Cuttlefist's page

I have never been a fan of Paladins, and one of the biggest reasons was the alignment restriction. The other big reason was how much stronger they were than the other base martialclasses. The idea that the alignment restriction was some kind of balancing drawback was BS, if you are wanting to play a knight in shining armor and champion of justice then why would you ever steal or lie anyway? So in good campaigns where the goal was to save the land from evil along with a solidly good party you just got a bunch of buffs and extra damage with no drawbacks. All it did was limit what your other PCs could be.

But now that the class has a goal other than to be a beefy evil slaying super hero, it’s a perfect opportunity to open them up to other alignments. Use the anathema from their chosen god to determine their “code” and have them lay on hands/bad touch and smite based on their good/evil alignment. Or have that be determined by their deity like how cleric’s gods determine the spontaneous casting they can do. Super easy.

Truth be told, I also do not like alignment at all and would rather it gone, but as long as we have it we shouldn’t restrict classes based on it. Having (un)holy champions of all alignments will open up so many more character possibilities.

I do like Bookrats suggestion for alchemists to have persistent healing effects, would be an interestingly niche support slot and also mirror their bombs that deal persistent damage. Be the DOT and HOT class.

I am also really bummed that the default Rogue is Finesse fighting. And you need a feat to sneak attack woh anything else? So if I want to play a strong-arming thug with a club I will automatically be setting myself behind players who put everything into DEX? That’s pretty poor game design to make one fighting style best option.

I had said before I don’t like DEX to damage, but making it a core feature of the rogue will just lead to making feel-bad moments for people who want to play anything but nimble cat-burglars.

CrystalSeas wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

No, it's not Irony, because my only view of Ranger isn't Aragorn. I'm pointing out the fallacy in your logic that the ranger is only what you think it is. Aragon is a counter example, not the only example.

And now Paizo has made it possible for both of us to play the way we like. I'm no longer required to be a spellcaster in order to play a Ranger.

I count that as a win.

You weren't required to spell cast at all. If you had a 10 Wisdom, you weren't doing any spell casting. But you had a choice.

Now, we don't get a choice. That isn't a win, it's really a loss. Spell casting gave the class some flair, something unique. There's a reason why it was incredibly popular and it had nothing to do with snares. I've never seen a Trapper ranger in PFS. Not in six years of playing.

But they had to balance the rest of the class around you having access to spells, without them being auto-included it opens up to much more power for people who don’t want to use them while leaving open design space for people who do want to invest in them to be able to.

Definitely in the minority, but I am actually really excited about resonance. I think it is a great solution for streamlining magic item inventory and curbing unwanted item abuse. I do understand the concerns from people on it discouraging consumables use, but I don’t actually think it will be an issue once playtesting begins. I do share in the disappointment in seeing items with daily uses, as the resonance system is supposed to replace that, just makes it wonky to have both in my opinion.

One thing I absolutely do not understand is the complaint that it is narratively inconsistent with the previous edition. How is that an actual concern? This is a new edition of a game, mechanics change and it doesn’t have to have a narrative explanation. It’s not hand waving, it’s a new game. It’s not like there are any significant plot points that revolved around a character being able to chug 30 potions and then shoot off 50 magic missiles from a wand. As far as the setting is concerned this could always have been the norm but it just never came up.

I LOVE the way that the stances make your unarmed strikes act as different weapons essentially, super cool concept that i think adds some great flavor and options to the class.

Not super excited about how being a Dex or Strength based warrior is the default, and doing a Ki based mystic warrior has a feat-tax. Essentially puts those builds a level behind the other two and seems like setting players up for a feel-bad moment. I was really hoping for mystic warrior being more heavily leaned into, but am very ok with the decision to get away from the class being MAD. So mixed feelings to say the least.

Not a big fan of “quickened” giving you different types of actions depending on the source. Really unintuitive and messy, and basically means that haste and that monk ability don’t actually give you the same condition, but it has the same name anyway. Would quickened just giving you an additional action you can use for whatever really be that overpowered?

Cuttlefist wrote:

And I think you made the wrong choice.

Even though I am on the complete opposition side from you, I will say this. You have a right to that opinion. It is not one I, or many others, share.

I don't want another fantasy game with the name Pathfinder slapped onto it. I want a better version of the game we already have. A 2nd Edition of Pathfinder.

I respect your right to your opinion, as fantastically different from mine as it is. I don’t think that the way Paladins currently are is even remotely integral to what makes Pathfinder Pathfinder. It can still be just as much a better version of 1E while changing the flavor of one class, in my opinion that will make it every bit better in this particular case.

