Quinn

jimthegray's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 407 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 6 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 94 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rysky wrote:

You should have the playtest drop before the[Friday's] stream.

Kahhloo Kahhlaaa :)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Clughless wrote:

Hey all,

First time posting on here hope I'm doing this right. I'm a retired Marine playing Attack of the Swarm, we Marines use our motto Semper Fidelis, Semper Fi to other Marines all the time. What do you think the equivalent phrase would be in Starfinder?

Plashnik...Blarg!

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

is there an inherent reason why the hellknight would want to kill the druid?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
GeneticDrift wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
An archetype would also mean that your gunslinger can't use guns for the first level of play.

The only things preventing using a gun at lvl 1 is lack of rules and getting access to one (rarity).

Archetypes unlock at level 2. If the means of getting proficiency is locked behind an archetype (IE it's an uncommon weapon) then it is impossible for a level 1 character to be proficient in firearms.

You might be able to swing a Human with Unconventional Weaponry, I suppose.

or if they were from alkenstar

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
SuperBidi wrote:
Castilliano wrote:
1. That's how poison arrows work (in reality & fantasy)

In fantasy only. Poisoned weapons have very rarely been used in reality, and only to kill after combat: The most potent poisons on earth kill in dozens of minutes.

The issue with RAI is that you can't bring it around a PFS table. So, RAW, you have to apply an injury poison to a weapon. Around a PFS table, any other use would be invalid.

In terms of balance, it's very hard to tell. Both systems have their pros and cons. Still, a high level ranger with poisoned arrows seem overkill to me, considering the amount of hit per rounds (and thus poison attempts) he can make.

if playing raw then you can just use javelins , daggers etc

but in my personal games ill allow poisoning arrows

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
K1 wrote:

I am playing a Champion ( redeemer ), but I am currently not satisfied with it.

The major issues i am facing are the followings:

1- Multiclassing restrictions.

In this system, every class has to max out his primary stat, so for melee will be STR, DEX for a ranged and his spellcasting ability for a caster.

That said, if you plan to wear a plate ( bad idea, since an elven chainshirt will give you more armor ), you will mostly go with base dex.

But there's a problem.
By having 10 dex you won't be able to do the follow some paths:

-Rogue
-Ranger
-Fighter
-Monk

Shortly, everything but barbarian which could give you customization in terms of melee/tanking stuff.

If you go 18 str and 14 dex, then you have some points left for const ( which is mandatory for a tank ) and eventually Charisma, which is your base deity spells modifier ( /facepalm ).

We are not considering here INT or WIS, which means that you won't be able to multiclass into

-Druid
-Cleric
-Wizard
-Alchemist

Shortly, you have to give up something which you can't ( since in this version a +1 is everything, imagine your focus spells with a 10 or 12 base charisma. Good luck with that ).

2) Horrible traits meant for protection.

- Champion's Reaction needs 2 checks instead of one.
- Champion's Reaction range
- "Exalt" is almost impossible to use. First because it is always better to split up to avoid and AOE. Second, because if even if it will happen that an aoe occurs, and you have you allies in 15feet range, you will also have to have the enemy which cast the aoe in reach! Almost impossible.
- 2 talents ( and next to an ally ) to being able to use shield of reckoning, which can't be use with your extra shield block reaction or divine reflexes.
- Divine Grace as reaction, as circumstance bonuse, against a single magical effect.
- Shields with durability ( which means you must have the skill to repair them, up to legendary, and maybe the assurance talent, quick repair, and other skills traits ). More or...

other then the alchemist you don't need to max your stat at lv1

honestly i would argue starting at 16 might be the better choice for several classes

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
baahk36 wrote:

Goblin scoundrel rogue. They specialize in "monster" law filing counter suits for wrongful injury on the behalf of the families of all the monstrous humanoid races that thoughtless adventurers killed without proof or due process. Not above using his rogue skills to plant a little evidence to win his cases.

Make him a razortooth goblin for that winning smile.

now I want to run a goblin legal game based on simon and simon or better yet mattlock.

gave a goblin lawyer and his crack team of goblin experts

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Some Kind of Chymist wrote:

Options in the new edition have shown me how awesome the idea of lawyer is as a character background.

It's just so thematic for so many types of characters: Clerics of Abadar, Asmodeus, Sarenrae, Pharasma, amongst other dieites along with scoundrel rouges, bookish wizards, charismatic sorcerers and many more.

