How about the Idea of including Pathfinder Goblins as a PC Race! Think about how cool that would be! (Yes, I'm serious. I love playing goblins and goblinoids when I play.)What do you think?
Give them another name and there's no complains from me. ^^
|
Most of my campaigns, I'd have rather had a Goblin than a Gnome.
They do, however, stiffly compete with the halfling for the role of rogue in the party without much statistical differentiation. Goblins may be better in a dungeon with darkvision, but their penalty to two stats made them hard to play as a "heroic" race in 3e.
However, a Gobling (half goblin/half halfling) could be in order...
Goblins could be a pretty cool playable race.
At this very moment I'm trying to persuade those fine fellows at Paizo to allow some sort of goblin-blooded race into the ranks of PCs - so keep shouting!
Huzzah!
Rich
I would love to see at least Goblins and Hobgoblins as PC races without the messy LA/monster class level business. Bugbears too, for that matter.
How about the Idea of including Pathfinder Goblins as a PC Race! Think about how cool that would be! (Yes, I'm serious. I love playing goblins and goblinoids when I play.)What do you think?
I don't think their characteristics usually make them good for a PC race. Lighting yourself on fire gets old pretty fast. Their viscous brutal and nasty with a strong penchant to attack those weaker then themselves.
Their evil but not noble evil - their a cruel and ultimately cowardly evil.
Great villains but lousy PCs.
I'm not shouting for a goblinoid PC race. I like a better line between "heroes" and monsters in my campaigns, if only because it makes telling the "black hats" from the "white hats" easier. In a game fundamentally about murder, humanoids you can murder without compunction help elevate the escapism.
But my more salient point is this: Paizo has gone out of their way to pose Golarion goblins as vicious (and occasionally humorously incompetent) bastards. They are monsters in a way the MM goblins never were. Making them a PC race words backwards from Paizo's presentation of goblins, and shouldn't be allowed in Golarion.
Now for some settings, like the Harvestlands setting, goblin PCs make a lot of sense. But not in Golarion.
Here's what I did with RotRL. (Possible spoliers ahead) I kept the whole evil goblin tribes surrounding the area, but left one tribe that was more of a neutral evil that had learned to trade with the city (It is the same group that scavenges junkers point). They've built up their clan to be a mocery of human society (Even though many aspects of it are seriously warped or misunderstood all together.) The PCs have hired some of them as Mercs to guard the Catacombs of Wrath (Which just by acident happend to be directly under the building they rented to use as a base.) I think with a little direction it is a viable race. Though I don't think that a party could handle more than one or two.
Player: I'd like to play a goblin bard --
Other players: (assault offender)
DM: (pretends not to see anything)
Player: I'd like to play a goblin bard --
Other players: (assault offender)
DM: (pretends not to see anything)
You know, Pathfinder goblins DO have a musical ability. Catchy little song if I remember it....
I'm running a group of four PCs in an Eberron campaign. I basically chose a warforged who plans to become a warforged juggernaut, and then designed the rest of the party around him. I chose a goblin for the rogue as creatures of the sort are somewhat less likely to stay with their Monster Manual alignment than in other campaign settings. I designed him as a support character, but he's really taken on a life of his own. He's chaotic good with neutral leanings, which has translated into what I call snarky good--he's always got quips and snarky retorts to everything. I often end up role-playing him more often than I do the warforged, and always more than the cleric or wizard. He's turned out to be a blast!
So mechanically there's no real problem with having a goblin character. I guess where you could run into trouble would be if Paizo sticks with any of the ideas of having higher-level racial powers and abilities. I hope they don't, as I'm quite happy with the races the way they are now.
|
I like the idea of hobgoblins. And with the new race increases, they could probably be used without that pesky +1 LA.
Then again, we have no idea what the Golarion version of hobgoblins is. We have to wait for Classic Monsters Revisited to see if it's really doable.
I'm gonna throw in for hobgoblins myself love em been running em in eberron for a while.
