Goblins are nasty little Turds - Keep it that way!!


Prerelease Discussion

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Goblins should NOT have good charisma - they're GOBLINS for f...'s sake!
It's nice to have them around, so you can stomp them to pulp on sight!!!

On a serious note; they're wonderful villains and they should be repulsive! They give the game a lot as they are.

Halflings and Gnomes with bonus on char - sure, I get that, but the little booger-goblins?!?
really?


They like singing though and that takes charisma (disregard dwarvern and elven singing traditions)! And they're small! Small = cute = charismatic!

Yeah, goblins being +cha is pretty eyebrow raising and by extension all the small races being +dex/cha is rubbish too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:

They like singing though and that takes charisma (disregard dwarvern and elven singing traditions)! And they're small! Small = cute = charismatic!

Yeah, goblins being +cha is pretty eyebrow raising and by extension all the small races being +dex/cha is rubbish too.

Agreed


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It would seem they are a gimmick, and the inclusion of the alchemist to go with them, a way for PF to have its own identity or something, and obviously to draw in a certain demographic.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Oh! Oh!

I know why goblin PCs get +2 CHA!!

Oh! Oh!

It's because all the goblins who didn't get +2 CHA all got stomped to death by the nearest farmhand with a rake. And his dog.

It's one of those Darwinian "survival of the fittest" things. Only gobbos with +2 CHA manage to ingratiate themselves to human society enough not to get exterminated on sight.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:
It's because all the goblins who didn't get +2 CHA all got stomped to death by the nearest farmhand with a rake. And his dog.

That's the best argument I've seen for NOT keeping them Cha... ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oddly with their lack of STR flaw, bonus to fire spells, and bonus speed, gobos are the roses of the small races.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Hm. Yet another thread that could have been folded into any of the dozen other Goblins are wrongbadfun threads.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm in the "Goblins should be Dex/Cha, Gnomes should be Con/Cha, Halflings should be Dex/Wis" camp.

But I disagree fundamentally that goblins make wonderful villains, in my experience they make pathetic villains, in the sense that they inspire pathos. But seriously, when was the last time one of your parties felt genuinely threatened by or invested in fighting goblins? Of all the "monster races", they are perhaps the least threatening (Kobolds at least sometimes are friends with dragons, who will mess you up even if the kobolds won't.)


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I think they should be dex/int -wis tbh. Cunning but careless.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GRuzom wrote:

Goblins should NOT have good charisma - they're GOBLINS for f...'s sake!

It's nice to have them around, so you can stomp them to pulp on sight!!!

On a serious note; they're wonderful villains and they should be repulsive! They give the game a lot as they are.

Halflings and Gnomes with bonus on char - sure, I get that, but the little booger-goblins?!?
really?

part of charisma is personality and goblins have the most personality of any of the races.

look other people enjoying having goblins from the start is not gonna hurt you or take anything away from your game


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Charisma in Pathfinder isn't about being nice or likable (though it can go in that direction), it's about a character's ability to project their inner self. There are powerfully callous people who have great capacity and talent to make themselves heard, to control a crowd, to manipulate, to lead effectively, etc.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
But I disagree fundamentally that goblins make wonderful villains, in my experience they make pathetic villains, in the sense that they inspire pathos.

They can be wonderful in the sense that they are fundamentally insane. You can have them do thing that make NO sense for any other race to do. No one is surprised to see goblins running around with lit powder kegs on their backs...

PossibleCabbage wrote:
But seriously, when was the last time one of your parties felt genuinely threatened by or invested in fighting goblins?

Depends: how much time and effort do you invest in them? Give them an actual leader and they can be surprisingly focused. They tend to swarm, so tactics with poison/disease/sneak attack work well even if it's mostly a flurry of misses.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Of all the "monster races", they are perhaps the least threatening (Kobolds at least sometimes are friends with dragons, who will mess you up even if the kobolds won't.)

The thing that shifts things is that it's very rare for it to be 'a goblin'. The minimum encounter of goblins is 7-9 so in people's minds it's is an orc[or other race] more dangerous to 7-9 goblins...

