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
801 to 850 of 1,765 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Ralphrius wrote:
I thought you said that a race being included in core meant they were now integral to the setting, and that we would see said core race in every major city, every nation. If that's not the case for Half-Orcs in Golarion, why would it be for Goblins now?

They are.

You see half-orcs in just about every adventure path. There are named half-orcs in freaking Sandpoint, a quite little backwater town, and there is nothing saying "Well there's only like 4 half-orcs in the entire town, and they're all already named and given specific jobs, so you can't be a half-orc from Sandpoint". Literally the entire universe bends around your desire to play a half-orc from Sandpoint if thats what you decide as a player.

My point is if Goblin is core, then it is THERE. It is EVERYWHERE. It exists by default, everything published will assume that they are there, everything published especially early on will go out of it's way to put in important goblin NPCs to show them off.

If Goblin is a core race, then the entire setting has to change to accommodate the fact that they can now come from any town, village, or thorp anywhere in the world.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:

Well, personally i think i will have to house rule the core rule book anyway, so it doesnt annoy me as much as some others here.

But yeah, i do find weird that new GM mostly would take up a system where they need to cut stuff out from the get go, then again, maybe because they are new to PF they wont have as much as those of us here longer against goblins.

Almost everyone who is anti it, is anti it because they have conceptions of it from PF1. For new players and gms, they aren't going to have that issue at all. Unless someone else makes it an issue.


Zonto wrote:

It's really interesting coming to a comments section hours late... the tone shift between page 1 and 15 sure is a thing.

I don't understand the flames around goblins being a PC race. Sure they're generally evil, but goblin PCs existed in 1E too. They're just a race of chaotic goofy monsters.

If you don't want to play a goblin, don't play a goblin. If someone else wants to play a goblin, why not? As long is everyone is having fun, who cares? If someone else having fun means you aren't having fun, maybe some introspection is in order.

Sigh.

Only on why im sitting on the table with said player.

If you were right, then PFS wouldnt ban evil PCs, afterall they are having fun, it is everyones elses problem that they arent clearly. Actually they wouldnt ban anything.

A disruptive player is a problem.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
So what your saying is stuff already gets banned in the core book and it isn't a problem. But the fact you might want to ban something else in the core book is suddenly such a major issue that it shouldn't be an option for anyone?

1) Alignment is not an obvious, visible issue.

2) Nobody said it shouldn't be an option for anyone to have a goblin PC. Virtually everyone is saying "Just leave them in a different book". Beastiary, advanced race guide, something like that. Have them be an OPTION instead of a DEFAULT.

By making them core, you're making them as common of an adventurer as a dwarf or a half-orc. They cannot be easily ignored.


graystone wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
It seems trivially easy to just say "no goblins".
Is it though? Core races get the most support so more resources are going to a race I'm not using. As core, they'll have more of a footprint in modules, adventures and AP's that have to be sanitized. Saying no to PC's isn't the same as removing 'common' goblins from the game is it?

I feel like the reason to ban goblin PCs (it encourages disruptive behavior from some players) is not a reason for a GM to excise goblin NPCs- since no GM worth their proverbial salt is going to unnecessarily disrupt their own games.

I mean, the big difference between Kender PCs and Kender NPCs is that players can enact violence on the latter without causing any problems outside of the game.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Edymnion wrote:
Ralphrius wrote:
I thought you said that a race being included in core meant they were now integral to the setting, and that we would see said core race in every major city, every nation. If that's not the case for Half-Orcs in Golarion, why would it be for Goblins now?

They are.

You see half-orcs in just about every adventure path. There are named half-orcs in freaking Sandpoint, a quite little backwater town, and there is nothing saying "Well there's only like 4 half-orcs in the entire town, and they're all already named and given specific jobs, so you can't be a half-orc from Sandpoint". Literally the entire universe bends around your desire to play a half-orc from Sandpoint if thats what you decide as a player.

My point is if Goblin is core, then it is THERE. It is EVERYWHERE. It exists by default, everything published will assume that they are there, everything published especially early on will go out of it's way to put in important goblin NPCs to show them off.

If Goblin is a core race, then the entire setting has to change to accommodate the fact that they can now come from any town, village, or thorp anywhere in the world.

Also Ive yet to see an adventure path or Module that starts with collecting a bounty on Half-orc ears (Or anything other than Goblin for that matter.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:

Well, personally i think i will have to house rule the core rule book anyway, so it doesnt annoy me as much as some others here.