In contrast to your lengthier post, I don’t think the Paladin as a concept really works. I do think it needs to be fixed. And with how wildly they are changing so many of the base mechanics of the game I don’t see how making a change to the Paladin flavor would be the big thing that makes this not Pathfinder anymore.

Hey there all,

We knew the Paladin was going to be a bit contentious. The class has provoked strong emotions and discussion since the earliest days of gaming. In designing this class, we really had two routes we could take. Traditional, but very flavorful, or Reimagined, but ultimately more generic. I chose the former.

And I think you made the wrong choice.

On a very personal reasoning, I don’t think the flavor of the Paladin as it has been is worth preserving. I tend to go out of my way to snub tradition as much as possible, but the traditional Paladin is especially offensive to me. I don’t think it adds anything to the game, I have never had a desire to play one, none of my players or players at other tables I have played at had any desire to play them (I know that I am an anomaly in that regard, guess it’s just the circles I hang out with. Don’t know if it has an correlation to the number of piercings and tattoos on the people present.), so keeping it that flavor has, as I said before, ensured my group will give absolutely no helpful feedback during the playtest other than “Ew, change this please.” I also hate the argument that they get extra power because they are harder to role play. It’s not a good argument, LG is not difficult to role play, it’s boring and monotonous. I actually remove alignment entirely from my games, because to me it is stupid and nobody, real or fictional, can actually be boiled down to where they land on a simplistic axis. It’s extremely limiting and Paladins are the poster child for everything wrong with it.

On a lesser but still personal reasoning, I think that the game suffers for having a class that flies so hard in the face of the overall design goal of the game. everything else revealed up to this point has shown that the game overall is aiming towards having as many options for as many character concepts as possible. Having an entire class that limits all of it’s options to one alignment and then having one code that they must follow does not accomplish that. Dedicating one class to a finite pool of concepts is poor game design in my opinion, that is what archetypes and prestige classes are for. Base classes should be flexible and support a variety of ideas, and having just one code to follow with one alignment is not that. Especially when that restriction is gating potentially the best Tank in the game.

I like EVERYTHING else revealed about the class so far. I think you can keep it very flavorful while breaking from tradition. Them being martial paragons of their god’s ideals should be more important than them being paragons of honorable goodness. Have Lay on hands and a Draining touch attack, and have each deity determine which one their Paladin does or give them a choice. Have them be under the same alignment restrictions for each god as clerics as well. Have a code for Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic axis, and combine that with their God’s Anathema to determine what actions cause them to lose their powers. It’s not hard to see how the class can be done while preserving the idea of a holy warrior who sets the standard for their deities followers and be of any alignment.

If that is not acceptable to do to Paladins, I think they should be removed from core entirely, then added later on as an Archetype or PRC. Take what we have so far, use my suggestion above, and slap the name Crusader on it, and let people play LG Crusaders take an Oath or archetype that makes them Paladins. But as is, I think the Paladin is a huge mistake to move forward with such extreme character limitations.

In my almost 20 years of playing D&D 3.X and other similar tabletops, I have never played a Paladin and have never had one at my table. Nobody in my circles have ever had any interest in them, it’s not a well designed class and letting tradition hamstring it has just guarantee that my table will not give any helpful feedback about it in the playtest.

It’s somewhat hopeful that it was said “when” other alignments get added, but unless that is in the final core rulebook I really have no interest. It really wouldn’t be hard to have a pair of core abilities that are based on your alignment, like other users have suggested. You would still have the ability to have them have an alignment based playstyle and open them up to people who want to play a heavy armor type but don’t want to play a traditional Arthurian holy knight.

So I definitely hope that the LG-only restriction goes away after the playtest when you have figured out how to reach your goals with the class without being held back by tradition. I was really hoping after the Alchemist and goblin were added that we were going to get all sorts of great surprises about the other classes, but this blog post really disappointed me.

Eh, I am not a fan of alignment. But it is super easy to ignore when creating a campaign, so I don’t really mind them keeping it in. I do think they are moving in the right direction with anathema for the different gods, so it is really easy to have no alignment but still have cleric’s (and potentially Paladins) with very little effort needed to convert. Them also including the form of channel energy being defined by the god Not alignment is another great step.

The fact is that very few classes have mechanical functions tied to alignment, and removing them before wasn’t super hard, but seems to be getting easier.

In other words, as long as alignment is less relevant to actual class abilities, they can keep it in all they want and I will just ignore it.