Kobolds: They are schemers, never fight fair if they can help it, setting up ambushes and double-crosses, use ingenious traps. IMO, they are quite close to goblins except they are sane, can make long term plans and form coherent groups. So in a way, they are more dangerous than goblins: Goblin insanity is such a wild card though it hard to say which is more dangerous: for instance, A kobold would never set their own home on fire while a goblin might do that to watch the pretty colors...

Zedth wrote:
Charisma in Pathfinder isn't about being nice or likable (though it can go in that direction), it's about a character's ability to project their inner self. There are powerfully callous people who have great capacity and talent to make themselves heard, to control a crowd, to manipulate, to lead effectively, etc.

That's why dwarves are such wallflowers and have such a hard time leading troops...


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I'm in the "Goblins should be Dex/Cha, Gnomes should be Con/Cha, Halflings should be Dex/Wis" camp.

But I disagree fundamentally that goblins make wonderful villains, in my experience they make pathetic villains, in the sense that they inspire pathos. But seriously, when was the last time one of your parties felt genuinely threatened by or invested in fighting goblins? Of all the "monster races", they are perhaps the least threatening (Kobolds at least sometimes are friends with dragons, who will mess you up even if the kobolds won't.)

Pathethic = charisma bonus? Really?


Snickersnax wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I'm in the "Goblins should be Dex/Cha, Gnomes should be Con/Cha, Halflings should be Dex/Wis" camp.

But I disagree fundamentally that goblins make wonderful villains, in my experience they make pathetic villains, in the sense that they inspire pathos. But seriously, when was the last time one of your parties felt genuinely threatened by or invested in fighting goblins? Of all the "monster races", they are perhaps the least threatening (Kobolds at least sometimes are friends with dragons, who will mess you up even if the kobolds won't.)

Pathethic = charisma bonus? Really?

Goblins are pathetic as villains, not as PCs or as one off non-player characters. Which is why I prefer goblins in the latter role.

I don't think there is any plotline in this family of games as hackneyed that I'd be happy to see relegated to the dustbin of history as "let's go kill everyone in the goblin village" (at least "let's rescue the damsel" is rife with opportunities to subvert the trope.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Snickersnax wrote:


Pathethic = charisma bonus? Really?

Goblins are pathetic as villains, not as PCs. Which is why I prefer goblins in the latter role.

This is an ancestral bonus because they are goblins, not because they are PC goblins that have overcome their ancestry. That would be background.


Snickersnax wrote:
This is an ancestral bonus because they are goblins, not because they are PC goblins that have overcome their ancestry. That would be background.

Goblins who exist as cannon fodder do not need to be made using the PC creation rules, instead they can (and most likely will) be built using the separate monster creation rules.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Snickersnax wrote:
This is an ancestral bonus because they are goblins, not because they are PC goblins that have overcome their ancestry. That would be background.
Goblins who exist as cannon fodder do not need to be made using the PC creation rules, instead they can (and most likely will) be built using the separate monster creation rules.

I'm not sure why simplified creation rules would alter it's background.


graystone wrote:
I'm not sure why simplified creation rules would alter it's background.

What I'm saying is that only goblins built with PC creation rules will have the charisma bonus, so goblin leaders and such (who make sense to be more charismatic than the rabble). Ordinary cannon fodder goblins may not even have a charisma score, let alone a bonus to it.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
That's why dwarves are such wallflowers and have such a hard time leading troops...

Dwarves struggle with lying to, intimidating, and making friends with others. They are not necessarily wallflowers, but they are less capable at getting others to do what they want. That would include leader activities like encouraging others before a battle or rallying a breaking line.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Snickersnax wrote:
This is an ancestral bonus because they are goblins, not because they are PC goblins that have overcome their ancestry. That would be background.
Goblins who exist as cannon fodder do not need to be made using the PC creation rules, instead they can (and most likely will) be built using the separate monster creation rules.

So goblins will normally have a negative charisma, but PCs with goblin ancestry will have positive charisma... because ancestry?

