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
351 to 400 of 1,765 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I needed this in my life and I thank you for it. Second edition seems to be shaping up awesomely. I really needed an update for everything, and things seem to be getting better. To my sensibilities, of course.

I hope the playtest keeps giving me hope like these posts do. Gonna have to wait and hope 'til then.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
TwilightKnight wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
To be honest, I don't see how Paizo can back down from this bad idea. If they do, they outrage half of the fandom who are totally in love with the thought of Goblin PCs as a Core Ancestry.
The general response is negative so how would reversing their decision be any worse? the playtest is supposed to be about trying out a system to find out what works and what doesn't. Granted the commentary in this thread is somewhat limited, but if 300+ posts in roughly six hours is anything like a sample, it would seem more people are against core goblins that for it. So, maybe this is one of those "radical" ideas they are trying like the new magic item system and vocal feedback from us during the playtest will influence a change.

No. The general response is NOT negative.

It is evenly split. In fact, it may be slightly on the pro-Goblin-PC side than the pro-different-ancestry-instead side.

I am decidedly neutral on this. I want to see Paizo defend their choice. They have remained quite silent on this. They are seeing how people are reacting here. I suspect they KNOW this is a controversial choice and want to see how controversial it is.

But being Neutral I am better able to see without blinders that has me ignore one side to the benefit of the other.

Now, I think Goblins might be a good choice for a secondary race - for the Race Book that will inevitably be released. I don't think they work for Core. But I also know players who will be overjoyed to play a Goblin PC. And if it is well-crafted then I'll allow it.

But I want to see Paizo explain further. And their silence is most interesting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Friendly Rogue wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

The "hundreds of thousands of exceptions" thing is nonsense though. At each individual table there might by a half dozen heroic PCs. There might be one or two adventuring goblins.

The problem is when people treat the options in the CRB as what is average or normal. By the virtue of being Player Character options they are not normal. They are the exception. Your typical human is a dirt farmer. Your adventuring human is a wizard, or fighter.

Your typical goblin is a murderous little arsonist. Your Adventuring Goblin is a murderous little arsonist who is pointed at the threats against your typical town.

But none of the other core races have the reputation of being always chaotic evil.

Dwarves aren't known for eating babies. Elves don't have a reputation for despising dogs. Half-orcs, despite being discriminated against in most human cultures, do not hold the reputation of being disruptively anti-social.

Maybe your dwarfs aren't. But mine do. Goblin babies. He was a paladin, he has to or he falls. Gorum himself told him.

Second Seekers (Luwazi Elsbo)

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TwilightKnight wrote:
eddv wrote:
Pathfinder literally only exists because people didn't like the 'innovations' of 4th edition dungeons and dragons. Just saying. The tagline was literally "come flock to us people who don't like unnecessary and bad changes".
Maybe, but don't forget that WotC pulled the licensing for Dungeon and Dragon magazines as well which were primary items in Paizo's production. They were looking for other revenue streams. Hell, it might also be possible they were working on their own game system before the 4E announcement.

I mean true - but I very much doubt it would have succeeded the way it did without the widespread rejection of 4e.

I just don't think its terribly surprising that people who would be drawn to pathfinder would be resistant to things that seem like they're changing 'too much' for whatever value of change fits the bill to that person.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
eddv wrote:
TwilightKnight wrote:
eddv wrote:
Pathfinder literally only exists because people didn't like the 'innovations' of 4th edition dungeons and dragons. Just saying. The tagline was literally "come flock to us people who don't like unnecessary and bad changes".
Maybe, but don't forget that WotC pulled the licensing for Dungeon and Dragon magazines as well which were primary items in Paizo's production. They were looking for other revenue streams. Hell, it might also be possible they were working on their own game system before the 4E announcement.

I mean true - but I very much doubt it would have succeeded the way it did without the widespread rejection of 4e.