If the only thing they did with Pathfinder 2 was improve weapons like this, then it would have made Melee characters more fun to play compared to casters. So why the massive nerf of full casters and lavish love to melee folk?

I think it is probably due to just how big the gap between casters are martials really was in 1E. Giving martials more options but not so much it becomes silly probably still brought them up short compared to 1E casters, so they could be losing some of their max power while bringing up their minimum power with boosted cantrips.

I also really don’t feel like power level from 1E should be used as the baseline for 2E, we shouldn’t be looking to make everything stronger than it was, and instead look at this as a new opportunity to have a proper balance with a new baseline.

Whatever the reader wants.

...or: fun is subjective, and often not something one can consciously choose to have or not have, even if someone on the Internet calls them names over it.

I dunno, the fact that the fun being defended is “Other people can’t have this” which to me is not a fun to be concerned with to the degree it is being defended. People want a narrow and restrictive class to be opened up to allow more players to enjoy the concept, and the response from the opposition is “I won’t enjoy that, sure I could still play the way i want to, but other people being able to play in a different way ruins my fun.” This is not a definition of fun that i care to respect, as by going against it you create more fun for more people than you ruin t for.

FaerieGodfather wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Come on. Leave the Paladin alone. Why are you people so insistent to take it away from us?

Nobody is trying to take your f~%@ing Paladins away from you, you self-righteous knob-goblin.

The fact that you can't tell the difference between other people playing with something and you losing it proves that you're too stupid and immature to adjudicate matters of moral reasoning-- which is exactly why class powers shouldn't be subject to the GM's subjective moral opinions.

How is changing something group A finds enjoyable in order to make it palatable by group B in such a way as to spoil the aspects of that thing that group A find enjoyable NOT taking something away from group A?

I think it is important to consider what it is that group A finds enjoyable and whether it is detrimental to others without actually giving any benefit to group A before asking this. And in the case that the only thing being taken away is the exclusivity that kept other people from enjoying the thing being changed then I think it comes down to not being worth any concern. The net benefit outweighs the loss at that point.

At 30, I actually delight in doing away with traditions when they get in the way of fun. And the traditional Paladin is not fun. I have never played a Paladin, and have never had one at my table. They weren’t banned, just literally none of my friends in 20 years of playing different forms of D&D wanted to put up with the headache of playing one just for their abilities.

I am 100% in favor of recreating the class to be a more general knightly class with defensive, armor-based abilities like the devs have hinted at so far. But they could easily still have RP restrictions and still be improved. I think Anathema are key to that. With Anathema you can have a Paladin of any alignment but have a code based around not violating your deities anathema.

Would immediately make the class more appealing, and the only people who would lose anything are the ones who get off on the exclusivity of the current version of the class that I and other players/GMs won’t touch with a 100 ft pole. More options and more variety is all upside when it comes to classes in my opinion.

I’m excited about some of the bold risks they are taking, and really look forward to what other surprises they have in store, because it really looks like they are not afraid to experiment and go in some directions nobody had considered before.

I would think having everybody with access to part harvesting would be best, maybe Rangers have a class feat to harvest additional parts? Or be more likely to find those parts if they are not 100% guaranteed with every kill.

or of course special ranger-only uses for parts. I like the idea of a Ranger killing a manticore, ripping its stinger off and then throwing it in the face of a nearby Bugbear, poisoning and grossing it out.

I would definitely be down for at least each weapon group (axes vs light blades vs polearms etc) having an intrinsic action associated with it, that you get once you're Expert in that group.

Probably best to leave it to groups if it makes it into core. Then when they inevitably do an Ultimate Equipment book, that's where they would have the space / page count to do alternate special moves for each and every individual weapon, if that was something people wanted to see.

I had another post about higher proficiency in the different weapon groups would give special bonuses unique to those weapon groups, like bleed effects on axes and reroll I g ones on heavy blade damage dice,but special actions would be a great option as well. It would be pretty legendary of a swordsman to be able to cut air or something else goofy like that.

I really wonder what your definition of bias is, because getting mentioned in a few articles doesn’t exactly imply that they are actually getting more attention or preference. And your example of how it could develop into bias does not seem to take into consideration all the articles that could feature the classes you think are not getting enough love. You think an article about combat maneuvers will not mention the fighter? An article about animal companions won’t talk about druids, wizards, Sorcerors and Rangers? They are very likely going to have one or more articles on God’s that will talk about clerics. An article about energy damage that will bring up clerics and druids, and an article about alignment that will include info about clerics and paladins. An article on item enchantment that will talk more about casters able to do it.

