Trimalchio's page

I'd rather just talk about the game, but im asking you to at least try and have a reasonable conversation.

~~

Hp inflation seems pretty much confirmed from the stat blocks and PC max hit points, I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

My frustration with the blasting nerf is that the PF1 wizard casting fireball wasn't the problem with caster / martial disparity, it was the wizard casting a dazing fireball, or the spell perfection feat chain, or auto win spells like maze, and so on.

Blasting away with cone of cold, which incidentally is a very sub par spell, should probably do d8s and have a status effect, was so far down the optimization list that it needed a boost if anything.

I wish these blogs talked more about design considerations and decisions based on that, often times these posts don't address many of the concerns I've seen brought up, not to say PF2 won't address them, but I'd like to see a more explicit discussion of it.

'high for their level' is not that same thing as unique, not even close.

I would be surprised by the bizarre interpretation people in this forum tend to give otherwise plain meaning, but it happens so frequently that I've come to other conclusions on why that is.

You can keep saying the ogre is somehow unique... But they are half my sample size, unless someone cares to provide more stat blocks.

Even the redcap, if you compare how it is a level 5 creature vs PF1 CR 6 monster, has more hit points for it's relative level and fast healing 10. Also the PF2 redcap is very unlikely to critically fail a ref save.

Finally we know PCs will have more hp.

All available evidence points towards hp inflation.

If you actually model PF2 damage correctly you will see it is bimodal, the actual likelihood ofdamage being 30 is actually very very tiny.

About half the time you will have a distribution clustered around 41, otherwise damage will cluster around 20. Neither of which kills the PF2 ogre.

In comparison PF1, 90% of the damage clusters around 31, 10% around 16, and 30dmg kills the PF1 ogre.

Do please review your statements because they are incorrect and do not facilitate accurate dialogue.

Not sure what to say, argument by false analogy isn't exactly compelling.

For the ogres to critically fail they need to to roll -10 vs the DC.

PF1 DC for level 9 wizard is going to be 19+, they need to roll 19 or 20. That is 10%

PF2 DC is estimated to be 24, they need to roll 12 or more not to critically fail, that is 45%

10% < 45%

6d6 is on average 21.

Please get the basic math correct if you want your position to be taken seriously.

There has been multiple indications of hp inflation, for example PCs get Max hp for their class now. The ogre stat block is 50% of the stat blocks unless people can link more.

Using a higher level spell slot to achieve the same effect is strictly worse, how can anyone argue otherwise, and this is before we admit that PF2 wizards get _less_ spells.

By using the previewed stat blocks.

I can do the math again...

PF1 level 9 wizard casting fireball vs ogres

Fireball does 9d6, level 3 spell slot, with save DC of 19+, ogres have 30hp and ref +0

PF2, fireball reportedly does 6d6, save DC of 24? ogres have 60 hp and ref +3 (ogres take double damage on 11 or less)

Please keep reading the above until you fully understand, because simply repeating in wrong doesn't change the basic facts we have.
~~

Let's talk MM.

Although the action economy is different, we can still make some comparisons.

At level 1 PF2 MM is arguably better as you can use essentially a full round action to do more damage, however PF2 hp inflation makes this somewhat dubious, but still on average MM at level 1 is better in PF2

At level 3 they are about the same, PF1 you spend one standard action and deal 2d4+2 and PF2 you can spend actions to do less, the same, or more, how inflation probably making this a wash.

Level 5 PF1 becomes superior and then just runs away with it. You begin doing the same or more damage for less actions, without spending higher level spell slots, in an environment that doesn't have hp inflation.

So please bring up a valid counter point instead of just repeating something that isn't true.

You can't look at spells in a vacuum, you need to compare them to the creatures they will target.

I've already done the math, and PF1 blasting is clearly superior, people can write otherwise but the math is exceptionally clear.

Now there could be other factors as we are getting a very limited preview, but the information so far provided is a hard nerf for almost all blasting.

Trimalchio wrote:

Compare this to PF1 and all the math leads to one conclusion: a major nerf to using blasts when blasts were already widely acknowledged to be a sub par option.

Er...no? Not really.

... A level 9 wizard could use a third level spell slot to cast a 9d6 fireball, against 30 hp ogres with ref +0 save against a DC that's going to be 19+.

Try rereading my posts.