I just don't think its terribly surprising that people who would be drawn to pathfinder would be resistant to things that seem like they're changing 'too much' for whatever value of change fits the bill to that person.

Starfinder was too much of a change for the local group here. bought core, sold it to the used book store.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I find myself divided on this, perhaps because I can see good and bad in each point of view.

Long before Drizzt ever appeared, I gamed with a group that included two drow priestesses of Danu the Celtic Earth Mother, who rejected their culture and wanted to run a trade city. (Alignments were lawful neutral (played by the mother of several players) and neutral with good tendencies.) As I have played with people who have goblin PCs in PFS, and played in numerous games and campaigns since 1980, I have seen a lot. (Heck, one party in an AD&D group had a cover that it was a circus troop, explaining the odd assortment of characters.) So, I am open to having very diverse parties and I do view diversity in our world as a strength.

However, I think that the need to explain why goblins work as a core race needs to be better clarified. I understand that goblins are iconic to Paizo but that their reputation may mean that parties with a goblin may get a poor reception in a town in most parts of Avistan in Golarion. Also, I do understand the fear that goblins can be seen as disruptive.

Regarding the issue of always evil humanoid races, I would argue that it is best to treat such races as perhaps having the vast majority as evil. It may well be a matter of culture and religion influencing entire species of creatures.

So, I can see a few goblins that come from non-evil cultures, not raised among goblins, or reject the dominant views of cultures that are mired in darkness. In our own world, people have resisted evil in their own societies, even at risk to their own lives. Perhaps a goblin paladin of Sarenrae might try to convince other goblins to change their ways, but realize that he or she has an uphill battle countering thousands of years of culture. Such a goblin PC might well encounter a lot of hostility from "traditional" goblins.

I think that more dialog is needed here. I think that we need more light on this matter and a little less heat

I would hope that early on in the life cycle of PF 2, we will see options for some more races, particularly the Tian Xia races. Additionally, I saw good arguments for other races. Let's keep the dialog going.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Eh, this isn't that big of a deal, goblins and resonance are both automatically dumpstered at the tables i play at, bounded success/failure seems good, the basic ideas for fighter and rogue seem solid, magic items from crafters rather than casters only seems good. By and large there's still enough good to keep us interested but resonance and core goblins are a hard pass here.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

i seem to be in the minority from reading other comments, but i absolutely love pathfinders goblins. their fun and can add a lot to a party. i like most of this post but making goblins a charisma positive race makes absolutely no sense for their entire dynamic and feels shoehorned in to make goblin sorcerer more viable considering how much paizo loves to push that class combination. if anything goblins should be dex, con positive and wis negative. this goes along better with their entire trait of eating disgusting things

Grand Lodge Premier Event Coordinator

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:
Now, I think Goblins might be a good choice for a secondary race

This is why I said generally negative. Because even most of the people who are not ardently opposed to the notion, seem to tend toward it either not being the best idea or that they cannot support it without seeing how the Golarion cannon is changed to legitimize it. Reading about this topic here and in other online locations indicate that the group embracing this idea whole-heatedly is a small minority.

The real question really is have they already made up their mind and goblins are in or is this still up for influence by the playtest. Jason's commentary up thread, while not definitive, seems to suggest the former. If so, they could just come out and say that and largely end the argument. OTOH, if the latter is the case, players and GMs can include feedback about the goblins as a core race in their playtesting. How we proceed with the playtest has a lot to do with the expectations of what we have influence over and what is already hard-coded into the 2E.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Starfinder was too much of a change for the local group here. bought core, sold it to the used book store.

I had a feeling you would :D (please take no offence)


5 people marked this as a favorite.
The Rot Grub wrote:
Looks like my first attempt to make this comment got eaten, but I wonder if people would be as upset if goblins were listed separately from the core races and were listed as an "Uncommon Race", the way they are categorized I the Advanced Race Guide?

I don't think that's really meaningful or helpful. Goblins are not exactly rare on Golarion, they are certainly more common than half-elves. What's rare are "Goblin Adventurers" but Adventurers of all kinds are rare.