Nobody is saying that you are calling fire where there is smoke, you are calling smoke where somebody vaped five hours ago. There is little reason to believe that the trend of alchemists having a tiny number more article mentions than any other class will continue to hold true or worsen, and you trying to draw attention to the possibility it might be is not enhancing or adding to the discussions on this board in any way. You might as well be warning people of raccoon attacks in the White House. Yeah, it could happen but there are adults and professionals who are making sure it doesn’t and it hasn’t happened yet.

And on the designer commenting here that you say validates your post, I actually read it as more of a “Yeah we are fully aware of how things can be perceived when they are presented in certain orders and time periods, but even when we do take steps to avoid problems like that, conspiracy theorists are still finding a way to infer what we were intentionally avoiding.” Not trying to put words in his mouth. That response was not forced because you did good journalism and they had to be held accountable for the rate they have released info, it was because the topic you brought up was reflective of an anecdote, which is the extent of value it brought to the discussion.

Again I didn’t have an issue with the way Starfinder did it or the way it is flavored. The game takes place in a post-industrial revolution setting where weapons are mass-produced, so you are going to have more consistent availability of higher quality items and more variance allowed in their quality for different price points. I liked giving each different level a brand that they could be recognized as being clearly bargain level or a premium weapon. Players weren’t forced to use weapons of their level, you could use ones above your pay grade if you could afford them, but the levels were a guide as to what levels would be likeliest to afford that item at the earliest.

They basically have something similar in 1E without being considered anime-like. Many weapons allow you to make trip or disarm attempts without normal penalties or having a special response in case you fail your attempt. It would be a bit like Dark souls, which would be a plus for me though.

I like the idea of proficiency being required to use these actions at all, and getting access to better actions as it increases. That could be a super cool way to demonstrate skill with each weapon.

I really think this is the perfect time for a reset on the rules. It will be so nice to go back to just a few races and classes and feats to choose from for a little while, and to finally kill some sacred cows and fix some of the numerous issues that PF1 had.

I was around when 4th was announced, and it soured my opinion of D&D so much that even when I was participating in the D&Dnext playtest I couldn’t help but feel like I would rather be playing Pathfinder, which had become my dear TTRPG love by that point. But there are a lot of things 5th edition did right, and to learn from that and other developments to RPGs over the last decade is just thrilling if they can pull it off with this edition.

I definitely fall into the camp of not so impressed by ancestry feats so far. With how few you will get, they need to have stronger effects than what we have seen, making the gap between them worth the wait. As is, I feel like most players would forget about even getting an ancestry feat at level-up, and when reminded just roll their eyes and pick something.

We need feats that make the racial choices worth it, like Elves getting bonus damage dice to bows or adding bonuses to the negative effects of creatures who fail their saves against their spells. Dwarves getting their blacksmith proficiency bonus to sundering attempts. Halflings getting a feat chain that allows them to siphon luck from their enemies. Gnomes being able to shapeshift into rocks or greenery. Give us things to look forward to and really reward the choice of race on character concepts.

This would be amazing, having most monsters have some kind of drop listed and either a standard value or alchemical and crafting use. Like Goblin ears and their value being included.

And can we have the Ranger specialize in this? Like maybe favored enemy could yield bonus items harvested, or special benefits from these harvested parts that other classes don’t have. Like a goblin ear being used as a whistle that causes everybody in a small range to become flat-footed for a turn.

Or the Ranger is the only class that is able to harvest most items at all, I think that would be a cool benefit to having a Ranger in your party. Or at the least requiring levels in lore or nature for non-rangers to have access to.

So, funny story, you were at one point going to get a bunch of alchemist information in more rapid succession. After I wrote the alchemist blog, we are going to do the alchemical items blog later that week. Because Tech Raptor was keen on doing a story about alchemy that same week, I argued to give the alchemy blog a bit of space, and we did the blog on gnomes and halflings later on in the week.

In short, we have a list of topics to cover as we approach the release. That list was made months ago, but we change things up every so often in the attempts to split up topics, so you're not getting "too much of a good thing" in quick succession. Obviously, you believe we missed the mark this time, but it had nothing to do with dev bias. If anything we spaced it out a little more than we were first planning to because of interest from outside groups about the subject.

I love these kinds of comments. We get so many people posting on here and Reddit and other places who assume that because Paizo isn’t doing something the way they would do it, that means that they aren’t actually thinking that thing through. But this kind of comment shows that you are taking every aspect of this product and it’s release into consideration.