I think that monster races as PCs is a bad idea for the core ruleset. It implies that these creatures can have a relatively easy time finding acceptance in traditional cities and towns, and that doesn't seem to mesh well with Golarion as presented, nor with the majority of D&D settings that have been published over the years.
I have no problem with something like this appearing as an option in a later supplement however (though I probably won't miss it if it's not, either).
|
Contributor
|
I've played goblinoids and run goblin-centered campaigns many times, and really enjoy it. Still, I'll be surprised if Paizo makes goblins a playable race, since part of JJ's design goal with the Paizo goblins was to make them back into npc villains, and remove the ethical ambiguity of PCs exterminating them. Or at least, that's my impression.
Creative Director
|
Personally... I'd rather not take this step. I'd MUCH rather keep the core races what they are in 3.5, with humans being the default. That matches my personal preference for fantasy the best (Robert Howard, Fritz Leiber, Clark Ashton Smith, etc.). The more you keep "mundane" the more the fantastic seems fantastic. If you have goblins and lizard folk and cat folk and bird men and other crazies in there rubbing shoulders with the demihumans and humans, the game no longer feels like Pathfinder to me.
I'm hoping that they take a look at goblins in Pathfinder... and it has absolutely nothing to do with me wanting to write a book on the topic.
Promise. Pinky swear. You can trust me, you heard it on the internet.
Personally... I'd rather not take this step. I'd MUCH rather keep the core races what they are in 3.5, with humans being the default. That matches my personal preference for fantasy the best (Robert Howard, Fritz Leiber, Clark Ashton Smith, etc.). The more you keep "mundane" the more the fantastic seems fantastic. If you have goblins and lizard folk and cat folk and bird men and other crazies in there rubbing shoulders with the demihumans and humans, the game no longer feels like Pathfinder to me.
Agreed. If one adds goblins as a PC race, one has to allow for enough of them living peacefully side-by-side with the civilised races to allow for goblin adventurers. And if you make those assumptions, they're just not the crazy, homicidal Pathfinder goblins we all know and love.
Perusing my monster manual, I see there's already a section on goblin PCs under their entry. Certainly not on a par with PC races, but if you're wanting to play a goblin, it's probably for the flavour, rather than any mechanical advantage. So the option is there and, if the Birdcrunchers campaign is anything to go by, people are already having immense fun with it.
A final point. Goblins display the following characteristics: Short attention span (and height), sneaky, somewhat crazy, like to steal peoples' junk. Slap a non-evil alignment on one for adventuring purposes, and you're perilously close to having a kender. A kender with pyromaniac tendencies who wants to kill your dog and eat your horse.
And while the occasional kender can be a fun experience, having too many has been known to drive both the GM and the rest of the party up the wall. Best for all concerned, I think, if goblin PCs remain an unusual option to be taken by mutual agreement with the GM, rather than being core.
That way we get to keep the magic.
|
If so then they would have to be a modified Aasimar, without a level hit.
There is 1 race that has (or had) acceptance in Sandpoint besides those in the Players Handbook -- Aasimar. That choice would also be a thumb at the 4th Edition Tiefling!
Given that all the races, as they stand now compared to 3.5 races, AFAIK could generally be considered equivalent to LA +1, just use the aasimar as written. That, or add a -2 to Con to make the stat blocks look similar (-2 Con to offset their Outsider (native) type, and to match their roots of 2e Planescape, where they also had a -2 penalty to Con... although that would be a -4 penalty in strict 3e terms - ouch.)
I concede that the Pathfinder setting goblins (which I love!) would not work very well as a PC race. That said, my own interest in the Pathfinder RPG is not in the setting, but as a generic resource and a flavor of d20 that I can stand to play. I've long since burned out on D&D/d20 in favor of GURPS, but both my game groups are HIGHLY resistant to changing game systems. From what I've seen so far, Pathfinder RPG is somewhat more palatable to me, but my primary interest is in a game engine that I can use with Eberron and homebrew settings.
YEA... um...Nah.
I don't really care.