I mean, Changelings are *incredibly* rare, but no one bats an eye if every second Changeling goes on to become a great heroine (the rest become hags).

So if 50% of Changelings turn away from their evil nature, something like .01% of Goblins turning away from their evil nature shouldn't be a stretch.


Wild Spirit wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Starfinder was too much of a change for the local group here. bought core, sold it to the used book store.
I had a feeling you would :D (please take no offence)

Not me, the three gms i game with. I generally dont buy things til it seems likely more than a one or two off can happen.

Grand Lodge Premier Event Coordinator

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
resonance...automatically dumpstered

Seems a bit premature to say that given we have only the most basic of rules knowledge about the system, unless you have a fundamental objection to the philosophy that there is a limit to the amount of magic a living body can manage. In which case, dump away.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TwilightKnight wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
resonance...automatically dumpstered
Seems a bit premature to say that given we have only the most basic of rules knowledge about the system, unless you have a fundamental objection to the philosophy that there is a limit to the amount of magic a living body can manage. In which case, dump away.

Its the latter. My GM has come out and said he'd rather give a generous starting statline and under magic item.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

That WAR sketch is amazing.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
The Rot Grub wrote:
Looks like my first attempt to make this comment got eaten, but I wonder if people would be as upset if goblins were listed separately from the core races and were listed as an "Uncommon Race", the way they are categorized I the Advanced Race Guide?
I don't think that's really meaningful or helpful. Goblins are not exactly rare on Golarion, they are certainly more common than half-elves. What's rare are "Goblin Adventurers" but Adventurers of all kinds are rare.

I've always thought that's been the general understanding of what the "Uncommon" label from the ARG means. After all, half-orcs are probably fewer numerically than goblins in Golarion; but we accept them as a core race. So I wouldn't anticipate any confusion on that score.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
TwilightKnight wrote:
Tangent101 wrote:
Now, I think Goblins might be a good choice for a secondary race

This is why I said generally negative. Because even most of the people who are not ardently opposed to the notion, seem to tend toward it either not being the best idea or that they cannot support it without seeing how the Golarion cannon is changed to legitimize it. Reading about this topic here and in other online locations indicate that the group embracing this idea whole-heatedly is a small minority.

The real question really is have they already made up their mind and goblins are in or is this still up for influence by the playtest. Jason's commentary up thread, while not definitive, seems to suggest the former. If so, they could just come out and say that and largely end the argument. OTOH, if the latter is the case, players and GMs can include feedback about the goblins as a core race in their playtesting. How we proceed with the playtest has a lot to do with the expectations of what we have influence over and what is already hard-coded into the 2E.

I consider those to be closer to neutral. I don't just see someone say "X" and mark them as Pro-Goblin and "Y" as Pro-Something Else. It's more of a Likert Scale of determining the person's views on Goblin PCs as Core.

The Playtest exists for one reason: to test out the rules and see what works and what needs to be adjusted. It is not about the popularity of certain functions or the like. I mean, there are people who REALLY like the old version of Power Attack. They were most upset at Power Attack now giving an extra die of damage (and then two at higher levels). But Paizo wants to playtest their new version and see how it works in the game on a large scale. Thus they are not being swayed by public opinion here.

So I suspect we will be seeing Goblin PCs as Core. I don't think it's a smart choice. But I think with the playtest, we'll be given the opportunity to playtest the Goblin and then any rules adjustments will be tweaking the Goblin so it works better rather than replacing it.

And really, what is the alternative? Choosing (say) Tiefling and then having to come up with new Ancestry Feats and then doing an alpha test of them and getting this all done in time in three months for the regular Playtest? No matter that the Tiefling is a far better and more iconic choice... I cannot see it happening. Besides, Paizo likes its goblins. So they're not going to change their mind in all likelihood, unfortunately.