The folks working on this are not infallible, but I think that a lot of the concerns that have been brought up from people on things like Goblins and alchemists being added to core, or the way old abilities will work in the new action economy (Saw one redditor trying to argue that because Sudden Charge and Power Attack both take two actions each, it would mean that no players would take both and thus it would result in fewer feats being chosen because they are obviously not as good) seem to come from people thinking that paizo doesn’t take things like new players, existing lore, balance, old players, leveling, and pretty much every other aspect of the game into consideration. But it’s reassuring to see that even little details like the rate of information release is thoughtfully considered, as it looks like all other major aspects of the game are.

I agree with this thread. I would love for other options that alchemiss can specialize in. Like the Liquid Blade. Be great if you could take alter the blade into different kinds of swords or upgrade the material into admantium or other substances, auto-include poisons into the tube it comes out of, and get a damage boost.

If we can't critique what they give us what's the point of even having a playtest forum?

I always hate seeing this line of argument being thrown up to deflect from topics that don’t actually add to the discussion being shot down. Just because something is a criticism doesn’t mean it is worth being brought to others attention. It really makes no sense to argue that any and every concern needs to be aired out and taken seriously, because plenty of concerns are simply not valid no matter how real they may feel to some people.

The idea that there is a bias towards alchemists just because they are being added to core (?!) and got two blog posts that go into their mechanics, out of like what? 10 or twelve so far? And it is four months until the prerelease? So that’s like another 16 blog posts coming in the meantime? And some random person can’t understand how it is crazy talk to suggest that there is a bias towards this one class, but because it’s a critique their opinion is above criticism and should be seen as contributing to the discussion?

Nah, HWalsh gave no good argument to why alchemists have gotten preferential treatment to an extent it will be detrimental to the game, this topic isn’t really adding to the discussion. I’m not sure what signs would indicate we should be keeping an eye out for detrimental bias but there sure haven’t been any yet.

Reading the article, I really couldn’t guess as to what makes him think there is less customization, except if customization to him is based on stacking lots of small bonuses. I get how some people enjoy min-maxing over making actually fleshed-out characters, but with how many options players will get to choose from level after level it should be painfully obvious that players will have lots of opportunities to make varied and unique characters.

Also, on his note about no more Pathfinder meaning no more work for him, come the £#{% on. He can’t honestly think that Pathfinder was going to be published forever can he? And if he is refuses to adapt to a new system in the event the one he is accustomed to then he deserves the same fate as coal miners or factory workers who refuse to move on when the demand for their profession has dropped.

Dracula made a great point. It’s important to note that this game is not being developed in a vacuum. I think something also important to note is that all of the posters on this forum are a minority of Pathfinder players. Out of these people, those opposing the addition of goblins are a minority. Out of the players of the play test, we’ll be a bigger chunk but still a minority of all the people involved. The vast majority of players won’t care. The majority of players of the play test won’t care. These people will see the goblin in there and either shrug or get excited and start rolling. The players who care enough about the specifics of the lore or what core races are supposed to be limited to are the ones on this forum passionate enough to take the time to create profiles and comment. That is such a small percentage of who will be buying these books. Casual players who just homebrew their settings won’t be upset goblins are core. New players who have never played a TTRPG will not be upset goblins are in core. Players coming over from 5th Edition won’t care that Goblins are in core (they may be upset about a lack of Dragonborn though). All these demographics that Paizo is targeting are not on these forums. We who are make up a small percentage of the overall player base, and those of us who oppose the inclusion of Goblins for lore reasons, for “core” purity reasons, or for a desire to prevent problem players from having a boner induced seizure when they see all the potential that I supposedly baked into the race are more than likely not going to have the collective buying power to really influence a decision this big that has already been made. So if you don’t like goblins, don’t play them. But the rest of us are here to have fun, so don’t spoil it if we are at the same table.

They don't have too.

1. Deny the group entry in the town or place because of the goblin.

2. The group denies and proceeds anyway.

3. Call for reinforces and proceed to escalate the problem.

4. The group resists and again appears to strong for the NPCS to deal with.

5. Escalate the problem further, the guard and town now proceed to pass on to the big city of the region a call to deal with this particular group who doesn't listen to their orders. Now actually capable NPCS with...

What you are describing is the interaction of an awful table.

1. The GM sees that one of the players is a Goblin, decided to punish that player and the group by impeding their progress instead of having an NPC work something out with them. Dick move one.