:P
|
|
I haven't written them up yet, but the party in my current game is going to run into a rival 'adventuring group.'
m Goblin Wizard (fire specialist, bit of a pyro)
m Hobgoblin Fighter (chain-tripper, former slave, uses a weapon made from the chains that he wore all through his childhood)
f Bugbear Rogue (fur so dark red it's almost black, likes to combine Sneak Attack with Power Attack...)
m Kobold Cleric (fanatical little dragon-worshipping elitist, only tolerated by the others for his healing ability)
m Orc Monk (grapple specialist. filed teeth. Make that grapple and *bite* specialist...)
f Gnoll Druid (hyena animal companion, does not play well with others, which, in this group, is saying something!)
I haven't written them up yet, but the party in my current game is going to run into a rival 'adventuring group.'
m Goblin Wizard (fire specialist, bit of a pyro)
m Hobgoblin Fighter (chain-tripper, former slave, uses a weapon made from the chains that he wore all through his childhood)
f Bugbear Rogue (fur so dark red it's almost black, likes to combine Sneak Attack with Power Attack...)m Kobold Cleric (fanatical little dragon-worshipping elitist, only tolerated by the others for his healing ability)
m Orc Monk (grapple specialist. filed teeth. Make that grapple and *bite* specialist...)
f Gnoll Druid (hyena animal companion, does not play well with others, which, in this group, is saying something!)
Some suggestions from Variant Character Classes in the SRD:
Goblin Wizard- Fire Domain Wizard
Hobgoblin Fighter- possibly Thug
Bugbear Rogue- possibly Wilderness Rogue
Kobold Cleric- use the Spontaneous Divine Caster variant
Orc Monk- Denying Stance Style, create a feat Savage Grapple that allows him to make a free bite attack (1d2 or 1d3 + 1/2 Str mod) when grappling
Gnoll Druid- Druidic Avenger would be great IMO, but she'd lose the Animal Companion (unless you use a feat to gain it back, probably as a druid of 1/2 HD/level; an improved version as a second feat could bump that up to full)
Goblins are fantastic as they appear in Pathfinder.
Love the little buggers!
As a PC race however I dont like it at all. They would be chosen to be comic releif characters and would wear thin really quick.
To much of a good thing and all that.
Its like Dragonborn in 4th edition. Yeah we love dragons..but did we really want them as a PC race? No not really.
Againt goblins as a standard race.
Not against racial abilities in the MM (or whatever PF will use instead), so the option is there.
One of my favorite characters was my goblin rogue in the first RPGA Eberron campaign. I have never really liked the whole black and white, good and evil thing. I prefer a lot more grey in my role playing.
No this is cool.
Eberron is all about shades of grey and not good and evil. Their personalites are differnt from Greyhawk or Forgotten realsm goblins.A goblin PC is Eberron fits quite nice.
Pathfinder goblins are very different from Eberron goblins.
On the subject of Hobs and Gobs....i thought the Kingdoms of Kalamar did Hobgoblins some justice finally. By their description in the monster manual I would be more concerned about Hobgoblins than Orcs. Orcs in most settings have trouble coming up with tactics more complex than scream and charge in a wave. Wheras hobgoblins are mentioned as being disciplined and well trained fighters with quality arms and armor. The same with regards to goblin compared to kobolds.
Knew someone who in their homebew setting had orcs as an almost endangered species thanks to them trying to compete with hobgoblins in several areas. The orcish wave attack is only so effective against the goblinoid equivalent of the Spartans.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
Just say no to all monsters as CORE player races. This is an option for the monster book. Any intelligent monster could be a character option for an experienced and intelligent player with a group that doesn't mind changing the basic format of the game to be monster focused instead of hero focused.
I would like to see both the goblins and kobolds as PC races. If not, some nice notes on using them as PC races in a monster book would do nicely.