But yeah, i do find weird that new GM mostly would take up a system where they need to cut stuff out from the get go, then again, maybe because they are new to PF they wont have as much as those of us here longer against goblins.

Almost everyone who is anti it, is anti it because they have conceptions of it from PF1. For new players and gms, they aren't going to have that issue at all. Unless someone else makes it an issue.

Most PF2 players are going to be from PF1. At least for the first few years.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bartgroks wrote:
I love the idea of Goblins being a core race. The whole idea of "kill on sight" races is repugnant and I am glad to see v2 taking a step away from it. My first v2 PFS toon will likely be a goblin. Great idea and a great blog post giving us more details on it.

Mostly this, except I would insert the word "mortal" (I am fine with demons and the like being kill on sight). And I would never refer to a character as a "toon".

Anyway, Goblin would not have been my first thought for adding a new core race, but now that they have announced it kinda makes sense.

I think the people drawing a parallel with Dragonborn in D&D are right, although possibly not in the way they imagine. Goblins in Pathfinder are hugely popular. Dragonborn in D&D are hugely popular (so much so that they remained core in 5e despite their connection with 4e, and 5e going out of its way to distance itself from 4e as much as possible).

_
glass.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I had a great PC that was a hobgoblin for a long term campaign several years back. It was a lot of fun.

I think providing rules for a drizzt style one-off goblin is one thing altering the default foundation of the core game is quite another. I think having goblins as core is a really bad idea and the amount of division it creates in the fan base makes it that much worse.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:
Zonto wrote:

It's really interesting coming to a comments section hours late... the tone shift between page 1 and 15 sure is a thing.

I don't understand the flames around goblins being a PC race. Sure they're generally evil, but goblin PCs existed in 1E too. They're just a race of chaotic goofy monsters.

If you don't want to play a goblin, don't play a goblin. If someone else wants to play a goblin, why not? As long is everyone is having fun, who cares? If someone else having fun means you aren't having fun, maybe some introspection is in order.

Sigh.

Only on why im sitting on the table with said player.

If you were right, then PFS wouldnt ban evil PCs, afterall they are having fun, it is everyones elses problem that they arent clearly. Actually they wouldnt ban anything.

A disruptive player is a problem.

A disruptive player is absolutely a problem, I agree with you there 100%. However, I don't think playing a goblin means a player is disruptive.

Sure, the disruptive player may be attracted to the zany antics of the goblin, but without a goblin, that player is just going to be a CN halfling rogue or whatever and spend their time stealing from the party.

If you have disruptive players at the table, maybe have a conversation with them, or as a group.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

I didn't read alll the thread, just the blog post.

I really love Golarion goblins and have no problem having one in the party from time to time, but I realy think Paizo shouldn't include them in the core races of the game.

When D&D4 arrived, 2 new races were added (Tiefling and Drow) and one was removed (Gnome). And that toally changed the way you see the world where the PCs are evolving : now there were tiefling and drow NPCs everywhere and gnomes totally disappeared.

And even if Paizo tells us that Golarion will not suffer a world-shaking event with the new edition, adding a new core race IS changing the world. You go from "goblins are evil little nuisances but there are some exceptions that can adapt to civilization" to "goblins are people like anyone else". This is changing the world !!

I would greatly prefer that Paizo put the goblins in the Monster Manual, with a sidebar to play goblin PCs, or include them in a supplement book about races.

Another point that I really don't like is the ability bonuses of goblins : I'm ok with +2 Dex, but +2 Charisma for a race that always had -2 ? Not only it is surprizing to see a race unable to socialize become better than anyone to this, but the +2 dex/cha small race was always the Halfling, so why change that ? I'd rather see globins with +2 dex/con to help them survive all the bad situations they are putting themselves in ...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Edymnion wrote:
By making them core, you're making them as common of an adventurer as a dwarf or a half-orc. They cannot be easily ignored.

How common are "adventurers" in your conception of Golarion? In mine- they are really very rare. Something like ~100 total adventurers over the last 10 years, definitely less than 1000.

So we're dealing with numbers where it's not unreasonable for adventurers to be a disproportionate cross section of Golarion as a whole.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
graystone wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
It seems trivially easy to just say "no goblins".
Is it though? Core races get the most support so more resources are going to a race I'm not using. As core, they'll have more of a footprint in modules, adventures and AP's that have to be sanitized. Saying no to PC's isn't the same as removing 'common' goblins from the game is it?