It's a level 3 monster, that shouldn't even register as a threat to a single level 9 character much less a group of 4.

Again the hp calculation for ogres is probably off, and/or blasting needs a rework if they are just buffing hp across the board.

Pointing out the obvious isn't disingenuous.

Compare this to PF1 and all the math leads to one conclusion: a major nerf to using blasts when blasts were already widely acknowledged to be a sub par option.

Even the 'math' shows that of the ogres in the blast only die about 50% of the time, again this is a level 3 monster against the best spell of a level 9 character.

Not sure why people are so agressive, this is rather obvious, blasting as previewed is strictly worse then in PF1, the reason we have playtests is to point this out. And I'll repeat for the 5th time, the issue appears to me to be mostly too many hit points on the ogre, but it's hard to say without seeing hit points for other Giants etc.

Diego Rossi wrote:

But all that is pretty irrelevant.

The basic question is:
We are meant to be able to play blasting mages without hyper specializing or we will end like in PF1 with Save or sucks/Dye mage and hyper specialized blasting mages?
The reply seem to be "you will have to hyper specialize do do a decent level of blasting".

If "a decent level of blasting" equates to you soloing difficult encounters with blasts, then I'm pretty sure that's never going to happen. There was a specific note that they're trying to avoid the rocket tag that was so pervasive in PF1.

No need to worry because a level 9 wizard can't even reliably blast a group of level 3 monsters with a level 5 spell.

We don't know how much a PF2 fireball does, but it likely isn't 10d6 if the level 5 cone of cold spell does a static 11d6.

You have access to other monster stat blocks? How do you know know average hit points?

The level 3 ogre has 20% more hp then the level 5 redcap. It has double the PF1 ogre, in comparison the PF1 redcap 60 hp. It seems pf2 hp is all over the place.

Fuzzypaws wrote:

I don't expect a caster to be able to OHKO a level appropriate enemy, except in specific circumstances with setup like exploiting an elemental weakness on a debuffed foe. But a level 17 ANYTHING should be able to OHKO any level 3 enemy, even with a suboptimal-but-reliable option like magic missile.

They couldn't in PF1. Not with a no frills, no metamagic, magic missile (which averaged about 17.5 damage on the highest level people possible...which is a smaller percentage of a PF1 Ogre's HP than 52.5 is of a PF2 Ogre's). And the probably can take out average Level 3 Monsters. The PF2 Ogre is especially durable to make up for low AC and lack of tricks (in other words, the exact opposite of the type of foe you should use Magic Missile on).

And in many ways that's what we're dealing with here. The no frills version. We have no damage enhancing metamagic options, no Sorcerer Bloodlines, no Quickened Spell. No nothing. Just 'Heighten' which is the basic replacement for improved caster level.

Assuming that we will get absolutely no damage enhancing tricks is a weird assumption to make, to be honest. And comparing PF2 without such tricks to PF1 with them strikes me as a bad mistake.

Except a 10d6 fireball will very reliably wipe out a host of PF1 ogres, certainly a 15d6 cone of cold. And a 5d4+5 MM will reliably mop up any ogre that happens to save vs the fireball.

Again the issue clearly is the PF2 ogre hit points is way offz, especially when combined with the smaller damage output.

The real issue sounds like ogres have too many hit points for their level.

In terms of a level 9 NPC one shotting level 6 PCS, that doesn't seem like an app comparison -- I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a Level 9 caster one shot a group of level 3 adventures.

How much damage does fireball do because that's the most likely spell to hit ogres, I really can't imagine how many level 3 ogres you need before an encounter against a level 9 party is anything other than a waste of time.

How many hit points will a level 6 ogre / ogre equivalent have? 120? A level 9 ogre 180? That'll be a slog for sure.

Killing some level 3 monsters when they roll -10 vs the save against a level 9 character is pretty underwhelming, and we're already assuming they are all lined up in a cone for the wizard.

Of course since the wizard is getting +9 to their AC from just being level 9 the ogres will probably not even be able to hit the wizard anyway.

Blasting always been a sub optimal choice, but it starting to sound absolutely abysmal.

Will the design team be adding material components for every spe,? Otherwise the syntax of using a material casting action is confusing.

Also ranges are fixed? It's a simplifing choice, but is it a better choice? Is 120 feet particularly memorable?