So, Let's see what Lawyer PCs people have put togther; I'm sure some folks have thought up creations beyond my wildest dreams.

Also, I feel, depending on the GM and campaign, that legal lore can be a super useful skill (shame for my Cleric of Sarenrae that it keys of INT though).

The only thing that's a negative for the lawyer concept is that the Truth domain isn't very stong. (Don't get me wrong; I love the Word of Truth thematically [and vaguely remember something in PF1 that was similar that I also thought was cool], but it isn't very strong unless you have a very nice GM that is on board with it).

azik the souless

goblin
barister and wizard
once a humble manservent to a mighty barrister he one day decided to cast aside his soul for the forbidden books of the law ...and picked up a little magic along the way
looks- goblin with giant affectation spectacles and a huge barrister wig wearing the fines andoran gentleman's clothing

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

*pace* *pace* *pace* *pace*

the wait is always so agonizing.
knowing my luck it will arrive the day after i leave for dragoncon

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

my lost omens is showing as my next subscription but is in the sidecart, i think that's normal , well we shall see :)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Garretmander wrote:
Medium armor is so they can invest in STR over DEX and still keep up their AC, not a straight bonus.

why would you want to put str on most cloistered clerics? i would htink one would wan to play them as wizards and never willingly get into melee

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lord Fyre wrote:

I do not like the way that money has been changed in the game.

Two reasons:
* - It is an obstical to converting older material.
* - "Grognard-ism" Long time players may not react well to fighting an epic battle to win the princely sum of 150 silver.

How are others feeling?

i have always hated the gold standard of most games so i love the new standard

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kelly Livesy wrote:
Rysky wrote:
@Kelly, what would you have had them trade out for it?
I don't see that anything needs to be traded out for some things to have been included or expanded. But for starters, it seems strange to me that they should describe the existence of class archetype feats and then not include any.

10 are in the lost omens book that was supposed to come out at launch but was delayed a couple of weeks

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

this is entertaining so far

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

thanks for your speed at sending it out , got mine last night and started my read :) might start my players on it tomorrow .
I am extated by the books and
was motivated to order some 2nd ed subscriptions this morning as well as the condition cards

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
RussianAlly wrote:
I feel that system mastery should be rewarding when it shows through intelligent strategical and tactical application of the systems in play to achieve unexpected and interesting results. It should not be a reward for having extra 20 hours to spend on manuals or the SRD reading build options.

mastery imho implies study and people that put in more effort should be able to get more out of a system.

though i do think that games need as few traps as possible.
and that a system should be fun and playable with out requiring extensive mastery

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Got trackin on mine, it’s been moseyin around Washington all day hehe

i suspect the next few days will involve me pacing a lot :)

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Peachbottom wrote:

I just can't get into a goblin as an iconic.

Goblins should have stayed in the bestiary with the other monsters. Fantasy worlds have long portrayed goblins are too irremediably evil to be trusted in a party and Pathfinder 1st edition was no exception. I'd find it very hard to accept one no matter what changes Paizo says happens between 1st and 2nd editions.

There is nothing wrong with the backstory article though, and I love Wayne Reynolds' art.

there have been goblin heroes in pathfinder for what 9 years now?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Shri Tamana wrote:
Vexies wrote:
Such a tease! I would totally buy this. All things goblin! Someone needs to make something like this happen.
See Pathfinder 2E playtest. Goblins are a core race. Don't know if it'll make it through the playtest. There is a lot of hate for goblin PCs as core, even after the explanation came out.

sure there are haters, but every poll i have seen shows progoblin race support as vastly higher then anti goblin support, even if this was not true, paizo is not going to take goblins out,

there is no benefit for them to take them out

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Childeric, The Shatterer wrote:

Am I the only one that absolutely hates that practically EVERYTHING in 2nd edition has been reduced to a freaking feat.

racial abilities: nope, they're ancestry feats now so you have to be a 7th level dwarf to get what 1st level dwarves used to get for free.
automatic improved skill abilities: nope, they're now skill feats that you have to take in order to do the same stuff you could do for free just for putting ranks in the skill.
class features: nope, they're now class feats that you have to take just to acquire the class features you used to get for free.
archetypes: nope: they're now feats you have to take instead of taking one of your limited class feats.