I feel like the reason to ban goblin PCs (it encourages disruptive behavior from some players) is not a reason for a GM to excise goblin NPCs- since no GM worth their proverbial salt is going to unnecessarily disrupt their own games.

I mean, the big difference between Kender PCs and Kender NPCs is that players can enact violence on the latter without causing any problems outside of the game.

If someone is banning goblins because they think common goblins makes NO sense than WHY would they like common goblins in the OTHER aspects of the game? There is a HUGE difference in the rare goblin and the everyday one that being core implies.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I would rather have drow be a playable race.

Silver Crusade

definitely excited to build a Goblin Paladin as my first Playtest PC :-D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Edymnion wrote:
By making them core, you're making them as common of an adventurer as a dwarf or a half-orc. They cannot be easily ignored.

How common are "adventurers" in your conception of Golarion? In mine- they are really very rare. Something like ~100 total adventurers over the last 10 years, definitely less than 1000.

So we're dealing with numbers where it's not unreasonable for adventurers to be a disproportionate cross section of Golarion as a whole.

I'm pretty sure you're way off, considering all the adventuring NPCs you can find in the APs and modules.

I mean, the Iconics themselves, not counting PrC Iconics, already account for 41 adventurers, as a baseline.

Also, you have an entire adventuring guild in the PFS, so there's that.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
If someone is banning goblins because they think common goblins makes NO sense than WHY would they like common goblins in the OTHER aspects of the game? There is a HUGE difference in the rare goblin and the everyday one that being core implies.

"Goblins being common makes no sense" is the argument I will not accept. We have not seen the textual justification for Goblin cultural change, but it is exceedingly easy to imagine how a fecund species that is recklessly experimental is able to accidentally stumble on good ideas that causes rapid cultural change. It's not as though goblins are rare so much as "Goblins that have ingratiated themselves into non-goblin societies" but perhaps they'll figure something out. My "goblin trash collectors" example earlier is just one potential avenue for goblins to become part of a broader society.

What I will accept is "I have players I do not trust to not be disruptive with goblin PCs, and so as to not single them out I will just ban the option entirely" but this is a call that needs to be made on a case by case basis.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

We had a great time running the We Be Goblins modules. That said, I'd rather not see goblins as a core race. Especially when we will have to wait for supplements to introduce aasimar and tiefling.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Paladins are super disruptful. I've had way more problems with folks "just roleplaying" their Paladin than I have with any other character type. Them being core also implies they are super common and that anyone from anywhere could be one. I also think if the Paladin wasn't in they could use the page count to include another class I personally prefer. People also got really s$+$ty when I said "no Paladins" in my lawful evil campaign. Paladins shouldn't be core.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Edymnion wrote:
By making them core, you're making them as common of an adventurer as a dwarf or a half-orc. They cannot be easily ignored.

How common are "adventurers" in your conception of Golarion? In mine- they are really very rare. Something like ~100 total adventurers over the last 10 years, definitely less than 1000.

So we're dealing with numbers where it's not unreasonable for adventurers to be a disproportionate cross section of Golarion as a whole.

I don't think you've even accounted for the Pathfinder Society membership there....

But that is beside the point being made. Core races persistently show up as non-adventuring NPCs.

I don't recall anyone being bothered by the PC playable goblins in the Advanced Race Guide. So clearly the potential of playing one isn't the issue. Being "core" is significant.


Everyone's home games have different assumptions and rules, so it can't be assumed that core races are always available. For example, my GM banned Ranger before I even started playing back in 2012 and has a deep-seated loathing for Elves in general (he didn't ban them, but expect dirty looks if you choose to play one). I still ban Summoners just because of how much my combats tend to bog down when they're involved, and I don't allow Rangers without a few changes either. Heck, I've been thinking about tweaking Dwarves as-is - their ability scores are pretty solid, and Hardy and Steel Soul are nearly the equivalent of six feats for the price of one!

As for the "goblin in every city" argument, there's not even a human in every city, and they're easily the most populous playable race in the game! Even now most cities don't have a large enough population of every CRB race to make up a single percentage of their population - Korvosa has no notable half-orc population (total population 18.5k), Kenabres has no notable population of elves/gnomes/dwarves/half-orcs (total population 12.3k), Tamran is in the same situation as Kenabres (total population 9k), and even Tamran in Cheliax is lacking a significant population of any race save humans and halflings (total population 82k). All of these cities are major locations in-setting, and yet none even boasts a 1% population from every core race! It seems rather far-fetched that none would have even a single goblin, much less a minor percentage below 1% like many of these locations do.


