a timeline of the changes. But I don't even know where to start. Can you PM me some of those sources you've discovered, and we can build a timeline of the changes together?

The Goblin in Council of Thieves who wants to join the Hell Knights, an order so lawful Judge Dredd would joine, and is completely 100% tolerated by them and even given a relatively important job comes to mind as one source.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joana wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:

Can we stop using "half-breeds" to talk about mixed-race characters.

It's an offensive term.

What would you call them, half-bloods?
Paizo goes with "bastards."

ah, yeah. that's much better.

Second Seekers (Roheas)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Albatoonoe wrote:

As for your second point, it sounds like a cop-out. It reads as "Yes, they have gotten about less evil but it doesn't count." I'm sorry if I misread you, but that is what it sounds like to me. I think enough people have offered up examples of "not so evil" goblins that justifies a narrative shift in PF2.

I am just repeating Jason at this point - he has acknowledged that goblins as presently constituted would be problematic without some level of change in one of his posts and in the next indicated that they aren't going to do anything to dramatically shift the character of goblins so much as provide a route for there to be more who break away from the mainstream gobbo culture.

If they seem to have become more soft its only because the entire setting has, for instance, a lot less baby murder than it used to.

Liberty's Edge

scary harpy wrote:
Joana wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:

Can we stop using "half-breeds" to talk about mixed-race characters.

It's an offensive term.

What would you call them, half-bloods?
Paizo goes with "bastards."

ah, yeah. that's much better.

Speaking as a bastard in the technical sense, I'm cool with it.


Im cool with gobo in core. Ascending the starstone though is the jumping the shark point for me...


eddv wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:

As for your second point, it sounds like a cop-out. It reads as "Yes, they have gotten about less evil but it doesn't count." I'm sorry if I misread you, but that is what it sounds like to me. I think enough people have offered up examples of "not so evil" goblins that justifies a narrative shift in PF2.

I am just repeating Jason at this point - he has acknowledged that goblins as presently constituted would be problematic without some level of change in one of his posts and in the next indicated that they aren't going to do anything to dramatically shift the character of goblins so much as provide a route for there to be more who break away from the mainstream gobbo culture.

If they seem to have become more soft its only because the entire setting has, for instance, a lot less baby murder than it used to.

Okay, I feel you.


Orville Redenbacher wrote:
Im cool with gobo in core. Ascending the starstone though is the jumping the shark point for me...

I would honestly be really surprised if there were no new deities in PF2.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Orville Redenbacher wrote:
Im cool with gobo in core. Ascending the starstone though is the jumping the shark point for me...
I would honestly be really surprised if there were no new deities in PF2.

Some of us are really hopeful for Nocticula.

Second Seekers (Roheas)

I expect the core pantheon may grow a bit but that it will be like Kurgess or one of the Empyreal Lords or something and not someone new passing the Starstone trial.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
SortHac wrote:
I really don't want goblins in Core primarily because they are described as few in number. While it may or may not be written down, Core races/ancestry have the distinction of being some of the most common races to be seen as adventurers, as well as being not uncommon sights in taverns.

Aren't goblins incredibly common on the face of Golarion, whereas things like "Half-Orcs" are terribly rare? I don't understand this argument.

If you're saying "Goblin Adventurers were rare" then sure, I agree with that but all kinds of adventurers are pretty rare, and "adventurer demographics" have nothing to do with population demographics.

I mean we've already experienced things like "new kinds of Changelings are printed, so we get kinds of Changelings as adventurers that never were previously adventurers" already and can deal with it. For most of Pathfinder 1.0 there were no Shifters or Vigilantes, but suddenly they were always there.

Yeah, and those non-core classes are evidently rarer since they weren't there previously. Core classes still make up the bulk of the class demographic, shifters and vigilantes didn't sudden become commonplace.

EDIT: There's a section that mentions that vigilantes aren't suitable for certain types of campaigns. I love vigilantes but that's a good reason for them not being core. Core material are assumed to be usable in a broad but specific selection of situations. That's why anti-paladins aren't core, but paladins are. Because the setting assumes that your party will be compatible with good people.

Goblins can be adventurers, just not as a core ancestry.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I am not convinced the core designation was ever important. It seems like "core vs. non-core" is not as relevant a distinction as "'those options we are using because we like them' vs. 'those options we are not using because we do not like them.'"

I mean, I have a hard time believing that people who think it's inconceivable to prohibit a "core" option in a game somehow managed to not run into a single problem with the Leadership feat.

And yet you see variations of the Leadership feat (and it's variants) being printed in Adventure Paths and hardcover books. It's because it is core that it keeps re-occurring. What other feat that involves a subsystem has this level of popularity despite it being banned in quite a number of tables.