I realize that one of the goals of 2nd edition was to simplify and streamline character creation, but there must have been a better way to accomplish that goal.

probably not the only one, but i think that your probably in a small mminority

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Childeric, The Shatterer wrote:

Hi, I'm a monk. My special abilities are called Ki Powers and allow me to cast spells.

Hi, I'm a cleric. My special abilities are called Domain Powers and allow me to cast spells.

Hi, I'm a wizard. My special abilities are called school powers and allow me to cast spells.

Anyone else see the resemblance to 4th edition and the way they made every class homogenized, boring and the same?

nope ,

but to be fair i did not find most of 4th to be homogenized, boring OR the same

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Childeric, The Shatterer wrote:

I skipped a bunch of pages due to the flame wars emanating from them, so...

The legendary feats look amazingly overpowered, but you only get a limited number of them (3-6 I believe), so it's not like you're pulling these legendary stunts with everything you do all day long.
If they applied to every single thing your PC ever did, I'd be totally against them. but occasionally being able to do something amazingly overpowered is pretty damned cool.
So, as long as the accessability limit remains, I'm fine with them.

not seeing over powered, most can be done by a low level caster

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TheFinish wrote:
MusicAddict wrote:

The answer is that in real life sleight of hand, misdirection and distraction is key. You need someone deft and highly skilled to pull off the physical part, but if you can't keep them distracted well enough it's over immeadiately. But in fact with sleight of hand in real life you are almost always more likely to be caught by an onlooker than your mark.

Shoes are actually remarkably hard iirc, and pants aren't too bad, the deft guy needs to make sure that they won't trip on them when you move the mark . Jackets and button shirts are supposed to be the easiest when it comes to clothing iirc, with gloves being the hardest.

Most of sleight of hand is knowing psychology more than anything, though dexterity is still important. I'm super clumsy myself so I could never pick pocket someone or take off a piece of clothing, I can still take objects from people's hands or put something in their hands without making them notice, and move them across a building before they realize it. Just look into it and things like real life studies on perception, and you realize just how little we actually notice regularly.

Yes but....how? Like, there is, for example, no physical way to remove someone's T-Shirt, Shirt, Jacket, what have you without your "mark" having to move in very specific ways. Especially button shirts, where you have to unbutton them. The same is true for pants (and doubly true if they're wearing shoes.)

I mean, this is easy to see. Just put on a t-shirt and ask someone else to take it off you, without you helping them in any way. You'll see it's pretty much impossible, let alone taking it off without them noticing.

Like, I can see people taking your hat, your cloak, a belt. But your shirt? Your pants? A breastplate? That's when it goes from "really skilled" to "complete silliness".

i used to fluster a close friend and casual fling of mine by unbuttoning her shirt while we were talking, i could usually get it mostly unbuttoned before she noticed and occasionally have it falling off before she noticed. never could manage pants with out her noticeing but button shorts were easy as long as i could keep her talking and looking in my eyes .

and i have known people who were vastly better at such tricks.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Crayon wrote:
How badly would omitting these affect system cohesiveness?

you would make non casters less interesting and useful

but it would still be playable

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
NetoD20 wrote:
Frosty Ace wrote:
BPorter wrote:
kaid wrote:
Varun Creed wrote:

If you wouldn't want a 'Legendary' style game, your campaigns wouldn't go above level 15 anyhow in Pathfinder 1.

In PF1 once people start slinging around wish and opening new dimensions and some of those crazy spells a thief who is really good at stealing pants does not seem to be that far fetched.

In PF1, one doesn't survive the vacuum of space without magic or a magical or technological item, i.e. an in-game explanation. Having access to reality altering magic as a high level spellcaster = an in-game explanation.

Surviving in a vacuum in PF2? "I'm just that skilled/good at Survival that the environmental effects of vacuum no longer apply." In other words, my knowledge and training is so good, the laws of the in-game universe cease to apply to me. WTF?

PF2 character - I can survive a fall from ANY height without being the offspring of a god, being a spellcaster, or possessing a magic item that provides that ability. "I'm just that skilled/good that gravity causes me to fall like any other object but momentum doesn't exist when I land." Again, WTF?

In game explanations of the fantastic I can get behind. It's one of the appealing facets of fantasy games. However, saying "I can now break the realities of the game solely on the basis of 'I leveled high enough'" is way past the line of internal consistency. I'd hate it in a video game and I sure as hell hate it in my tabletop RPGs.