They should be looking for ways to clean up the rules rather than add this kind of weirdness.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
graystone wrote:
I'm not sure why simplified creation rules would alter it's background.
What I'm saying is that only goblins built with PC creation rules will have the charisma bonus, so goblin leaders and such (who make sense to be more charismatic than the rabble). Ordinary cannon fodder goblins may not even have a charisma score, let alone a bonus to it.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. If we go with that, then non-pc elves aren't dextrous and smart... And dwarves don't have wis and con... IMO, the basic assumptions of the race still apply even if the exact stats aren't written down: ie, even if you don't figure out the exact stat, ancestry stats would still lead to higher or lower one in the 'monster'.

Serum wrote:
graystone wrote:
That's why dwarves are such wallflowers and have such a hard time leading troops...
Dwarves struggle with lying to, intimidating, and making friends with others.

You sure you aren't talking about goblins? Goblins have a short attention span, so consistent lying seems like an issue. They are almost universally despised [even by other goblins], no not making friends. Other have called them 'pathetic' and that doesn't sound intimidating... IMO, dwarves have a better claim to a bonus in Cha than a goblin... :P


I would have simply given goblins +2 Dexterity (being small and quick), +2 Constitution (to better survive low-hygiene environments) and -2 Wisdom (for the propensity to make themselves explode).

As for secondary traits, maybe make progress more slowly on disease and make them better carriers.

Liberty's Edge

+Dex/+Con makes Goblins the flat out best martial combatants of the core Ancestries (since they can put their floating bonus in Str and have all three physical stats). That seems inappropriate.

+Dex/+Int, meanwhile, moves their bonuses from being too close to Halflings to being too close to Elves.

Neither of those are ideal. I'm not really invested in goblins having a Cha bonus, but there seem few good alternatives, and Cha is more than just being likable. Intense and memorable are also valid descriptors for high Cha and most Goblins meet those requirements very well, whereas most Dwarves tend more to being taciturn and quiet. So I'm not married to the idea, but it makes some sense and the alternatives all tend towards the unfortunate.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
LMondoux wrote:

I would have simply given goblins +2 Dexterity (being small and quick), +2 Constitution (to better survive low-hygiene environments) and -2 Wisdom (for the propensity to make themselves explode).

As for secondary traits, maybe make progress more slowly on disease and make them better carriers.

The problem with this is that it makes goblins the best martial ancestry because of the potential to have bonuses in all three physical stats.

The only way to balance +2 dext and +2 con is to give -2 strength.

I'm all for goblins with -2 str, having the strongest 30 lb goblin be the same strength as the strongest 200+ lb human, half-orc, etc is a little silly.


Deadmanwalking wrote:


Neither of those are ideal. I'm not really invested in goblins having a Cha bonus, but there seem few good alternatives, and Cha is more than just being likable. Intense and memorable are also valid descriptors for high Cha and most Goblins meet those requirements very well, whereas most Dwarves tend more to being taciturn and quiet. So I'm not married to the idea, but it makes some sense and the alternatives all tend towards the unfortunate.

It will be interesting to see how diplomacy works in PF2. In PF1 a high charisma not only means that you can influence the attitude of others easier and get them to do what you want. It also makes it harder for others to influence you.

A bonus to charisma seems like a very poor fit for goblins. They are attracted to strong leaders, but as a group they have natural leadership attributes?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
+Dex/+Con makes Goblins the flat out best martial combatants of the core Ancestries (since they can put their floating bonus in Str and have all three physical stats). That seems inappropriate.

Well for me, that is a perfect reason to make them non-core: for me, +Dex/+Con IS the best fit for them as none of the mental stats really makes sense for them: they aren't particularly smart, wise or personable. Now tenacious and nimble I'll buy.

Though if core IS a must, they not slap that str down is that's the fear? I'd rather all three small races have - str than all have + cha. Oh, and also, small creature might not be able to use two handed weapon so they might not make the best martials that way too.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snickersnax wrote:
It will be interesting to see how diplomacy works in PF2. In PF1 a high charisma not only means that you can influence the attitude of others easier and get them to do what you want. It also makes it harder for others to influence you.

They've added the concept of 'Save Defense' which is a Save +10 being the DC of a check (it's an Athletics check vs. Reflex Defense to disarm someone, for example), so I'd actually be surprised if Diplomacy wasn't vs. Will Defense...something goblins will be sub par at due to their Wis penalty.

graystone wrote:
Well for me, that is a perfect reason to make them non-core: for me, +Dex/+Con IS the best fit for them as non of the mental stats really makes sense for them: they aren't particularly smart, wise or personable. Now tenacious and nimble I'll buy.