I would prefer the second line order to be size, type, alignment so the ogre would be 'Large, Giant, Humanoid, Chaotic, Evil'

I'm concerned about hit point inflation, especially when my impression so far has been that player damage output is going to be much flatter and in general smaller.

The speed seems off for the ogre, does being large not improve land speed anymore? I second that reach under weapon is confusing, it should be explicit what reach the ogre has with and without a weapon.

I applaud listing just the stat bonus instead of the stat, if only the design team were brave enough to do that PCs as well, mixing the two will just be confusing unfortunately, how will Paizo write up NPCs, what about an ogre with a PC level?

I've built a number of monsters myself and I agree that after all the work you often end up with stats that are all over the place, and often need some arbitrary changes anyways, but my reaction is to try and fix that instead of just throwing it out and making up numbers... making up numbers is especially disconcerting when we get comments like the redcap skill bonus is off by one... so the numbers aren't made up, or only some of them are?

It's important that monsters are customizable, I should be able to have an ogre pickup a great sword and a breastplate without any issues or cast mage armor on the redcap and not wonder if they get the entire armor bonus or not, it improves verisimilitude, overly restrictive or simplistic stat blocks are going to make that difficult.

Finally monsters should have more skills or racial talents or something, like craft (any), I know these are missing their descriptions / ecology section but as of now the only purpose in life for that ogre is to be killed by a PC which is a little sad, hopefully monsters in general will exist in a way that gives life to the game world. PF2 is an opportunity to make a better more life-like ogre.

I assume travel rations will be a standard item at low levels, will that be in bulk or pounds? How does the domain power interact with my L bulk of trail rations? If trail rations are by pound, can I just carry an infinite amount of food and water?

Why are you listing pints of water and pounds of food? You really need to either use bulk or pounds (or kg), going between them willy nilly will just make a great confused mess of things.

I've been pretty vocal about my issues with bulk, but being inconsistent is an even worse decision.

Also what is power 1 power 2, is that level based like item 1 item 3?

In addition are all spells going to be rewritten to specify bulk instead of weight?

My basic issue with bulk is that it doesn't mean anything. What's 10 bulk, 50 bulk, it practically jibberish. It's another leaky abstraction in a game that naturally fills up with them, making it increasingly difficult to tell a coherent story. Ideally rules and sub systems give you more understanding and grounding in the world, not less.

Combine bulk with 'item level' I feel like I'm half way to playing some new mobile game. Id be a lot more inclined to bulk if there was a clear conversion, but then I'd wonder why there was ever bulk in the first place.

How much does the unconscious cleric weigh, 4 bulk? What about the dead dire bear, and how much bulk can you drag? The stone door, it weighs ?bulk?

Bag of holding going is going to be 1 bulk, and hold.. ?bulk? portable hole, L? And carry ?bulk or will it still be by dimension? Will there be a new Volume term, the portable hole will hold 100 Vs?

Making up abstract game terms when someone justs to know a basic fact like weight of object really destroys attempts to run a more simulationist game which is a relative strength of 3.x systems.

Rules Artificer wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

1 hand to hold it and one to trigger it. Pulling granade pins with the teeths only happens in films.

What a coincidence, we happen to be playing a fantasy game as well! :D

But seriously, from everything that's been said, these are flasks packed with dangerous reagents, not grenades with fuses to be lit.

As such, I don't see why you can't throw it with one hand.

Go throw a baseball. Even still you hold it in one hand, direct it with one hand. You don't stand straight and statuesque and throw it. It uses the whole of your body to get a good throw. Even if not being 'held' in both hands for the period of the throw your other hand is... lets call it occupied.

You mean the hand which has a baseball glove on it?

What is item 1 item 2 item 3 at the top of each entry?

Also not fan of the bulk system, would prefer weight.

4d6 seems pretty lack luster, is it one action to throw, so someone could throw 3 of these a round?

Are alchemical items designed to not be used by anyone besides alchemists past level 3?

Gear should provide some bonus, the question is how much. Starfinder gear is like 90%+ of your characters power which was way too much for me. I think something closer to 20-40% is preferable, but it's hard to say really.

Modeling the exact same distribution as 3d6 or 4d6 drop the lowest isn't possible unless you do the conversion math.

However you could do 3d3 - 5 and get a good enough approximation.