Even the superhero genre and its associated RPGs require that a fantastic power has a source/in-world explanation. That has not be presented or even hinted at with respect to PF2's Legendary tier.

The reason isn't level. The reason is growing your skills from untrained to legendary with seemingly countless hours of training, near endless trial and error, and the inevitable success and gained "proficiency" that follows the aforementioned regiment. The reason is literally practice and
...

in many fantasy and super hero settings having a high enough skill is basically magic/superpowers.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
Catharsis wrote:
I wouldn't mind eventually getting Liberators, Tyrants, and Disruptors, but the Paladin is the ur-archetype: It's the dream of being rewarded by the universe for Doing Things Right, even though it's the hardest way to go.

Lawful Good is the alignment of accepting evil because there are worse evils out there. There are Hellknight Paladins because it's possible to be Lawful Good and just turn the other cheek at slavery and other forms of repression.

Lawful Good is not the most good.

true that would be NG

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

none are particularly unbalanced imho

large is as much a hindrance as a help,
sros are frail,
vesk have better ac
etc
IMHO all of the races are pretty close powerwise .

though there is also enough differences to have there advantages in different areas which can weight individuals opinions of there respective worth.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

strike 1st is easy ...she does not want her followers to start fights ,just finish them :)
as the others have said basic common sense.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ryan Freire wrote:
So beyond the standard magic items, and stat boosters, i'd really like to see some of these other magic items bite the dust. Leading off with the ring of sustenance and all of its permutations. It should take more than a couple grand to kill sleep requirements and eating requirements dead. Cheap magic that removes environmental threat, supply management, and time management needs to go. PC's should have to think a little before traipsing off to the uncharted wilderness for an adventure.

i get what your saying ..thing is other then a few darksun games food and water have almost never been an issue in any game i ran or was in.

and in those games getting such a ring would have likely never been an option.

so whats the harm in having it and its like?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

Since Alchemists being core and alchemy being something more of a vital element of the game, it's only natural that Paizo will try to showcase things which help set PF2 apart from the competition. They can't rely on "our game is more D&D than the current D&D" that was true in 2009, because the current D&D doesn't suffer from what made it possible for Paizo to eclipse 4E.

That is possible, especially with how many parallels people are drawing between PF2 and 4e/5e.

I think there are other ways to do that though besides just with one class and subsystem.

By focusing on that aspect it can easily create the appearance of bias.

just not seeing any bias here from paizo

like not even a little bias

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ErichAD wrote:
Aside from needing to remove the bleaching nonsense and changing one of the small races to having an int bonus and another to a wisdom bonus, it all looks pretty okay.

bleeching has been a gnome thing for a long time in pathfinder and helps make them different from d&d gnomes , i doubt they will remove it.

what don't you like about it?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
NielsenE wrote:
If SF's Space Goblins weren't just a continuation of the insanely delightful pyromaniac chaotic agents of mayhem we're used to I'd have an easier time accepting that Goblins could change. Instead we seem to have some redemption event and then the Gap undoing it all.

?? there not, the ones in the 1st ap module are quite wiling to talk and work with you

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
emky wrote:

I'm not a fan of alchemy in my fantasy, and it's disappointing that something so niche as alchemist is being made core when there were plenty of other classes to choose from instead.

It's the same thing (to a lesser degree, though) as goblin being made core. Things that should be relegated to splat books are core, so if you're "banning" them from your game for thematic reasons, you're losing parts of the tightly balanced system and large parts of the core book. And, since they're core, they'll be more supported in all the future splatbooks as well, rather than kept where they should be -- more niche.

im not sure i would call the alchemist nitch in pathfinder

its one of the more popular classes and paizo considers it much like the goblin a symbol of there game.
it also has less overlap with other classes.
unlike oracles, witches, magus, etc

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Deighton Thrane wrote:

So, am I the only one that feels like they're going crazy, or senile with some of the arguments that are getting thrown around here? I mean;

Core Rulebook wrote:
From the stout dwarf to the noble elf, the races of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game ... these seven races comprise the most commonly encountered civilized races in the Pathfinder RPG.

They say it right there that the core races are there because they are common. I thought maybe things have been changing, or maybe I'm just remembering the settlement write ups all wrong. So I went back through all the campaign setting books I have (which is most of them) to look at all the settlement stats. Only 2 settlements even list goblins, Whitethrone and Kaer Maga. Both of those settlements are supposed to be atypical examples of settlements though, in fact both settlements have more trolls than they do goblins. Kaer Maga has as many centaurs and nagas as they do goblins. Orcs, geniekin and gillmen all seem to show up more often than goblins do.