2. The players, having had enough of the GM’s passive aggressive BS ignore the wishes of the townspeople and instead willingly become an invading force. Dick move two, electric boogaloo.

3. Instead of deescalating the situation by creating a situation that shows the goblin is not a threat or having an NPC work out a deal with the PCs, the GM downs another bag of Doritos in one Pelican gulp and raises threat level to Dreamsicle Orange.

4. The players have now decided that their greasy GM is not worth the respect they had once shown, and take it upon themselves to spit in his face by destroying his creation and going full bandit mode.

5. The GM realizes if his only remaining power play is to throw the entire world at the players, they have become enemies of the state and he must now live with the fact that all of the things he creates eventually destroy those he thought he loved and loved him.

graystone wrote:

It's not evil in the least, it's self defense. Being mistaken isn't evil as the intent WASN'T to kill a good or neutral creature but protect himself and the community. If someone is disguised as a devil and get axed by a paladin, does the paladin fall? The 'good' goblin is 'disguised' as a murderous, psycho-pyromaniac and it's not the fault of anyone they didn't see through it.

So "lack of understanding" totally does impact the alignment of the action. If the person understands that demon and goblins are both naturally evil, why is killing one evil and the other not?

It's not self-defense unless the Goblin attacked him. It is absolutely an evil act to murder someone good because you feared and/or hated someone for their race.

No amount of "belief" or "understanding" makes a good person evil because they have green skin and pointy teeth.

Arguing ignorance in the court of law isn't a defense, it's not much of a defense against murdering the innocent anywhere.

Absolutely this. And as has been said before, anybody who attacks a goblin who is traveling amongst a group of well armed adventurers without provocation would have to be a raving lunatic. Anybody with half a brain would know that the goblin is with them and an attack on them is an attack on the whole group. So unless they either have a death wish or think they can handle a group of seasoned murder hobos then they are usually going to mind their own damn business.

Actually, being in the corebook does imply that those races are more commonly encountered. Sure, there are probably numerically more goblins than tieflings, but most goblins live in junkyards, forests, and caves, only leaving to go on brutal and horrifying raids. Encountering one peacefully is a very rare event. Something that being included in the core rules would contradict.

Half-orcs and half-elves are rare, they are most certainly not more numerous than goblins. The average Golarion will encounter more goblins than they will a half-orc. In fact, with how numerous goblins are, the odds of there being oddballs that don’t comply to standard goblin tropes. So it certainly doesn’t mean the race is more numerous on the world. And depending on what region the campaign takes place in, dwarves or elves or gnomes might also be an extreme minority. And if Paizo decides that core does not mean “most commonly encountered” for 2E, what leg does your argument have to stand on then?

I really like how this post was worded, talking up the ancestry features in a way to make it very positive from the perspective of that ancestry. Can’t wait to see the full entries and ancestry feats!

Yeah the BAB was a bland and inconsistent way to differentiate the classes. Fighters got it in place of cool abilities, while casters got cool abilities in place of it. Now everybody can get cool abilities and still hit.

Yes ofc mate, where do you get those numbers again?

I know it’s not exactly scientific, but here is a poll with a small turnout shared on Reddit:

https://www.strawpoll.me/15427626/r

And here is the thread from here showing a majority of respondents were not bothered by people playing goblins:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v1ap?For-those-that-have-played-games-with-gob lin

Numbers.

Oh i can do that too. A VERY VOCAL MINORITY seems to support paizo choice and a large majority is now trying to change their minds.

I sure dont have any proof, but im willing to bet you dont either, so we end up about the same.

Well it’s much easier to argue that you are wrong than me. The people who comment on these forums are already a minority of Pathfinder players, and the people who are up in arms about a new race being added definitely don’t seem to be made up of a large group. Unscientific polls aside, the vast majority of players will not care either way, the people posting the loudest are the ones that feel the strongest and are a minority of players in their opposition or support. This just is not anywhere near as big a deal as some of you are making it out to be.

Oh but we do. because a race that has been playable and is one of the games mascots being moved into the core rulebook without the approval of a very vocal minority is literally the worst thing that has happened to tabletop RPGs, so now we need ten threads a day of people trying to say the same thing in varying levels of articulation.

Honestly, the argument that Goblins shouldn’t be in the core rulebook because of canon is the worst argument against them of all. And people who demand, not even just voice apprehension unless they get it, but DEMAND that Paizo fork over an explanation for how they will work this around the canon of their setting are the height of problematic fandom.