BryonD wrote:


I don't recall anyone being bothered by the PC playable goblins in the Advanced Race Guide. So clearly the potential of playing one isn't the issue. Being "core" is significant.

Amen.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
How common are "adventurers" in your conception of Golarion? In mine- they are really very rare. Something like ~100 total adventurers over the last 10 years, definitely less than 1000.

Common enough for there to be an entire society of nothing but adventurers (the Pathfinder Society). An entire society that can afford to turn applicants away for not being a good enough adventurer to meet their standards.

Common enough that if a PC gets killed in the most remote location on the face of the planet, there's an adventurer near enough to replace them within a day or two.

Common enough that every PC class in the game has an iconic adventuring hero to represent it.


Zonto wrote:

A disruptive player is absolutely a problem, I agree with you there 100%. However, I don't think playing a goblin means a player is disruptive.

Sure, the disruptive player may be attracted to the zany antics of the goblin, but without a goblin, that player is just going to be a CN halfling rogue or whatever and spend their time stealing from the party.

If you have disruptive players at the table, maybe have a conversation with them, or as a group.

It doesnt directly means, but neither does playing evil. The issue that will probably happen is simply the concept of "free pass cause the player is just interpreting the character".

Either way, at this point, at my table such players wouldnt have free reign anyway, but for a new GM unless the goblin is pretty well explained I expect for them to be a major cause of threads during 2.0.

I think that it is important to notice that right now usually GMs dont allow goblins or allow them in certain cases, which means good players are the ones picking the race, thus it doesnt cause issues. When it is core it will hit the "main market" and thus i wonder how many pyromaniacs will start to flood to the class.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I disagree that core is in any way significant beyond "the core options predate the rest of the options."

I mean, a big part of the nature of shared storytelling games is that the world is mutable to fit the needs of the story. If you had wanted to, you could play a goblin PC in every single adventure path to date. Between the GM and the player working together you can fit a hero-goblin anywhere you want if you actually try. However many goblins exist in Magnimar or Westcrown or Alkenstar is up to the GM to decide, depending on the needs of the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pappy wrote:
Most PF2 players are going to be from PF1. At least for the first few years.

If Paizo believed that, they probably would just tweak PF1.

Do you really believe that Paizo isn't counting on a large influx of new players, attracted by a new game?


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Or, to put this all another way:

If we want to say Pathfinder goblins are iconic, yet to make them a playable core race we literally have to get rid of EVERYTHING that makes them iconic, then whats the point?

At this point you've got two separate races in everything but name. Either they are the goblins we have now, or they aren't. And if they aren't the iconic goblins we have now (who are intentionally made to be as unfit for PCs as humanly possible), why are we pretending they are?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

On behalf of all the future Goblin Paladins, I would like to take a moment to assure my fellow adventurers-in-arms that I and my fellow green guardians are nothing comparable to my crude ilk you may be accustomed to.

In fact, my brother Nails and I were toasting to exciting future endeavors where I would charge boldly into battle upon my warhorse to join Nails and his faithful hound, Deddie.

And I do so hope you will think kindly upon us should sudden bestial urges fell the better Angels of our nature--as that celestial scamp Cayden Cailean is rumored to have once said, "None was a better lockpick to chained desires than a fine glass of sherry!"

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

To get to a line of discussion a little less heated than Goblin vs No Goblin...

I really like the apparent flexibility they are going for with the ability score assignment and selection as well as the ancestry feats. One thing I'll be really curious to see is just how many such feats are open to each character and just how frequently we will get to select one of these. With these combinations of Ancestry, Class, and General feats I'm starting to feel like there's a real possibility for every build to feel really individual and unique!


Malk_Content wrote:
Paladins are super disruptful. I've had way more problems with folks "just roleplaying" their Paladin than I have with any other character type. Them being core also implies they are super common and that anyone from anywhere could be one. I also think if the Paladin wasn't in they could use the page count to include another class I personally prefer. People also got really s!*!ty when I said "no Paladins" in my lawful evil campaign. Paladins shouldn't be core.

Agreed... :P

PossibleCabbage wrote:
"Goblins being common makes no sense" is the argument I will not accept.

Then we're at an impasse as it makes total logic sense to me. Can there be places where they are accepted? sure. Core IMO means that those places are ALWAYS close enough to have a few PC and random NPC's of that kind to fill in the background. IMO that makes no sense.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I disagree that core is in any way significant beyond "the core options predate the rest of the options."