I know that half-orcs and half-elves don't always show up as a notable presence in settlements, if there at all, but even humans, who make up 80-90% of the population aren't on every list. Half-orcs and half-elves still make up 1-2% of the population, which is much more than goblins, who usually don't even make the list of races worth mentioning.

I'm aware that this is a new edition, and things could change. Maybe the core races won't be there just because they are common, or something could happen with the setting to make goblins show up in more places, or more commonly become adventurers. But nothing I've ever seen has shown that to be the case with PF1, or Golarion as it stands.

I'm not even against having goblins as a core race, I would just like a good reason for it. And many of these claims that goblins already are suitable as core don't make any sense to me.

reason , the best ones, there a race that a lot of people like playing and they are paizos mascot

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Trimalchio wrote:
jimthegray wrote:

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.

Well, for the last one, check p. 141 of Inner Sea Races. To quote:

"Some goblins do become genuine adventurers, almost always after banishment, seeing their tribe wiped out, getting lost, or otherwise finding themselves separated from the group. Without a strong leader, lone goblins drift until they find someone else offering food and protection. They eventually grow a shameful streak of
loyalty toward any companions—even humans—with whom they travel long enough. Goblins separated from their own kind long enough may even begin to shy away from murderous impulses or express uncharacteristic qualities such as empathy and compassion, ensuring their tainted hearts will never find acceptance among their own kind again."

Which actually also provides really compelling textual evidence that almost all goblin Evil is cultural rather than genetic.

yeah goblins seem to be pack animals in a social sense more so then say humans,

raised like goblins are raised and having to deal with there extreme hunger is a recipe for a dangerous creature, but when they bond with a better role model they can come around.
which shows why you have some goblin heroes as well as goblins like the one that helps the old lady with her shop and of course goblin servants and the like.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dracoknight wrote:

I am still not convinced on how Paizo can incorperate the Goblin as a "socially acceptable" race in the current setting of Golarion. Even though the system is 2.0 it does not mean that the world of Golarion is also in a 2.0 state, and its stated that all previous Paizo material would be usable for the 2.0 system aswell if i dont misremember.

We heard all of the lore reasons for Goblins should not be around, and personally i dont think there is anything less than a retcon that could make them work proper, or maybe just make a sub-spieces of Goblins or "Goblin-like" or "Mini-Orc" race.

I am not going to pull the "player race X cause disruption", but i can pull the state of the established lore and player conception of Goblins is that they are basically "Adventures first monster". They are monsters to destroy in Pathfinder 1.0, they are monsters to destroy in D&D all editions, they are monsters to destroy in nearly every fantasy setting. The only exception i know of is the Warcraft goblins which were technological and merchant-like beings.

How are they going to change the perception of Goblins being anymore than a easy pile of XP for a level 1 adventures without having a very good established reason for being anything less than "kill on sight"?

A Lore retcon or adjustment is easy, but here we are going to retcon a conception of a ICONIC monster that have been fodder since the dawn of time, and personally i think thats something you kind of have to setup from the start of your world, retcon or a story point that progresses this notion.

I may have missed out on some other settings that have Goblins that are more than fodder, but in those settings they are wastly different than the Paizo Goblins which is very like the standard established goblins we see in fantasy.

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 become compassionate heroes.
they live in and around almost every city in golarian , which means having them around is not at all hard to rationalize them being around and rationalizing that every tribe tends to have a few good black sheep among them.

there is no reason for a lore retcon though they may very well add some lore changes in pf2.
a lot of players want to have them as a player race from the start and this happening is not going to hurt your game.

there is nothing wrong with not liking them, im not big on elves.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Corrik wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, the thing about "Goblins enjoy the taste of human flesh" not bothering me is that so do cats. If you die, and nobody notices and subsequently nobody is there to feed the cat, your cat is going to start eating you right away. A housecat won't try to eat you if it seems hard and it has better alternatives, but kitty has no compunctions about eating you.

Nonetheless, people love cats. I love my cat. I have no doubt he would eat me if circumstances made it a good idea.

So why not interpret "Goblins are sadists who are willing to eat people" through the lens of "well, I can say the same about cats".