On the first part, it is canon that pretty much any and all races can be adventurers, which is why they have stat blocks for PCs. So regardless of your feelings on how it fits into canon of their setting that you play in, the people who write that canon and publish this game for you want you to be able to play these races, so using their material they created to call them wrong is nonsensical. The material has existed that shows the game was intended to allow races other than Elves, Gnomes, Dwarves, Humans, half-breeds and halflings, and them adding one more race to the special main book is not some violation of their sacred texts that you are the only one who is dedicated enough to point out.

And on the second point, if Paizo says that in the second edition Goblins are more commonly adventurers and people in cities and villages recognize that goblins have a chance at not being about to slit their throat at any second the same way that any single other member of any other race has a chance at doing so, then that is frankly all that you should need. The people who make this game can make changes to the story that will allow for the gameplay they want to achieve, and if that is unacceptable to you then I think you should really take a long think on why you think a game developer owes you so much more than a fun and exciting game to play.

On a relevant note, I think the ancestry feats are a more fluid and logical way to bake alternate racial traits into the game. This way you don’t have all elves get bonus weapon profiencies, except mine. I just think you should get like three at 1st level? If they are as weak as the ones from the blog then that would probably be fair.

I think the flexible stat bonus is coddling and hand holding. Everyone's a winner.

That’s pretty harsh. And uncalled for. People don’t win or lose by choosing different races or ancestries, giving a floating bonus to all will hopefully mean the humans will no longer be the default beat race, and we will see more variety in builds.

I hate how quickly these discussions can get away from where you were in a couple hours, and half of the things I was going to respond to got removed :-p

But anywho nothing discussed here has nudged my stance. Players who will cause problems will do that. Doesn’t mean they will be problematic 100% of the time. Maybe a goblin character was the catalyst to them awakening to their disruptive niche. Maybe it was the first time Craig decided to role play a female character then realized he could explore some new horizons of making people uncomfortable, but people who will not be considerate of how their actions might ruin people’s fun don’t always show that trait immediately, but will do it eventually. And sometimes they are problematic all the time.

Somebody using “but this is what this race does, hurr durr” as a smokescreen is not playing some special trap card, they are being an idiot and the rest of the table is responsible for calling them out on it. I once played with a guy rolling a human gunslinger, who despite not being a goblin was the most awful person to play with. His gun broke in our first fight, and instead of drawing a melee weapon he dropped to his knees and tried to fix it. Mid combat. Said “My character would need to do this right now.” That isn’t some roleplaybsmokescreen, that is him being an idiot. His character eventually dies because duh, the guy refused to cooperate with the rest of the group, and the next character he rolled was a kitsune ninja. And holy crap was that worse. Like wow. My only experience with kitsune actually, which is surprising considering the general weeb makeup of my tabletop group.

Anyway, despite literally 100% of my experience with kitsune at the table being negative, I don’t want kitsune banned or wouldn’t write a 12 paragraph essay on why they shouldn’t be core. Because it was the player who was the issue, and he was always going to be an issue. And playing a kitsune enabled him to be even worse because then all of his anti-social bs was magnified by shapeshifting and ninja tomfoolery. We finally stopped inviting him to games after he refused to listen to people telling him to play with the group.

A goblin option might be a beacon for someone who is prone to bad behavior, but I have not seen arguments to convince me it’s going to be big enough to warrant concern for them being core. Goblins are One of the biggest mascots for Paizo and Pathfinder, it was bound to happen that they were going to get more support and availability for players. It’s not crazy to think they will retcon or adjust the Golarion setting a bit to enable their use to be less problematic. If they say goblins are cool for PCs in the world, that’s really all the explanation needed. Everybody is going to feel real silly this fall when we have goblins at our tables and we are all still having fun.

Cuttlefist wrote:

Goblins don’t make problem players, problem players make problem players. Period. Any player who feels compelled to act out and throw off a game would be doing that regardless of what race or class they have available. Goblins being added isn’t going to awaken some ancient slumbering god of $#!+ behavior that will ride your otherwise productive and stable players through your table. Goblins have been available as PCs for years, having them in the core will not make players any worse. The bad ones are already bad.

So did you not read my post or have you just elected to ignore it and reassert the points I argued against?

I read it. I don’t agree. No race is a monolith, as intelligent beings they all have the ability to be individual and different than others of their kind. If a player decides to role play goblins in a distiluptive way they probably would be the same person to play a halfling like a Kender. Nobody is obligated to have their characters behave in a set way, so your points are not really accurate.