Ok, so can you provide a calm, thoughtful, and reasonable justification for why there is such strong reaction? Can you offer a solution that is supportive of solving the concerns presented?

Quote:
I mean, a big part of the nature of shared storytelling games is that the world is mutable to fit the needs of the story. If you had wanted to, you could play a goblin PC in every single adventure path to date. Between the GM and the player working together you can fit a hero-goblin anywhere you want if you actually try. However many goblins exist in Magnimar or Westcrown or Alkenstar is up to the GM to decide, depending on the needs of the game.

OK, so you are personally guaranteeing that Paizo will ignore Goblins as NPC fodder in a post core-goblin-PF2 publishing world?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I actually also agree with Paladins. They should not be a core class either. They are WAY too specific and pigeonholed of a class, are more often than not disruptive to play, and attract problem players like flies.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I could be wrong, but "core" suggests to me that choosing a goblin hero is just as common as halfling, gnome, elf, half-elf, dwarf, human, and half-orc. I mean why not? They are all presented as viable options in the core rulebook.

One of these things is just not like the others in my view. Sorry goblin. I love you, but not as a common option.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The biggest problem here is that this seems very much like a Roleplay change, which is something Paizo is never going to have full sway over.

So we're left with Schrodinger's Goblin. It's not a problem until it is. It's a problem until it isn't. And we won't know until the dice start rolling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Count me as those who like the goblin. Even if I would have preferred some sort of rat race. ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It is amusing that we are seeing "goblins should be everywhere" and "don't worry, you won't see goblins hardly anywhere" as dueling arguments for the same side.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BryonD wrote:
OK, so you are personally guaranteeing that Paizo will ignore Goblins as NPC fodder in a post core-goblin-PF2 publishing world?

There have been plenty of elements of NPCs published by Paizo I have disliked or didn't fit my group as a GM. Guess what happened, I changed them!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I disagree that core is in any way significant beyond "the core options predate the rest of the options."

I mean, a big part of the nature of shared storytelling games is that the world is mutable to fit the needs of the story. If you had wanted to, you could play a goblin PC in every single adventure path to date. Between the GM and the player working together you can fit a hero-goblin anywhere you want if you actually try. However many goblins exist in Magnimar or Westcrown or Alkenstar is up to the GM to decide, depending on the needs of the game.

Sorry, but i disagree with you.

Once again i repeat, the Advanced race guide is a clear example of this.

It directly calls out for GM approval on anything, BUT the core 7, which it already assumes you can make a PC of.

This is a wording issue that could be resolved in 2.0 in the core by calling out GM aproval on everything, which personally i find only logical, but for 1.0 what is core and what isnt have a big diference regarding races.

Honestly if goblins were still called "Featured" or something equivalent instead of "core" and had such direct call it probably wouldnt be such a thing right now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:
Count me as those who like the goblin. Even if I would have preferred some sort of rat race. ;)

Agh I'm playing Iron Gods! I rolled up Teifling but that was before I bumped into the rat-folk in Scrapwall. I would have totally made a gunslinger rat.


CrystalSeas wrote:
Pappy wrote:
Most PF2 players are going to be from PF1. At least for the first few years.

If Paizo believed that, they probably would just tweak PF1.

Do you really believe that Paizo isn't counting on a large influx of new players, attracted by a new game?

Are you saying that this new addition is going to immediately draw in significant numbers of new players? If you are, then I hope that you are right. Such a success will be cheered by both of us.

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


3 people marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:
Count me as those who like the goblin. Even if I would have preferred some sort of rat race. ;)

A LOT of us like goblins... Just not common/core ones! ;)

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I disagree that core is in any way significant beyond "the core options predate the rest of the options."

I mean, a big part of the nature of shared storytelling games is that the world is mutable to fit the needs of the story. If you had wanted to, you could play a goblin PC in every single adventure path to date. Between the GM and the player working together you can fit a hero-goblin anywhere you want if you actually try. However many goblins exist in Magnimar or Westcrown or Alkenstar is up to the GM to decide, depending on the needs of the game.

Sorry, but i disagree with you.

Once again i repeat, the Advanced race guide is a clear example of this.

It directly calls out for GM approval on anything, BUT the core 7, which it already assumes you can make a PC of.

This is a wording issue that could be resolved in 2.0 in the core by calling out GM aproval on everything, which personally i find only logical, but for 1.0 what is core and what isnt have a big diference regarding races.