Second Seekers (Luwazi Elsbo)

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There doesn't HAVE to be an instead.

The instead folks are just annoyed that they'll need to wait a year to be able to play a Kitsune but that goblins of all things get to be in the core rulebook.

And then to boot they are including them by way of the Drizzt clause at best or by actively making all goblins worse at worst neither of which is great.

Plus them snatching the +dex/cha niche means halflings get shoved out of their niche for no good reason unless we are for some reason going to have multiple +dex/cha short races.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

"Garn! Ye buncha gobbo-hatin' web-lubbers can takes a longshank walk off a shortplank pier!"

(See? Goblins can be fun and lovable! Just like pirates.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:
And really, what is the alternative? Choosing (say) Tiefling and then having to come up with new Ancestry Feats and then doing an alpha test of them...

AFAIK they haven't indicated Tieflings or other humanoid races are NOT getting Ancestry Feats in Bestiary, although it's fair to guess they won't be as extensive as Core Ancestry Feats until "Tiefling Book" etc is released. To me, it would seem strange not to, for races that everybody understands are primarily defined by class levels. Aasimar, Tieflings, and Goblins have "PC race stats" in P1E Bestiary basically on-par with P1E Core Race treatment, so why wouldn't they have basic Ancestry stats and Feats in P2E Bestiary? In that scenario, quietly swapping Goblins as Core PC race doesn't seem like big disruption to development.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
eddv wrote:

...

Plus them snatching the +dex/cha niche means halflings get shoved out of their niche for no good reason unless we are for some reason going to have multiple +dex/cha short races.

Now, wouldn't it be hilarious if halflings didn't get included. The uproar would carry Over The Hills And Far Away >D

Horizon Hunters

10 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm sure you will have a subset of the audience who is *super* hyped to play goblins, and for them I'm glad for them.

From my perspective it does look like carving some Paizo IP into the Pathfinder 2E rulebook, and it looks like there are a number of people in this thread saying it is a stretch.

Tieflings would be a much better core option in my opinion, because they have a whole nation (Cheliax) which a Tiefling fits to come from. We already allow PCs to be from Cheliax in society and in homegames, so it's not a big stretch.

As others have iterated better than I, Goblins in the setting while silly and more destructive than evil, have been portrayed as a villain and not something that you put in your party.

For me, if others want to be a goblin, I don't want to take their fun away. To me, it feels more marketing and IP driven than what fits in Golarion lore.

Grand Lodge Premier Event Coordinator

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:

Thus they are not being swayed by public opinion

They aren't being swayed for the playtest. That's an important distinction and not the say as not being swayed. The playtest is largely designed already. In very short order, its gonna need to be printed. There isn't a lot of time to make wholesale changes to the playtest materials. Plus, Paizo has time and time again, they do not make changes based on theoretical arguments. They want PLAYTESTED feedback, not hypotheticals. So, even if the response was 100% against goblins in core, it is unlikely they would change that for the playtest. However, nothing of 2E has been written. Theoretically, it could all be changeable, but we simply don't know. It is reasonable to think there are some things that they are committed to, but we do not know for sure if including goblins in core is one of them.


Down with tieflings up with Kobolds!

Second Seekers (Luwazi Elsbo)

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I mean widespread rejection is going to have to be pretty universal for them to get the full dumpster treatment because the rulebook art has the goblin alchemist and I suspect they have already paid Wayne Reynolds his fee for the art of the guy and so they most likely intend to use it hell or highwater like Tangent is suggesting.

That said, it would be PRETTY easy to swap in Damiel for the gobbo if it got to that point, as Twilight is suggesting.

Shadow Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Out last campaign had two ratfolk, a goblin, a dwarf and a half orc. So obviously goblins are a desirable PC race, the issue with makin gthem core is a little like dnd drow. The menacing evil dark elves lost a lot of their mystique when every second PC was a drizzt clone. I love havong variety in ancestry but im not sure goblins are to go to. Of course if paizo can write it into the world as effectively as the rest of golarian is crafted then there will be no issue

Grand Lodge Premier Event Coordinator

eddv wrote:
Plus them snatching the +dex/cha niche means halflings get shoved out of their niche for no good reason unless we are for some reason going to have multiple +dex/cha short races.