Another closer approximation would be 8d2 - 12

NPCs getting random bonuses because they're NPCs is really way too gamey for me. Starfinder is pretty much ruined because of the random bonuses monsters get 'just because', porting this over to PF2 is a big red flag.

I thought PF2 was removing the big six, why are you talking about ABP?

A chimera having a different rule and build set is fine because it's a chimera, Jimbo the npc fighter getting a different rule set because he's an NPC is... The wrong design decision.

Perhaps every AP was resolved by a different group of adventurous goblins. Perhaps there's been a great swelling tide of heroic goblins unleashed all throughout golarion, climbing trees saving kittens, slaying dragons, and driving off orc warbands, all these unique set of goblins selflessly sacrificing themselves to save the world over and over and over and over again and again despite the constant denouncements and racism, all these groups overcome ever odd and after ten years of having practically every single problem solved by a new unique goblin the people of Golarion are forced to admit, almost by divine Fiat, that goblins are no longer the baby eating monstrosities of yesteryear.

The more I think about the resonance the more issues I have with it.

The heaviest users of hp are front line fighters, it seems especially punishing for a class that traditionally dumps Cha to depend on it for healing, leaving less resonance for actual magical advantages.

Next it hurts the cleric because everytime they use any spell that isn't a heal the party tank is going to grumble that it's one less heal and they'll need to compensate for it with their limited resonance pool.

In comparison the wizard often skips the hp mini game leaving more room for magic items, doubly so because many magic items they will bypass with spells.

Personaly, I'm completely fine with goblins in pf2 core. I expect some major in game development to justify it, but I don't otherwise have any problems with it. I'd also be okay if they brought in orcs and lizard folk.

So a child watches beasts from a cliff? That's your compelling evidence, that children don't engage in military affairs?

You should reread this thread to understand what actual compelling evidence contains. I'm done quoting the massive pile of material that proves you're utterly wrong.

I have yet to see any compelling evidence that goblins are not in fact killed on site in the vast majority civilized areas in Golarion. And multiple people have cited multiple sources that goblins are in fact treated as a dangerous threat to be eliminated.

Until someone cites actual sources going around and saying killing goblins on site isn't Canon is literally false, stop saying false things. Its utterly dishonest in conversation to continue to argue a false premise that has been debunked multiple times from multiple sources.

I'm sorry if your individual view of Canon was so utterly incorrect as to believe goblins aren't killed on cite, but the textual evidence to support your incorrect and faulty beliefs does not exist. It doesn't exist. It just doesn't. Please prove me wrong.

How would that work for wands of fireball?

Except resonance is how often a character can use an item, not benefit from them. In the future, PF2 heroes will still carry CLW but also be accompanied by 50 day laborers, preferably charismatic goblins, to ensure a steady supply of resonance.

as it has been mentioned before
goblins have been showing up as non evil npcs for years.
hero pc's for years
the inner seas book calls out that some attach them selves to adventures and others and can...

I'll need quoted texts from cited sources before I'll even begin to entertain such opinions.

Yes! I hope so, I hope it's not hand waived or half hearted but big and memorable.

My gripe was the preview didn't include a single mention of this, but it was added later by a Dev. I wish they'd put it in the preview, but so it goes.

Rat bait is placed in public land commonly by private companies and local governments.

That's just rats. Again for productive assets like fields of corn we shower it in killer chemicals. We, as a species, seriously discussing the complete eradication of mosquitoes through genetic engineering.

You can make the claim I am being obtuse but you can't actually furnish any proof, meanwhile I can quote multiple bad faith interpretations from others in this discussion. But let's not, it's just toxic, and normally I would just give up and move on since it feels like I'm talking to a brick wall, but in this instance the argument against my singular point is so ludicrous I keep trying because it is comedic the depths of absurdity of please are willing to stoop to defend -- and what are they even defending, goblins, Paizo desire to make goblins a core race for adventurers? Even the developers acknowledged that the current goblin Canon needs to change to make that happen. That's been my only point, the current Canon is unequivocal -- goblins are not tolerated by the vast majority of civilization and are often hunted down and killed without qualms or legal complicatiobs or ethical complications. They are killed on sight, if a gobin shows up outside a city gate and a guard puts a crossbow bolt through it's torso, no one bats and eye, the only thing that happens is they argue about whose duty it is to throw the corpse in the nearest dung heap.