I'd still have every bit as much problem with goblins being the ultimate warriors regardless of whether they are core.

Now Orcs or Hobgoblins? Sure. Goblins? No.

graystone wrote:
Though if core IS a must, they not slap that str down is that's the fear? I'd rather all three small races have - str than all have + cha.

This is possible, but I prefer greater diversity in stats, not lesser. And a Wis penalty seems way more appropriate thematically to boot.


For Goblins, i would go +2 Dex +2 Con -2 Cha because Goblins hang around in Filthy Environments and tend to be the sheep that are lead by the Shepard. a Sheep shouldn't be the charismatic one, that is the Shepard's Job. it might turn them into a really good martial ancestry but it would actually allow a viable option for people who want small barbarians.

medium races are still better than thier small counterparts at the martial role due to having better CMB, better CMD, better Weapon Damage, and more mileage out of enlarging effects.


Deadmanwalking wrote:


They've added the concept of 'Save Defense' which is a Save +10 being the DC of a check (it's an Athletics check vs. Reflex Defense to disarm someone, for example), so I'd actually be surprised if Diplomacy wasn't vs. Will Defense...something goblins will be sub par at due to their Wis penalty.

Save defense doesn't apply so much to diplomacy, because its really only something that PCs do to NPCs or NPCs do to each other. In PF1 the DC was determined by charisma not wisdom. I think there are some good reasons for this. We'll have to see.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
This is possible, but I prefer greater diversity in stats, not lesser. And a Wis penalty seems way more appropriate thematically to boot.

In previous editions, charisma has always been the LOWEST ability score for goblins. I'm not sure how wisdom is suddenly thematically more appropriate for a penalty

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Snickersnax wrote:
LMondoux wrote:

I would have simply given goblins +2 Dexterity (being small and quick), +2 Constitution (to better survive low-hygiene environments) and -2 Wisdom (for the propensity to make themselves explode).

As for secondary traits, maybe make progress more slowly on disease and make them better carriers.

The problem with this is that it makes goblins the best martial ancestry because of the potential to have bonuses in all three physical stats.

The only way to balance +2 dext and +2 con is to give -2 strength.

I'm all for goblins with -2 str, having the strongest 30 lb goblin be the same strength as the strongest 200+ lb human, half-orc, etc is a little silly.

chimps are stronger then men and are smaller

so i have no issue with a goblin being as strong as a human , also they will not give goblins +2 str,dex becasue the 3rd stat most goblins would obviously choose would be +2 2 con as well


Tarik Blackhands wrote:
They like singing though and that takes charisma (disregard dwarvern and elven singing traditions)!

What in any form possible makes you think that they must be good at it? To the contrary, the fact that goblins like to sing is anathema to everyone else in the universe. They're undoubtedly horrible at it!


Deadmanwalking wrote:
I'd still have every bit as much problem with goblins being the ultimate warriors regardless of whether they are core.

Core means that they require DM permission to play, so those that have issue with it just don't allow goblins. Core is assumed accessible unless the Dm explicitly excludes them [at least as far as pathfinder classic goes].

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Now Orcs or Hobgoblins? Sure. Goblins? No.

And if they all did? With no weapon size change, I think it's likely the old one handed weapons will be two handed weapons for short folk, so 'taller' fighters will have access to bigger weapons and with pluses doing multiple dice, that's a bigger thing. As such, perfect stats aren't going to make them 'perfect' martials.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
This is possible, but I prefer greater diversity in stats, not lesser. And a Wis penalty seems way more appropriate thematically to boot.

I agree. The problem is nothing else really makes sense to me. It's a lesser of two evil deal IMO. IF the appropriate stats are too good, alter the one that makes the most sense instead. If you look at gnomes/halflings, neither are particularly weak in any area other than stature so I'm not sure how to diversify there.

Liberty's Edge

graystone wrote:
Core means that they require DM permission to play, so those that have issue with it just don't allow goblins. Core is assumed accessible unless the Dm explicitly excludes them [at least as far as pathfinder classic goes].