Thank you for your time.
|
|
Well, I can certainly see why Someone might not want goblins as a fully-supported PC race. On the other hand I dont see anything wrong with giving them updated statistics and abilities, keeping them maybe just a little under-par as a race, but still worth it for anyone who really wants to play one (which I can understand). they have a paragraph in the MM titled "goblins as PCs," dont they?
|
Personally... I'd rather not take this step. I'd MUCH rather keep the core races what they are in 3.5, with humans being the default. That matches my personal preference for fantasy the best (Robert Howard, Fritz Leiber, Clark Ashton Smith, etc.). The more you keep "mundane" the more the fantastic seems fantastic. If you have goblins and lizard folk and cat folk and bird men and other crazies in there rubbing shoulders with the demihumans and humans, the game no longer feels like Pathfinder to me.
James, I really respect your vision for Pathfinder, it has guided the setting to the incredibly rich and entertaining campaign we currently enjoy. However, I think you're under-estimating the appeal of non-core races with a large number of players.
My group consists of one Tibbit (cat folk), two Raptorans (bird men) and other crazies (a gnome!), and we're thoroughly enjoying it. The "bird men", in particular, represent RotRL like no other race in any setting we've played, as we have woven Raptorans and Harpies into the religious back-story of Desna and Lamashtu respectively.
Humans, dwarves and elves have always seemed bland choices for me. I have always been drawn to more exotic races - Half-orcs (Greyhawk), Dark-kin (Arcanis), and City Goblins (Eberron). Pathfinder goblins have been given such unique character, they are a natural attraction for players seeking a different roleplaying experience.
Such races need not appear in the Pathfinder RPG core product. They might be supported with PC side-bars in products such as Classic Monsters Revisited, or Monster Manual type products, with appropriate warnings or advice regarding campaign style-of-play, seek permission of GM, etc.
At the end of the day, those of us who wish to play cat folk, bird men and other crazies, will continue to do so from other sources. However if Paizo were to provide appropriate races with the Pathfinder-spin, that would be my preferred option.
Also, the power creep appearing in Pathfinder alpha's core races (+2 to two stats), would seem to leave the door open for +1 ECL races on par with Pathfinder core races.
Counter to all of this argument is: the GOOD thing about Pathfinder's "generic" approach to fantasy, is that it makes it VERY easy for us exercise imagination and paint our own brand of fantasy over it (ala my group's Raptorans/Desna, Harpies/Lamashtu theme).
And I would like to see the Orc and Hobgoblin too!
Make them equally powerful as the rest of the core races, of course!
As I posted otherwhere, I would like to see no Half-races as core races.
I think there is more than enough fun and flair with the core races.
But for myself, I also never liked those "Orcs and Goblinoids are always the evil murdering savages"
In my point of view, all races are per se "blabla"-neutral.
Sure there are marauding orc tribes and perhaps they are the most heart and seen of, but there are also wild but peaceful tribes living in tune with the forces of nature.
Sure, there are a lot goblin clans which reproduce like rabbits and swarm the landscape if they reach a certain population,
but there are also those who "sell/lend" their kin as cheap labor in the near mining or tannery business.
On the other way, Elves aren't always those shiny nice wood peoples. Think of an Highelven Magic Kingdom, where the pride and the lust for power resulted in militant, expansionistic rassists. (There is no need for Drows!)
Y'know, every monster in the game is a 'playable' character, given DM approval. While I don't think we'll be seeing umber hulk druids anytime soon, There's no problem with a goblin character in the party, IMHO. I don't think we need them to be common races, living in cities and interacting with folk. But for the adventuring party that the whole story focuses on, It's fun to have a unique background like an exotic race.
I wouldn't mind seeing something in the monster entries such as "Playing ______ as a Character", giving stata and/or advice on PC versions of the race.
While i think "monster races" (be they goblins, drow, githyanki etc) should be options i dont think those options should be presented in the core Pathfinder RPG book. I think the place for them is a section on playing them in a Monster Manual book, a setting book or a book dealing solely with monster races as player characters.
To me there should be a limited number of core races, core classes (though i am against more core classes than the base 11...use variant options for those instead of entire extra core classes), and only a handful of very general prestige classes in a main rulebook. Expansions on those should be handled in well...an expansion book dealing with those specific things.
-Weylin Stormcrowe