Again, people seize on a single word and decide to interpret that single word in a way that is most sympathetic to their beliefs while ignoring the mountains of other clarifying and contextual information.

goblins are 'remarkable' for their drive to cause others pain and suffering. They eat other sentient races. Humanity has tried to completely eradicate them, mon multiple occasions. They participated in recent wars which are notible for their high casualty rate.

Pest control is an entire domain of human expertise that involves the systemic removal of a species from certain zones. We spray deadly chemicals on entire fields to remove these pests. We are developing methods to try and completely eliminate some pests such as mosquitoes.

I don't know about you but I don't tolerate rats and cockroaches in my domicile, traps are set and exterminators are called.

Entire apartment buildings are vacated and fuminated to kill bed bugs.

The list of what pest control means in a real world societal usage amounts to a continuous murderous rampage by humans against those creatures that damage our well being.

Turning around and saying pests really means your annoying six year old cousin who can't stop taking is a complete nonsequitor. Thats not the extremely clear usage of the word in this context.

Yes it's true words have multiple meanings, purposely picking the alternative meaning to bolster a flimsy argument is... Well certainly not polite nor constructive.

It's frustrating because it feels like you're wilfully misinterpreting clear, repeated textual evidence or giving extremely pained interpretations in an effort to avoid the clear meaning: goblins are viewed by civilied society as pests.

Pests, like cockroaches or rats, are exterminated with extreme prejudice. That's the universally understood meaning of the word pests in English in this context. So the simple answer is goblins are often in fact killed on sight. That's what the current golarion Canon overwhelming has to say about goblins.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Trimalchio wrote:

are we both reading the same entries? I will attempt to assist you in the task:

The Goblinblood Wars were huge and horrible. That said, hobgoblins were the foes feared in those wars, pretty explicitly. That's not to say that goblins weren't involved, but they make s$+@ty frontline combatants and wouldn't be the foes most people who fought in that war are gonna remember most vividly.

dude he just GAVE you references of why goblins are the face of that conflict and remain a plague on the regions like an uncleared minefield. What do you have to back up this "hobgoblins were explicitly the foes feared".

The entire first paragraph quoted? Y'know, the one referring repeatedly to the hobgoblins as the ones in charge and the ones who made the army dangerous due their organization? Because, uh, that's like half the first paragraph quoted.

And that's entirely aside from just about every other reference to goblins and hobgoblins anywhere making it clear that this is the case.

Deadmanwaking is right. The Inner Sea World Guide entry on Isger states clearly that it was hobgoblin tribes that attacked. They were augmented by goblin slaves, yes, but hobgoblins were the primary aggressors.

No he's wrong, the exact quote is "legions of goblin slaves"

Goblins were a prominent component of the Goblinblood wars. Go read the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting

hundreds of goblin tribes exploded
from the forest like a great green
geyser. The goblins murdered an
untold number of travelers and
merchants along the Conerica
Straits before their momentum
carried them to the Isgeri towns
eking out existences at the feet of
the Five Kings Mountains.

From the same book:
Logas: Nestled dangerously close to the
Chitterwood, the city of Logas keeps a fresh
supply of dead goblins mounted on pikes
along its walls at all times.

and just to continue, what you think roving death squads actually do, do you somehow believe they strike up conversations and ask,

Hey are you like a good goblinoid or like totally evil cause if you're evil we're going to murder you because that's why we're here, we actually named ourselves after the act of hunting you and your kind down for the purpose of murdering.So evil?

Yes, no?

I'm really just amused at this point that you think you can actually defend your position.

https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Greenskin_Stalkers

The Greenskin Stalkers are a gang of rangers and slayers obsessed with killing all goblinoid creatures. Originally formed in Isger during the Goblinblood Wars, the Stalkers' obsession leads many to disturbingly immerse themselves in the thoughts and acts of goblins in order to better track and kill them, even if it leads to their own deaths.[1]

While inspired by Isger's long-settled signature conflict, the group continues to recruit new members, spreading its influence into the River Kingdoms and Varisia.[1]

sin·gu·lar·ly
ˈsiNGɡyələrlē/Submit
adverb
in a remarkable or noticeable way.
"you have singularly failed to live up to your promises"
synonyms: remarkably, extraordinarily, exceptionally, very, extremely, really, outstandingly, signally, particularly, incredibly, decidedly, supremely, distinctly, tremendously; More
in a strange or eccentric way.
"Charlotte thought her very singularly dressed"

Fine, goblins are not renowned for their sadism and cruelty, they are... "remarkable" or perhaps "Distinctive" or "Exceptional" for their sadism and cruelty.