We actually have no idea how much of a distinction core/non core Ancestries will have between them in PF2.

Also, I routinely let people play non-core options. I strongly don't want to have to start forbidding them just because their stats encourage a very counter-thematic build.

graystone wrote:
And if they all did? With no weapon size change, I think it's likely the old one handed weapons will be two handed weapons for short folk, so 'taller' fighters will have access to bigger weapons and with pluses doing multiple dice, that's a bigger thing. As such, perfect stats aren't going to make them 'perfect' martials.

We have no idea how that works, actually. You could be right, but you could also easily be wrong.

graystone wrote:
I agree. The problem is nothing else really makes sense to me. It's a lesser of two evil deal IMO. IF the appropriate stats are too good, alter the one that makes the most sense instead.

Like I said, Charisma actually does make some sense to me. I'm not overly enthused about it, but given some of the other disgusting creatures with high Cha (qlippoth leap to mind), I also have no problem with it. Charisma has more to do with the intensity of the impression you leave people with, not necessarily whether it is good or bad.

graystone wrote:
If you look at gnomes/halflings, neither are particularly weak in any area other than stature so I'm not sure how to diversify there.

I'm a strong advocate of making Halflings a Dex/Wis Ancestry. that makes the Str penalty the only thing they and Gnomes have in common.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
We actually have no idea how much of a distinction core/non core Ancestries will have between them in PF2.

I can only go by what we know: pathfinder classic has this assumption built in so there isn't anything else to go on until we're told it changed.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Also, I routinely let people play non-core options. I strongly don't want to have to start forbidding them just because their stats encourage a very counter-thematic build.

I think there is a good chance you DO forbid some: we have rules for green martians, gargoyles, drow nobles, trax, centaurs and others in pathfinder NOW. If you DO allow any race that's ever been given pathfinder stats, I want to play in your game once because I've never gotten to play some of the more exotic options.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
We have no idea how that works, actually. You could be right, but you could also easily be wrong.

LOL In another thread you said 'we should assume how things are going to be' but you're assuming that having +st and con are going to make 'the perfect fighter'. Isn't THAT as much as an assumption as weapon sizes and how much a +2 is going to affect your character.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Like I said, Charisma actually does make some sense to me. I'm not overly enthused about it, but given some of the other disgusting creatures with high Cha (qlippoth leap to mind), I also have no problem with it. Charisma has more to do with the intensity of the impression you leave people with, not necessarily whether it is good or bad.

I understand that charisma can be only one aspect of it: The thing is though that those "disgusting creatures" at least have SOME part of the stat that's above average even if it's force of personality or sheer intimidating aura. I struggle to find any situation where goblins are extraordinary in the cha department in ANY aspect. Or any mental stat for that matter. MAYBE int, as they are cunning in there own way, but I don't see them as bright as elves.

As to intensity of the impression, I'd disagree. A LOW cha makes as much of an impression as a high one. For instance Diplomacy: every 5 you make the check or FAIL it by, the attitude shifts 1 so a bad stat has the same effect in moving the reaction as a good one. IMO, they make their impression in the BAD way: ie, having a LOW cha.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
I'm a strong advocate of making Halflings a Dex/Wis Ancestry. that makes the Str penalty the only thing they and Gnomes have in common.

Here I agree 100%. I'd LOVE to suggest something other than -str but I can't think of anything better.


If you want something other than -2 STR, push for a flat modifier for size. Add SIZ mod to STR for weapon damage and carrying capacity. Make SIZ mod DR. Subtract SIZ mod from DEX for ranged attack, ranged AC, and stealth. Subtract SIZ mod from WIS for perception checks to detect stealth.

Now give a small ancestry +2 STR.

Liberty's Edge

graystone wrote:
I can only go by what we know: pathfinder classic has this assumption built in so there isn't anything else to go on until we're told it changed.

I think making assumptions like this has actually led a lot of people down really false paths in regards to the new rules already. Continuing it seems a poor strategy.

graystone wrote:
I think there is a good chance you DO forbid some: we have rules for green martians, gargoyles, drow nobles, trax, centaurs and others in pathfinder NOW. If you DO allow any race that's ever been given pathfinder stats, I want to play in your game once because I've never gotten to play some of the more exotic options.