Sorry for using Half-Breed. Half-Blood is actually decent, in my opinion. Other than the obvious issue. Maybe Mixed-Blood?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Laird IceCubez wrote:
Goblins can be adventurers, just not as a core ancestry.

Honestly, I don't see why they can't be core ancestry. I've read this entire thread and every comment in it, yet this argument still makes no sense to me.

Any decent player should be able to play a Goblin without being disruptive just as easily as they would a human. You might as well ban Paladins for their stereotyped disruptiveness while you're at it. If they're unintentionally doing so, just talk to them and work out that issue.

As for NPCs, NPCs can be as prone to violence and/or racism as the DM makes them. Want the PC to have a chance without immediate death, tone it down to suspicion/mild distrust for the most part if you must have something. Maybe one or two NPCs are that bad, but not the majority. Maybe give them a chance to prove themselves, show through deed and character that they deserve something more than the citizens might normally give to their kind.

If they know a particular area is bad about that, maybe they hold off visiting until their name is more well-known so their reputation speaks for itself.

If the Player puts in the time and effort to make an appropriate backstory, play the character decent, and earn his/her long overdue respect, why not? Hell, maybe said PC could be the one who starts making strides towards bettering his/her people, showing them a new way to better their lives. Maybe some only do it for their benefit, while others open up to the idea. A few generations later, they could be the source that turned the Goblin people around to show they had this good potential all along, so long as they were given the right opportunities to do so.

This is so much more preferable than do what 5E's biggest mistake was and regress on race. Seriously, making all "evil races" evil to the core, except Drow because Drizzt, and any other decent examples were either faking or not pure blood was so disgusting, I dropped the Forgotten Realms novels mid-book after that came up (Drizzt being told by his wife that his god told her that upset me greatly). Straight up ruined decades of storytelling right there. Hell, even Half-Orcs apparently have calls to evil from Gruumsh they have to resist mentioned in the Player's Handbook.

Drizzt literally had an entire story about the time he met a good Goblin that was killed despite being innocent and was his big example about judging entire races...

But yes, in general, I'm all for this change, and will welcome many wonderful Goblin PCs to my assorted adventures.

Grand Archive

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

So regarding the "doesn't fit with lore" argument, what if in 4218 AR a goblin passes the test of the Starstone, and it turns out that goblin had a good alignment (let's say NG to split the distance between Cayden and Iomedae).

A goblin attempting the test isn't really news, since all kinds of people get themselves killed doing this all the time. But no one has passed it in ~900 years, so it would be major news if someone passes it, but it's still just "one person being awesome" so it's not a major change. "One Goblin is Neutral Good" and "One Goblin is awesome" are both plausible things, so...

But as soon as that happens, a lot of people's eyes are going to be opened. Both people who now have reason to reconsider how goblins are, since one of them literally just achieved apotheosis, and also goblins who may have a new role model to emulate.

I mean, if the intention is for Goblins to be in the core rulebook, it's probable that there should be a good aligned deity which is goblin-oriented added somewhere along the line.

Ok ok! What if, the final AP was about the group of players, tasked to help a good goblin to reach the Star Stone!? I always wanted to know what was happening in that place, and finishing an AP and everyone become gods!? That would be EPIC! xD

Also, quoting this because these are good question, and a rare island of constructivism and real discussion:

Tangent101 wrote:

Okay. I'm feeling guilty now. In every other Blog post, we've had interaction with the Creators but this time they're bunkered down and keeping their heads low because they don't want to get them chewed off.

So I'm going to try and draw this conversation onto a more constructive tangent (it's in my name and job description boys and girls, I'm allowed) and ask some game-related questions.

First: Are the Ancestry Feats going to improve over time - for instance the Bite Feat end up doing more damage at higher levels, or the Sneak Feat eventually adding 10 feet to the Sneak (or even allow a full move)?

Second: Are there going to be tiered Ancestry Feats - for instance, you start with say Junk Tinkerer and then you could take Junk Crafter to create more potent forms of items out of junk that Tinkerer wouldn't allow?

Third: Why did you choose Wisdom instead of Strength as the Stat Flaw, and why give Goblins a bonus to Charisma instead of Intelligence (seeing that in essence Goblins are getting a +4 net shift in Charisma as a result)?

Fourth: Will other Ancestries get some level of bonus hit points? (It seems almost like this is to help reduce the vulnerability of 1st level characters which is quite handy to be honest... and one reason why I always start people off at 2nd level.)

Fifth: How set in stone are you with existing Ancestries, seeing a number of people have suggested Half-Breed to encompass half-orcs and half-elves (and also Aasimar and Tieflings) and this actually sounds like a very good idea you might consider enacting?