That's a terrible example, cats are monsters that kill for fun. If they didn't have fur, didn't make cute noises, and could wield knives a lot less people would be fond of them.

sphinx cats are pretty popular :P

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

i am considering a goblin that worships Shelyn and trys very hard to compose songs in worship of her ...

Liberty's Edge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

The decision to make goblins into a core ancestry for players in second edition worried me the moment I saw it. The inevitable and overwhelming negative consequences this decision would have on the play experience seemed so obvious to me that I am surprised by the number of people defending it. Of course, the fact that so many people do seem to think that this is a good idea shows that those reasons are not, in fact, as obvious as I believed. It is as a result of this, and the dismissive tone with which both Paizo and the community has met concerns that I and others have, that has motivated me to gather those concerns together in a single place and present them as persuasively as I can in a reasonable amount of time. So, here is why adding goblins as a core race is a bad idea, and why it will make play overall less pleasant and more laden with problem players than it currently is.

The Psychology of the Problem Player

Concerns about the effect the introductions of goblin characters as a core option will have on the conduct of Pathfinder’s player base are often met with the idea that any player who would ever behave in a disruptive way will always behave in a disruptive way no matter the class and ancestry of their character. This statement is false, because it misunderstands what motivates problematic players to play as they do. Problem players are not malicious vandals out to disrupt games. Rather, in my experience, the most passionate role-players I’ve encountered are generally the ones most inclined to behave disruptively, because they care so deeply about role-playing their characters accurately.

The two most disruptive characters I’ve ever encountered were both halflings, played by different people, both of whom are in no way disruptive when they play other characters. One is openly and deliberately behaving like a kinder, which means he will risk angering plot-critical NPCs and ruining the mission for everyone in order to pick-pocket or shoplift for his own amusement. The other...

the problem here is players not races , using the logic from your article you might as well ban paladins, rogues, gnomes, halflings , and barbarians at the very least.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Wheldrake wrote:

True, that, Athaleon! Whether halflings, gnomes or shadier types like ratfolk or now goblins, the small races have always been quirky at best.

The real answer is that goblin characters can be explained away by reasons.

Single goblins are easy to justify. Multiple ones harder and it becomes even more difficult to explain them with any regularity as an acceptable generic background person that no one paid attention too. The lone adventurer I can buy: it's the random unknown goblin at the market that everyone is ok with them being there that doesn't make sense to me.

thing is goblins have popped up in adventures as more then adversaries ..including in markets

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Pappy wrote:

So last night at our weekly game I mentioned the new goblins as core race addition to PF2. Each player has decades of gaming experience. It is worth mentioning that all players loved the We Be Goblins modules as a zany departure from the norm. Even so, not a single player was happy with the change to core for goblins. Lots of head scratching all around.

An earlier comment on this thread suggested that the introduction of goblins as a core option was targeted primarily at new players without years of experience (baggage now?) with the artists of carnage and mayhem formerly known as goblins. I'm inclined to agree with this sentiment. Obviously it isn't universally true as lots of experienced players on this thread love the change, but why would new players have any cause to object to goblins as a common option as heroes? Perhaps designers see goblins as a key differentiator between the new version and other popular table top games and a key push of future marketing campaigns.

and my group who have all ben gaming since the early or mid 80's have all liked it, i do not see pro or anti goblin preference to be an issue with how long people have been gaming

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Corrik wrote:
Aldarc wrote:
Corrik wrote:
So the popularity of Drow, Kobolds, and Tieflings mean they should also be core then?

Sure. Why not? I'd be perfectly fine with that. Would you mind throwing in Orcs and Aasimar into the mix as well?

A part of me wants to echo the sentiment that half-elves and half-orcs should be absorbed into the ancestries of humans, elves, and orcs, but then I remember that half-elves in Eberron have essentially become their own ancestry with their own heritage, set of cultures, and lore.

No, nor would I have had as much issue if they had switched around the core races more. But keeping the status quo except now goblins just does not work.

does not work for you is not the same as does not work.

it works fine for example for me and has for years.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nox Aeterna wrote:
Mogo the Goblin wrote:
Actually a Goblin in RotRL has a vested interest in stopping the plot of RotRL, because if the longshanks get organized and come after the goblin tribes that's bad news for the goblins. They gotta stop that crazy lady from getting goblin heads stuck in a tighter pickle jar than they can get it out of.

Maybe.

It would still not stop the NPCs from sandpoint to try to skin them alive if they could.