Creatures with level adjustments/racial HD have huge issues as supportable PCs, it's true. However, given how Ancestries seem to be working, they could fix that and make it entirely reasonable to play a centaur or gargoyle in the new edition (once those ancestry rules are out).

And even still, I'd probably allow most of those in a high level game (the exceptions being Green Martians, who aren't around in-universe, and Drow Nobles, since I house rule that they, as a race, do not exist), because none of their stats actively go against their role in the world.

Adding ancestries whose stats make them really good at things that group is not good at in-universe is generally not great game design. Goblins as great warriors is such a thing.

Now, you could argue goblins as great diplomats is also such a thing, and you may even be right...but goblins as tricky or intimidating? That actually makes good sense to me for at least some of them. Goblin Bards, Rogues, and Sorcerers certainly make more sense as common among powerful goblins than Barbarians and Fighters, at least to me.

graystone wrote:
LOL In another thread you said 'we should assume how things are going to be' but you're assuming that having +st and con are going to make 'the perfect fighter'. Isn't THAT as much as an assumption as weapon sizes and how much a +2 is going to affect your character.

I'm stating +Str, +Dex, +Con is good for characters who don't care about spells, yes.

But that's not an assumption at all since we know for sure (from Demo Games or statements from Paizo) the following things that make it true:

-Str is still used for to hit and damage in melee.
-Dex is still used for AC and Reflex Saves. And to hit at range.
-Con is still used for Fort Saves and Hit Points.

Oh, and either Str or Dex (via Athletics and Acrobatics) are used for all combat maneuvers. So that's actually a huge amount of supporting data right there that most of non-spell combat is explicitly tied to those three stats.

Stating things that are true based on data we already have is not making an assumption.

graystone wrote:
I understand that charisma can be only one aspect of it: The thing is though that those "disgusting creatures" at least have SOME part of the stat that's above average even if it's force of personality or sheer intimidating aura. I struggle to find any situation where goblins are extraordinary in the cha department in ANY aspect. Or any mental stat for that matter. MAYBE int, as they are cunning in there own way, but I don't see them as bright as elves.

Oh, it definitely happens. Check out the Goblin Bards we've seen for instance.

That said, I don't entirely disagree. Goblins aren't known for any mental stat...but if they have to have one (and I think they do mechanically), Cha seems the best fit to me.

graystone wrote:
As to intensity of the impression, I'd disagree. A LOW cha makes as much of an impression as a high one. For instance Diplomacy: every 5 you make the check or FAIL it by, the attitude shifts 1 so a bad stat has the same effect in moving the reaction as a good one. IMO, they make their impression in the BAD way: ie, having a LOW cha.

That's true to some degree by the rules, but it is not historically how most creatures wind up statted. I will direct you again to qlippoth for a sterling example. Almost none interact with anyone in any but the most horrifying and disgusting ways, yet their Cha scores are often their highest mental scores.

graystone wrote:
Here I agree 100%. I'd LOVE to suggest something other than -str but I can't think of anything better.

Well, someone needs a Str penalty and Halflings are a good candidate. If I was gonna ditch it from anyone, it'd be Gnomes.


jimthegray wrote:


chimps are stronger then men and are smaller
so i have no issue with a goblin being as strong as a human , also they will not give goblins +2 str,dex becasue the 3rd stat most goblins would obviously choose would be +2 2 con as well

Chimpanzees are 1.35-1.5 x as strong as a human on a lb for lb basis and weigh an average of 100 lbs. The physiology of the strength a chimpanzee has comes with a cost of less fine motor control.

If a 30 lb goblin had chimpanzee strength, its normal strength would be between 5 and 8.

It doesn't make any sense that goblins can be as strong as this guy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariusz_Pudzianowski

Do you even lift, bro? :)

Liberty's Edge

Eh. Big cats are more like 5 times as strong as a human, pound for pound. All they pay for that is needing to eat a lot of calories and sleep a lot. They also have way less endurance than humans, but that's actually true of almost all animals, not just big cats.

Goblins are known for needing to eat a lot and preferring meat (which is high in calories).