Goblins
Most other races view them as virulent parasites that have proved impossible to exterminate.

While they fear the bigger races, goblins' short memories and bottomless appetites mean they frequently go to war or execute raids against other races to sate their pernicious urges and fill their vast larders.

Relations: Goblins tend to view other beings as sources of food, which makes for poor relations with most civilized races. Goblins often survive on the fringes of human civilization, preying on weak or lost travelers and occasionally raiding small settlements to fuel their voracious appetites. They have a special animosity toward gnomes, and celebrate the capturing or killing of such victims with a feast. Of the most common races, half-orcs are the most tolerant of goblins, sharing a similar ancestry and experiencing the same hatred within many societies. Goblins are mostly unaware of half-orcs' sympathy, however, and avoid them because they are larger, meaner, and less flavorful than other humanoids.

Their pernicious nature makes interacting with civilized races almost impossible, so goblins tend to adventure on the fringes of civilization or in the wilds.

~~

You are aware that goblins are a goblinoid yes? What other core race has roving death squards dedicated to their eradication?

This above quotes are from the Race Guide. So yeah, there needs to be a definite walk back of the Canon.

Trimalchio wrote:

And so on, so yeah I'm actually pretty concerned that there was no in Canon explanation for allowing Goblin adventures because _I_ like the Golarion Canon quite a bit and pay attention to it and it's pretty wild to read people try and walk back the textual evidence we have of how Goblins are viewed in Golarion.

I also require an actual explanation for goblin adventurers becoming more common.

However, according to Jason Bulmahn (who has the authority to make it true) there is explicitly going to be such an explanation. In the next, y'know, more than a year before the book actually comes out. We don't have it yet because this is a playtest, and one that hasn't even started yet.

Trimalchio wrote:

I've been gaming for 20+ years, I'm well aware of the definition of goblinoid, and yet people can read a text which explicitly states goblins were involved in a large, bloody war and write it off.

It's right there in the wiki, "hobgoblin commanders led hundreds of hobgoblin and goblin tribes". The text even explicitly mentions how much more dangerous the goblins were because they were being organized by hobgoblin leaders.

I'm certainly not denying they were involved. I'm saying that based on lots of other textual evidence (including several references to how people view both goblins and hobgoblins in-universe), most of the anger people feel for this seems to fall on the hobgoblins.

I've provided textual evidence, where's yours? So far you've only given out unsupported opinions. Again, go read the goblin entry in the inner sea world guide, goblins are renowned for their sadism and cruelty.

My point is the Canon is very well established, goblins are a menace to polite society, there are roving death squads dedicated to their eradication. Sure maybe Demons or Hobgoblins or whatever are even more evil, but that isn't a coherent argument that puts goblins in a better light.

Paizo needs to walk back the decisions they made in their Canon to justify Goblin adventures not being killed on sight. I'm rather disappointed we didn't get a single sentence addressing this in the preview.

I've been gaming for 20+ years, I'm well aware of the definition of goblinoid, and yet people can read a text which explicitly states goblins were involved in a large, bloody war and write it off.

It's right there in the wiki, "hobgoblin commanders led hundreds of hobgoblin and goblin tribes". The text even explicitly mentions how much more dangerous the goblins were because they were being organized by hobgoblin leaders.

do you have any diary entries or interviews or other canon textual evidence back up that assertion because otherwise that's pretty much a convenient opinion to hold to ignore the canon reality that goblins are universally despised as murderous pests.

it isn't called the hobgoblinblood wars. And the entry is rather explicit about the large role goblins played as common fodder which makes since because goblins breed like rabbits and mature within five years.

Go open a copy of the inner sea world guide and read the entry on goblins:

Goblins are insane, destructive, parasites on greater societies. These diminutive humanoids make use of the refuse and trash such civilizations leave behind. Goblins are singularly eager in the pursuit of sadism and cruelty.