Honestly if goblins were still called "Featured" or something equivalent instead of "core" and had such direct call it probably wouldnt be such a thing right now.

The ARG can assume that all it wants, if the GM says no, the answer is no.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Another point of view from this old grognard:

I remember the days of pre-D&D 3e. I remember the days when every single table had so many house rules that you simply COULD NOT take a character you rolled in one game and plop them into another game.

One of the biggest, perhaps THE biggest things D&D 3e changed about the entire tabletop RPG scene as a whole was the idea that "Hey, whats in these core rulebooks is universal. Everybody accepts this stuff by default. If you make a character using this, it will simply work in any D&D 3e game you play in."

People today either never experienced how hard it was to move between games before that, or they have forgotten it.

Standardization was and is a HUGE deal. And what is core in a ruleset is the default standard. It is what the written and unwritten rule says "You can play this at virtually any table, everything in here is legit and pre-approved to be used. Any DM/GM that changes this core material is the one that has to provide a reason and an explanation as to why it isn't being used."

Core is Core, it is the default, it is what everyone expects to be accepted everywhere. If the answer to the concerns of a large portion of the playerbase is "well then just don't use it", we have then destroyed the compatibility between games and gone back to the bad old days of AD&D where you have to build a new character at every table you play at.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also the Advanced Race Guide posits that Dhampir aren't an actual race, so f@!$ that noise.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I'm guessing either Return of the Runelords or next AP will change the goblin status quo.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Edymnion wrote:

Another point of view from this old grognard:

I remember the days of pre-D&D 3e. I remember the days when every single table had so many house rules that you simply COULD NOT take a character you rolled in one game and plop them into another game.

One of the biggest, perhaps THE biggest things D&D 3e changed about the entire tabletop RPG scene as a whole was the idea that "Hey, whats in these core rulebooks is universal. Everybody accepts this stuff by default. If you make a character using this, it will simply work in any D&D 3e game you play in."

People today either never experienced how hard it was to move between games before that, or they have forgotten it.

Standardization was and is a HUGE deal. And what is core in a ruleset is the default standard. It is what the written and unwritten rule says "You can play this at virtually any table, everything in here is legit and pre-approved to be used. Any DM/GM that changes this core material is the one that has to provide a reason and an explanation as to why it isn't being used."

Core is Core, it is the default, it is what everyone expects to be accepted everywhere. If the answer to the concerns of a large portion of the playerbase is "well then just don't use it", we have then destroyed the compatibility between games and gone back to the bad old days of AD&D where you have to build a new character at every table you play at.

Uh no, I'm pretty sure it never said that, and even if it did, it's completely meaningless and false. The book isn't the one running the story.


Rysky wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I disagree that core is in any way significant beyond "the core options predate the rest of the options."

I mean, a big part of the nature of shared storytelling games is that the world is mutable to fit the needs of the story. If you had wanted to, you could play a goblin PC in every single adventure path to date. Between the GM and the player working together you can fit a hero-goblin anywhere you want if you actually try. However many goblins exist in Magnimar or Westcrown or Alkenstar is up to the GM to decide, depending on the needs of the game.

Sorry, but i disagree with you.

Once again i repeat, the Advanced race guide is a clear example of this.

It directly calls out for GM approval on anything, BUT the core 7, which it already assumes you can make a PC of.

This is a wording issue that could be resolved in 2.0 in the core by calling out GM aproval on everything, which personally i find only logical, but for 1.0 what is core and what isnt have a big diference regarding races.

Honestly if goblins were still called "Featured" or something equivalent instead of "core" and had such direct call it probably wouldnt be such a thing right now.

The ARG can assume that all it wants, if the GM says no, the answer is no.

It's not an assumption [accepted as true without proof] but an inference [an evidence based conclusion]. Core HAS NO requirement for special Dm approval unlike uncommon/featured races.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Also the Advanced Race Guide posits that Dhampir aren't an actual race, so f#+# that noise.

I mean, no? It says:

"Some particularly zealous scholars even
contest dhampirs’ status as a unique race, instead viewing
them as humans suffering from an unholy affliction.
Indeed, this hypothesis is strengthened by dhampirs’
seeming inability to reproduce, their offspring inevitably
humans (usually sorcerers with the undead bloodline).
Regardless, they live and die just like any other mortal
creatures, despite possessing a supernatural longevity
akin to that of elves."

It never says those scholars are right, only that it's a train of thought they have. It also calls them out as radicals.

801 to 850 of 1,765 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Goblins! All Messageboards