So it would bring abou the challenge, how would the goblin PC perform all those city parts of the adventure, while running from every guard in the city and being hunted by half the quest NPCs... Interesting conundrum.

Guess if he is also a master of alter self from lvl 1...

its pretty easy, as a dm you choose not to chase the characters around , if maybe use it as a roleplaying opportunity for the goblins to talk to the town guards or leadership and get a grudging allowance to prove them selves

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:

I am incredibly disappointed with this cynical corporate mandated retcon, and I am frustrated and distressed to see people defending it. It is utterly ridiculous to suppose to suppose that a goblin could openly walk around any normal human City on Golarion not be at least confronted by the guards. Games with Goblin PCS will either have to constantly be distracted by the fact that that player is there, or completely abandon the idea that a serious story is being told in the same universe as pf1. Those same games will be plagued by horrible player misbehavior, as any GM not in a position to either ban Goblin PCS or harshly police player Behavior, two things that Pathfinder Society GM's cannot do, will struggle pathetically to stop players acting so disruptively as to worsen the experience for everyone except themselves.

That's not to say all goblins will be that way. However, having Goblin PCS as an option will put it in some players heads that that's how they're supposed to be acting if they want to role play their characters, and arm both those players and more malicious ones with an "it's what my character would do" excuse that no Society GM will be able to refute because it will be objectively true.

you say this, and yet there are adventures that have goblins in cities sometimes even as servants or employees.

it takes zero effort as a dm to not have the goblin pc being overly messed with and the only reason you might have horrible player misbehavior is if you have a problem player.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
eddv wrote:
I like how peoples suggestion is just to dunp your friend. Like come on guys you all have the PERFECT friends who dont on occasion make for crappy gamers? Tailoring system choice to playerbase is a pretty sensible thing to do.

sure , i just don't play rpgs with those friends.

player issues are player issues

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kringress wrote:

My problem is that you have the goblins better than all the other core races. You are giving them a 12 point buy instead of a 10 point buy. I don't understand how the writers can even justify this. Look at the advanced races guide +4 DX, -2 ST, and -2 CH. This is another example of the Aasimars and Tieflings an overpowered race that if you had the book you would take the race.

As I put it in another post why would I play any other race but goblin with this advantage? Please give me a reason to play a Dwarf instead of a goblin. Background? please like that matters. Steady movement? Minor. The only other race that make sense to play is the Elf because of spell penetration.

have we seen the stays for the other races yet?

I have not seen any but the goblin so far and only a few ancestry feats oso far.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Chaotic_Blues wrote:

Well, I suppose, there's some interesting info here on races in general. I can see why you included them, and it makes a kind of sense in Galorian.

I can't see allowing a race of homicidal psychopathic pyromaniacs as a PC option at my table. I just don't want to encourage my players to become murder hobos.

do your players lack the ability to roleplay ?

because this seems like your selling your players or perhaps your ability as a dm short.

playing a not evil goblin is not even what i would call a mild role playing challenge.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TheFinish wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
TheFinish wrote:

None of them are considered pests fit only for extermination in-setting. Unlike goblins.

And this blog does nothing to dispel that notion, so yeah. If You want to have a Goblin PC, you'll deal with the consequences.

My druid's dire rat gets along fine. I don't see a goblin as being any more difficult of a companion to the party.

As long as the consequences are fun, I'm pretty sure that's what the player signed up for.

Your druid's Dire Rat is...your druid's. It's a pet. Is a goblin PC going to be someone's pet? Someone's slave?

Dire rats are known as pests, sure, but they're animals. They aren't intelligent, malicious, arson-prone intelligent humanoids detested by basically everyone, and with good reason.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

By the by, any intelligent creature being considered a pest fit only for extermination is racism on the part societies unable to consider that intelligent creatures are able to make free-willed choices.

Maybe goblins wouldn’t have to raid and steal so much if anyone seriously considered trading with them? Especially since you can trade your junk and unwanted waste to goblins in exchange for the herbal and alchemical supplies abundant in the swamps, forests and caves they live.
I mean, no. Goblins of Golarion and the Advanced Race Guide basically go completely against this idea. Goblins are despised precisely because they're free-willed, intelligent creatures, and almost all the time they chose to be absolutely horrible.

and yet even know paizo has a few goblin npcs living in cities and not getting lynched,

1 to 50 of 94 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>