And so on, so yeah I'm actually pretty concerned that there was no in Canon explanation for allowing Goblin adventures because _I_ like the Golarion Canon quite a bit and pay attention to it and it's pretty wild to read people try and walk back the textual evidence we have of how Goblins are viewed in Golarion.

are we both reading the same entries? I will attempt to assist you in the task:

The Wars
In the four year span beginning in 4697 AR,[2][3] hobgoblin commanders led hundreds of hobgoblin and goblin tribes, primarily from Isger's Chitterwood, to attack countless rural settlements in that nation.[4] A series of wars resulted, from Varisia to Taldor, as humanity struggled against the goblinoids who spread across the surface world, attacking and eating everything in their path.[5] The organization of the hobgoblins made these goblinoid tribes particularly dangerous.[4][1] The government in Elidir was at first slow to respond to the goblin menace, perhaps because most of the fighting took place in the nation's more rural areas, leaving the capital largely unscathed. This discrepancy created a fair amount of resentment in Isger's hinterlands, with many declaring that nation's military response would have come much sooner had the capital been threatened.[6]

Untold number of travelers and merchants died along the Conerica Straits, and whole towns were destroyed as far from the Chitterwood as the Five Kings Mountains. The size and deadliness of these attacks triggered an unlikely alliance of neighboring powers to become involved: a small order of Hellknights from Cheliax, a contingent of Druma's Mercenary League, and a regiment of Eagle Knights of Andoran. They combined forces to fight the goblin hordes and contain their spread beyond Isger. Although the alliance was eventually able to destroy the goblinoid forces and drive the survivors back to the Chitterwood, the number of dead on all sides were staggering.[4][1]

Aftermath
Much of the Chitterwood was burned to the ground after the war, causing any goblinoid survivors to hide in caverns below the forests.[4] Notable tribes among these survivors are the True Hoard, the Spine Threshers, and the People of the Stirge.[7] Isger's army was so devastated by the Goblinblood Wars that its steward, Hedvend VI, ordered his remaining forces to ignore most of the country and concentrate its effort along the vital trade route along the Conerica River. As a result much of Isger's hinterlands fell into banditry, which in turn caused the steward to offer bounties for bandit leaders in the hopes of attracting foreign mercenaries to deal with the problem; whether he succeeded in this strategy has yet to be determined.[1]

Greenskin Stalkers
The Greenskin Stalkers are a group that formed during the Goblinblood Wars, but has remained active in the years since. Members specialize in the killing of goblinoid foes and the protection of Isger's population, and have become notorious for their guerilla tactics and occasional suicidal dedication. The group's popularity has grown, and has even spread to neighboring nations with their own goblinoid problems, such as Varisia, and the River Kingdoms.[8]

~~~

That war was so deadly that to this day there are roving bands of suicidal death squads whose only function is to kill goblins.

Come on, try to at least respond to the facts.

I get the distinct sense that most people arguing for goblins in core are unfamiliar with golarion Canon.

Go read the Pathfinder wiki, the first sentence sums it up:

Considered nothing more than murderous pests by most, goblins dwell on the fringes of other societies, scavenging amongst their waste and building their society in squalor.

Not convinced, go read about the goblinblood wars
https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Goblinblood_Wars

That was less then 20 years by Canon, it was a Savage, bloody, continent scale war by humanity against goblins.

To include goblins in core is pretty much a complete rewrite of Canon which is upsetting to people who pay attention to the Canon. It would have been nice if the goblins preview actually tried to address this concern.

Really not a fan, especially when you are rolling 1d20, maybe if we we're rolling 2d10 or 3d6 etc.

Combined with the tighter spread were going to have times when against a reasonably tough task the highly accomplished character will roll. 2 or 3 and critically fail, while his untrained buddy rolls a 17 or better and succeeds.

If we were rolling 2d10 this would be a rare event, but on 1d20 this is practically guaranteed to happen once per session, and some unlucky fellow gonna have a very bad evening with repeated critical failure at the tasks they are supposed to be highly accomplished in.

Itll turn the game into a 3 stooges sitcom, which isn't the game I want to play.

I don't want to see someone unskilled but with magic trounce someone highly skilled.

Who cares if the spread becomes 20+, if someone dedicates enormous resources to being the absolute best at stealth then let them. What I absolutely don't want is for everyone to be within a 5 or 7 point spread which will make character choices feel meaningless.