Actually, if alternate boosts are as flexible as they could be, that won't be the case. The "standard" goblin or halfling might be Dex/Cha, but perhaps they can boost any attribute other than strength (since they're small). That would mean fluff would define the character more then core attributes.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
I'm glad to hear there is a third ability boost. I'm dismayed to hear there is a static single ability penalty. I'd be much happier if each race had two abilities it got to choose from for the penalty. For example, a dwarf picks either Dexterity or Charisma for their -2. This would enable a lot more builds.

That is a fantastic idea, Fuzzypaws; it would make ability scores even more flexible, and also feels "in tune" with the ability boost! For example,a dwarf paladin might be a bit clumsier than most of his kin, choosing Dex as his Flaw and be able to boost his Cha to the same level as his human "colleagues". :)

Second Seekers (Luwazi Elsbo)

Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You know I was reading that the opposite way,(essentially that Goblins were getting a net +4 to their stats) but your way of reading it makes way more sense (that the alternate ancestries would work more like the different Aasimar/Tiefling/Dhampir ancestries that exist now) and as a bonus is far less offensive to my sensibilities.

Although, reflecting on it a bit, I think the reason I am fixating so hard on the ability scores is that that's literally all that is defining the ancestries from a mechanical perspective until feats come into play, which yup I am still bummed about.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know its kind of funny that the amount of people trying to play a race against its stereotypes seems to dwarf (not the race) the people actually playing the race as is typical of the race.


"We be Goblin" AP when?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster 1st edition wrote:
You know its kind of funny that the amount of people trying to play a race against its stereotypes seems to dwarf (not the race) the people actually playing the race as is typical of the race.

What does it say about stereotypes in general? Rarely do you actually meet people who behave like stereotypes of their group.

Shadow Lodge

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
People here are just eager to clutch their pearls at the idea that others might not be impressed by their soooper special stereotype breaking pc.

People here appear to be clutching at pearls for a lot of reasons.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Boost to Charisma ...?! for goblins?!?!
Feels so wrong:-(

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
eddv wrote:
I mean widespread rejection is going to have to be pretty universal for them to get the full dumpster treatment because the rulebook art has the goblin alchemist and I suspect they have already paid Wayne Reynolds his fee for the art of the guy and so they most likely intend to use it hell or highwater like Tangent is suggesting.

Indeed. The sheer amount of commissioned art so far pretty much guarantees that this isn't changing.

Grand Lodge Premier Event Coordinator

1 person marked this as a favorite.

How much commissioned art have we actually seen? Just because the goblin doesn't appear in the CRB does not mean that art would do to waste. It would just be reallocated to the book/s that goblins do appear in. I certainly do not want to see the final version of the 2E CRB to be virtually an exact replica of the playtest book. I'm hoping that a reasonable amount of artwork will be fresh. I would have to go back and compare, but I believe there was significant artwork changes from the Pathfinder Beta to the 1E CRB.

But, hey if not, so be it. If the goblin is a lock for the CRB, then why not say that and let the playtesters focus on the mechanics of the goblin and not waste their time trying to convince everyone the goblin needs to be removed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm somehow reminded of a short story by author Haruki Murakami. In it, the protagonist works at a factory that produces elephants. Because elephants are so popular, but reproduce slowly, the demand exceeds the supply. So the factory chops up real elephants into parts, and attaches each real elephant part to a complete elephant mannequin as it were. Everybody loved elephants so much, and now elephants can be enjoyed even more! There was something else about dancing dwarves that killed you in your dreams.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, at least once the playtest rolls out in August, the core goblins hate will be drowned out by the UPROAR!™ over everything else Paizo is supposedly doing wrong.