Same thing with the whole bit about guards and townspeople descending on them. If a goblin who is well dressed and well equipped walks into a town with a group of equally well equipped adventurers of different races then it should be pretty obvious he is not a group of raiding gobbos.

Goblins don’t make problem players, problem players make problem players. Period. Any player who feels compelled to act out and throw off a game would be doing that regardless of what race or class they have available. Goblins being added isn’t going to awaken some ancient slumbering god of $#!+ behavior that will ride your otherwise productive and stable players through your table. Goblins have been available as PCs for years, having them in the core will not make players any worse. The bad ones are already bad.

You're missing the point,

I’m not, it’s just not as good a point as some people seem to think it is.

and frankly is insulting.

Sorry for not treating all opinions as if they are above criticism? Because they are not? Sometimes people need to be told when they are overreacting.

Most, if not all of the people that are being vocal about their concerns didn't mind, if not flat out enjoyed Goblin PCs in P1e. Their inclusion as a core race (as in common enough all around the inner sea so that their presence in the general populous won't be immediately met with aggression) does not fit the same image of Goblins that Players and GMs alike have been given by countless adventure paths and inner sea guides, where they literally eat babies.

Well then they enjoyed them so much then they really shouldn’t have any issue with them being more accessible. One race in the core being less common than the others is not a huge deal, should not elicit such a strong reaction. If Paizo says all of the core races, except this one, are the most common throughout the land, that’s their choice in the game they are making and it really doesn’t hurt anything but some people’s interpretation of how important strict lore abiding should be.

Trying to hand wave their inclusion as a core race as "oh they're good now" despite their chaotic evil reputation makes no sense in world, and it does have a negative impact on Golarion-set games, as core races have very distinct implications as to how common and generally socially accepted they are, and throughout Pathfinder's entire run, even before P1e was even released, the image of the Goblin goes against the implications of what classifies as a core race in Golarion.

It really, really doesn’t negatively impact Golarion-set games. They said several times in the goblin write-up that Goblin PCs are the exception not the rule, by no means does their inclusion as a core-race mean that they are suddenly more numerous than before. The people who write the material we are arguing over have decided to shine a spotlight on goblins in the core book, some of you are inferring things that are not actually implied by that move.

Also, you trying to frame this as everyone who has issues with this is taking it as a personal affront is extremely inflammatory, and doesn't do anything but make vitriol regarding the subject worse than it already is.

I did not frame this as if all people having an issue with this as taking it as a personal affront, there are definitely a couple users who are acting like it though and my post was directed towards that and the demand that Paizo give a better reason for their decision other than they thought it would be fun for the game is what I take issue with. People who say they personally don’t like it but don’t have a problem with it I get, but everybody who says this is a seriously bad development has not given one single good reason for the strong response this has elicited in them. Hence why it just seems personal.

Oh man, i really didn’t think that anything else to come out leading up to the play test would lead to anything as hilarious as the backlash to resonance that some people had, but wow this level of personal affront that some of you are feeling from this post is next level. The fact that the creators of the game you are arguing over saying that Goblins being more common and acceptable as a PC race is not enough justification is just... Wow.

It is literally not going to have any negative impact on the game, if a player in your group creates one it is literally not going to have any negative impact on you personally. This waving pitchforks and torches and DEMANDING Paizo give an explanation that meets your satisfaction is the height of bad fandom. Thank Gygax none of the source books have ever mentioned a limited edition Chicken nugget sauce...

Pretty excited about goblins, and people really need to calm down about them being playable races somehow being unacceptable. Part of what makes PCs is their being exceptional individuals, and goblins that are exceptions to their group are exactly what can make for an interesting character. If people are worried about Players RPing awful to deal with maniacs, that says more about the people they play with and their expectations of them than it does the race itself.

On the attributes, YES small race without a hit to strength! There has never been a good reason for small races to have less strength, they already have lower carrying capacity (I think? They should if they don’t) and have to use smaller, weaker weapons. Making them worse at melee was just insult to injury.

People complaining about them getting a boost to charisma I think are seeing charisma only as attractiveness and not as force of personality, which seems to be the direction 2E is trying to push it.

Looking forward to learning more about what Goblins can do and what options ancestries will offer!

I kinda really like the idea of a shield enabling you to apply your strength bonus to your AC. Requiring an action to raise your shield seems like a pretty good balance to me, and if they are including Dex to damage on some weapons it would be a pretty interesting approach to making the two attributes useful to focus on.