Anyway, I'm sorry for the less-than-positive reactions a number of us have had. I know you guys have put a lot of your heart into this and were hoping we'd all be as enthused as you... only to have folk pull out pitchforks and torches (though with goblins involved, fire was to be expected!). And I know many of us look forward to your next Pathfinder Blog Update. :)

But yeah.. wasn't human already said to add 10 racial hp? I guess most Ancestries will add 10, small ones 6 or 8, and Dwarf and other bulky races like Half-orc would add 12?

Pretty sure it was confirmed that your HP was calculated with Class, Ancestry and constitution.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mewzard wrote:

If they know a particular area is bad about that, maybe they hold off visiting until their name is more well-known so their reputation speaks for itself.

If the Player puts in the time and effort to make an appropriate backstory, play the character decent, and earn his/her long overdue respect, why not? Hell, maybe said PC could be the one who starts making strides towards bettering his/her people, showing them a new way to better their lives. Maybe some only do it for their benefit, while others open up to the idea. A few generations later, they could be the source that turned the Goblin people around to show they had this good potential all along, so long as they were given the right opportunities to do so.

You're right, and you don't need it to be a core ancestry to be able to do anything that you've said. This is all good material, but for an uncommon ancestry.

An event that leads to goblins having a good potential after generations later would be an amazing thing. I would accept core goblins once such an event has occurred, but it hasn't.

Mewzard wrote:
This is so much more preferable than do what 5E's biggest mistake was and regress on race. Seriously, making all "evil races" evil to the core, except Drow because Drizzt, and any other decent examples were either faking or not pure blood was so disgusting, I dropped the Forgotten Realms novels mid-book after that came up (Drizzt being told by his wife that his god told her that upset me greatly). Straight up ruined decades of storytelling right there. Hell, even Half-Orcs apparently have calls to evil from Gruumsh they have to resist mentioned in the Player's Handbook.

I agree with you, evil races are a ridiculous stereotype, and there're definitely good goblins out there, but they are uncommon as opposed to evil goblins.

I'm not saying ban goblins from being a playable race. I'm saying don't make them a core race. They can be a featured race or an uncommon race. Goblins aren't rare, but goblins player characters should be rare, that's how you make them special.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elfteiroh wrote:

But yeah.. wasn't human already said to add 10 racial hp? I guess most Ancestries will add 10, small ones 6 or 8, and Dwarf and other bulky races like Half-orc would add 12?

Pretty sure it was confirmed that your HP was calculated with Class, Ancestry and constitution.

Humans are 8, actually (which leaves small/frail races at 6 and tough ones at 10, probably). And yeah, at 1st it's Race + Class (which is equal to maxed HD in PF1) + Con Mod. Subsequent levels are just Class (still the same number as 1st level) + Con Mod.

So a 10th level Human Fighter with Con 14 has 100 HP from Class, 8 from Race, and 20 from Con Mod for 128 total HP.

Which is a bit higher than the 94 a similar Fighter has in PF1 with Favored Class Bonus, but not so much higher as to change the game dynamic all that much.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Elfteiroh wrote:


Ok ok! What if, the final AP was about the group of players, tasked to help a good goblin to reach the Star Stone!? I always wanted to know what was happening in that place, and finishing an AP and everyone become gods!? That would be EPIC! xD

Maybe goblins becoming evil is actually a virus and the AP is to come up with an vaccine. So there are still pockets of evil goblins out there.

It could be called "The Goblin Strain". xD

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mewzard wrote:
Any decent player should be able to play a Goblin without being disruptive just as easily as they would a human. You might as well ban Paladins for their stereotyped disruptiveness while you're at it.

Pretty sure if the Paladin wasn't a core class from PF1, and D&D before it, but an advanced players guide or advanced class guide class, and Paizo decided they were going to make it a core class you'd see just as much argument going on.


Also pretty sure its easier to play within the bounds of type as a LG servant of law and good without being disruptive than it is to play within the bounds of type set out regarding goblins and not be disruptive.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think my first playtest character is going to be an LG Goblin Paladin of Folgrit whose schtick will be "DO NOT HARM CHILDREN!" having been previously adopted by Dwarves who followed this line of reasoning following having orphaned her.

It's gonna be the "most disruptive thing imaginable", I guess.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My 2 cents here is that i actually got nothing against the Goblins as a playable race, however i do feel so far they are a bit hamfisted into the "adventurer" class without much explaination that made them "accepted" in a world that previously saw them as mere vermin.

What actually changed in the world of Golarion to make this happen or is it a "retcon" of the general population of Golarion to be less racist against non-standard races in their respective areas? I know Absolom might be the place where they could mingle without being killed on sight, but other places like Cheliax? I dont think so.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd have much rather seen kobolds in the new core than goblins. Seems like this might decrease their utility as fun and crazed enemies to fight.

1,451 to 1,500 of 1,765 << first < prev | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Goblins! All Messageboards