Really, goblins being as strong as people is impressive, but not at all unbelievable for an entirely separate species.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:


Like I said, Charisma actually does make some sense to me. I'm not overly enthused about it, but given some of the other disgusting creatures with high Cha (qlippoth leap to mind), I also have no problem with it. Charisma has more to do with the intensity of the impression you leave people with, not necessarily whether it is good or bad.

Charisma has to do with effectiveness to make impressions that you want to make. In that regard goblins tend to fail, and Qlippoths tend to succeed.

But finding examples of poorly constructed monsters and using them for arguments to construct more poorly constructed monsters (or in this case Player Characters) is a terrible argument.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Eh. Big cats are more like 5 times as strong as a human, pound for pound. All they pay for that is needing to eat a lot of calories and sleep a lot. They also have way less endurance than humans, but that's actually true of almost all animals, not just big cats.

I'm not finding any agreement for your cat strength claim. Got references?

What I am seeing is that a human with tiger strength could lift 360 lbs. I'm not that big and I can do that.


Here

Liberty's Edge

Snickersnax wrote:
Charisma has to do with effectiveness to make impressions that you want to make. In that regard goblins tend to fail, and Qlippoths tend to succeed.

I disagree. Goblins often succeed at trucking other creatures or seeming pathetic. Both of which are often their intent.

Snickersnax wrote:
But finding examples of poorly constructed monsters and using them for arguments to construct more poorly constructed monsters (or in this case Player Characters) is a terrible argument.

Wait, in one sentence you say Qlippoth are effective due to charisma, in the next that they're poorly designed. Those seem contradictory. I think you need to pick one.

Snickersnax wrote:

I'm not finding any agreement for your cat strength claim. Got references?

What I am seeing is that a human with tiger strength could lift 360 lbs. I'm not that big and I can do that.

Sure! Here's one link telling a story about a tiger doing something 13 people working together couldn't (drag a 1700 lb animal carcass).

For a non-tiger example, look at this showing what a leopard can do. Examples include carrying animals twice their body weight up trees in their mouth.

Also, the only place I can find that 360 lb figure is a garbage site. It says Tigers weigh 1000 lbs. That's double the actual weight of most large tigers. With mistakes like that I'm not sure I'm the one who needs references.


Pound for pound humans squeak by tigers according to the link i posted, its gorillas who are the scary MFs


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Qlippoths

I think the thing for me that lets me think that a high Cha makes sense for them is spells like planar ally. They require an opposed cha check to call creatures so a high cha is used to resist a conjuration: IE force of personality/sense of self.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't see why goblins need any stat bonuses. I would like to see penalties to both Wisdom and Charisma and no bonuses at all. There should be no mechanical advantage to playing a goblin, it should be a challenge and a roleplaying opportunity.

However, if the designers want the core races to be more balanced then goblins should receive non-stat benefits like resistance to poison and disease, bonuses to stealth (and maybe hide in plain sight), bonuses to bluff, climbing and sleight of hand, the ability to eat nearly anything, the ability to squeeze through ridiculously small holes, resistance to cold and fire, scent, dark vision, DR versus bludgeoning and falling damage, bite attack, etc.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnight Anarch wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
They like singing though and that takes charisma (disregard dwarvern and elven singing traditions)!
What in any form possible makes you think that they must be good at it? To the contrary, the fact that goblins like to sing is anathema to everyone else in the universe. They're undoubtedly horrible at it!

I like to sing, but trust me, doing so would NEVER help one of my diplomacy rolls.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Weather Report wrote:
It would seem they are a gimmick, and the inclusion of the alchemist to go with them, a way for PF to have its own identity or something, and obviously to draw in a certain demographic.

This! Totally this! Paizo's goblin fetish is perhaps the annoying thing about the company and PF2e. I won't restate all the objections to goblins posted by me and others from other forums, but I do think it is worthwhile to more or less constantly remind Paizo that a big proportion of the customers don't like goblins and don't want them to be core in PF2e.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens Subscriber

Goblins as a PC race is the worst idea I've heard of. So far this is the single most feature of PF2 likely to ensure I quit.

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Goblins are nasty little Turds - Keep it that way!! All Messageboards