{rolls Fort save (1d20 + 3 ⇒ (12) + 3 = 15 [Success]) saves vs blindness from extreme eye rolling}

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Quandary wrote:
There was something else about dancing dwarves that killed you in your dreams.

Gods, to be so lucky.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

12 people marked this as a favorite.

People keep saying this waters down goblins. I don't see it.

I've played a PC goblin. Many of you have played goblin PCs. Were they any less goblin-y for being nonevil adventurers?

I mean, go back and check out the classic "10 things you might know about goblins" article from Rise of the Runelords. You won't find "they eat babies" or "they're irredeemable psychopaths" on that list.

Goblins can be core and still be afraid of dogs and horses. They can love raiding junkyards to craft slapdash equipment, and love making up creepy songs. They'll still be sneaky little bastards, who are easily distracted and make crazy, poorly thought-out choices. Being core doesn't meant they won't be voracious eaters, or that they won't love fire (hell, gnomes can also by pyromaniacs). They can still get their big dumb heads stuck in places. The only one that might change is their aversion to reading and writing, but even then that's not guaranteed.

That just doesn't feel like a watered down goblin to me.

Second Seekers (Luwazi Elsbo)

Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

That I do agree with. Goblins have garnered what feels like the most controversial reaction yet and it does kind of feel like the sort of thing that would lift right out if they wanted it to.

The parameters for what they're looking for in general will be pretty important for them to lay out anyway because they have made it somewhat clear that they won't be making any 'major' changes to the underlying system while also acknowledging they have included some pretty radical changes like bounded successes, resonance, and hero points that may or may not make the final product.

Second Seekers (Luwazi Elsbo)

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

People keep saying this waters down goblins. I don't see it.

I've played a PC goblin. Many of you have played goblin PCs. Were they any less goblin-y for being nonevil adventurers?

I mean, go back and check out the classic "10 things you might know about goblins" article from Rise of the Rune Lords. You won't find "they eat babies" or "they're irredeemable psychopaths" on that list.

Goblins can be core and still be afraid of dogs and horses. They can love raiding junkyards to craft slapdash equipment, and love making up creepy songs. They'll still be sneaky little bastards, who are easily distracted and make crazy, poorly thought-out choices. Being core doesn't meant they won't be voracious eaters, or that they won't love fire (hell, gnomes can also by pyromaniacs). They can still get their big dumb heads stuck in places. The only one that might change is their aversion to reading and writing, but even then that's not guaranteed.

That just doesn't feel like a watered down goblin to me.

You mean other than the fact that Jason has come into this very thread saying that goblins will in fact be changing to suit the needs of them becoming more PC-oriented right?

Jason Buhlman wrote:


We are moving forward, trying to allow players to explore these characters, their culture, and their viewpoint. We are hoping to give you plenty of reasons, both mechanically and story-driven, to allow goblins in your game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
(want a Kender who is not a pain-in-the butt kleptomaniac? I've seen it)
Whoever did that wasn't roleplaying correctly. The race LITERALLY has no sense of personal property [and also incapable of fear which was almost as troublesome].

It is never a mistake to Roleplay an individual rather than an exemplar of a fictional society. A Kender can observe and consider, and decide to do things differently for any reasons that make sense to them. I mean, it's super-easy to spin the "no sense of personal property" into "what you perceive as property is illusory, but your feelings are valid, and since I do not find value in things, I will share these things you see as mine with you, and thereby maximize utility". Like it's not a real huge leap to create a Kender who has independently discovered the Four Noble Truths.

I don't see why someone can't similarly mutate goblins.

Second Seekers (Luwazi Elsbo)

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Someone can and someone has - but that doesn't mean they're suitable for the core rulebook.

In fact the very fact that you need to 'mutate them' to even make them suitable PCs is a pretty solid reason that aren't suitable for such a role.

351 to 400 of 1,765 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Goblins! All Messageboards