2E Hobgoblins - What do they look like?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 132 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have to say that I like the new hobgoblin look. Reading the Character Guide blog was the first time that I've seriously considered making a hobgoblin character.


Any online source for a reference for the Hellknight Hill bugbear?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
spectrevk wrote:
Tender Tendrils wrote:
I love the new hobgoblins, they actually feel like they are related to other goblinoids now instead of just being Gray humanoids (1e hobgoblins reminded me a lot of LOTR Uruk-hai, which isn't a great thing as pathfinder goblins are veeerrryyy different to the goblins that uruk-hai are related to).
Goblinoids have never looked alike. Bugbears *still* look totally different from Goblins or either version of the Hobgoblin design.

For what it's worth, the illustration of the bugbear in the Bestiary isn't the final look we're aming at—it's an example of "we ran out of time to adjust." The bugbear illustrated in "Hellknight Hill" is more in line with where we're going there—and there they DO have a goblin through line to their appearance.

I just wanted to say the Hellknight Hill bugbear design is TERRIFYING. It feels like a boogeyman out of a nightmare, which seems pretty fitting for Pathfinder serial killer bugbears.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Pepsi Jedi wrote:
Any online source for a reference for the Hellknight Hill bugbear?

Yo


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:
Any online source for a reference for the Hellknight Hill bugbear?
Yo

Aww, fuzzy! Now that's something you can sell plushies of!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
spectrevk wrote:


I think it's the hunched posture, the spindly, weak limbs, and the sad, crestfallen facial expression. She just doesn't look comfortable in that outfit, or holding the weapon. Compare it to the posture, limbs, and facial expression of the hobgoblin leader from Ironfang Invasion. Note that both have nearly the same skin tone.

I've been looking at that picture as Arachnofiend's avatar for weeks and it never crossed my mind that could be a hobgoblin. I thought it was a purplish orc or half-orc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:
Any online source for a reference for the Hellknight Hill bugbear?
Yo

Ahh thank you. I like that too!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think that it's a pretty interesting look, and I'm glad that they're trying to keep the Goblinoids thematic instead of them looking like completely different species.

For my part, I always liked the Hobgoblins who looked like burly, hirsute Elves (as can be seen here), and if I had a vote, I'd want all of the Goblinoids to have this sort of look.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Indagare wrote:

I think that it's a pretty interesting look, and I'm glad that they're trying to keep the Goblinoids thematic instead of them looking like completely different species.

For my part, I always liked the Hobgoblins who looked like burly, hirsute Elves (as can be seen here), and if I had a vote, I'd want all of the Goblinoids to have this sort of look.

That's a great look for a hobgoblin. It's also the 3rd edition D&D look for a hobgoblin, and that means we want ours to look VERY different. Which is a big part of why we went the route we did.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

yeah i do have to say i like the art from the blog post or whatever with the alchemist and the tian xia hobgoblins, the ones in the bestiary just don't look like their anatomy was planned out before drawing the picture. the face and mouth don't look like they have bones underneath and the hands look out of proportion to their legs.

the hobgoblin soldier from the entry above it though has art i really like.


Bandw2 wrote:

yeah i do have to say i like the art from the blog post or whatever with the alchemist and the tian xia hobgoblins, the ones in the bestiary just don't look like their anatomy was planned out before drawing the picture. the face and mouth don't look like they have bones underneath and the hands look out of proportion to their legs.

the hobgoblin soldier from the entry above it though has art i really like.

I love that one. That's the mental image I'd have if I were to play one. Like that.

I'm already envisioning one with a heritage of having more green skin.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I for one like my hobgoblins to be thick.

The Starfinder Hobgoblins and the Hobgoblin General in the P2E Bestiary look so lanky to me as to be the opposite of threatening. However, the alchemist linked above, as well as the Soldier look much more thick, much more threatening and real.

I'm loving the Bugbear in Hellknight Hill.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
It's also the 3rd edition D&D look for a hobgoblin, and that means we want ours to look VERY different.

It feels like this philosophy was applied to a lot of PF2e :(

Anyway, the hobgoblin I like is this one. Which is another D&D 3e hobgoblin, but I like it anyway.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
It's also the 3rd edition D&D look for a hobgoblin, and that means we want ours to look VERY different.

It feels like this philosophy was applied to a lot of PF2e :(

Anyway, the hobgoblin I like is this one. Which is another D&D 3e hobgoblin, but I like it anyway.

Looks more like a red Fel Orc from Wow.


I dont play WoW so I'll take your word on that.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Cydeth wrote:

I very, very much dislike the direction of the appearance of hobgoblins. Previously, I enjoyed using them as common opponents and empires in my games. Now I'll simply avoid anything to do with them. Simple enough to do, generally speaking.

I liked hobgoblins far more than orcs before. The art change puts them at the bottom of the list of antagonists I'd use, or allies for that part.

Have you considered just using different art if you need a prop to explain what they look like?

I mean, somebody could draw a human or dragon or elf in a style I don't like, but doesn't mean that dictates the game...?

Dark Archive

I'm in the rare "I feel neutral about this" category.

Like 1e hobgoblins(especially kaoling samurai ones) looked cool, but they didn't really look much like goblins besides red eyes I guess. 2e hobgoblins look more like goblins, but something about designs feels off to me.

I think I have to agree that I don't like the lankiness of them? The hobgoblin alchemist one had good bulk and looked cool(as did hobgoblin soldier art), but the starfinder and 2e bestiary hobgoblin general looks lanky and not in threatening way.

So yeah, I think I'm in the "I don't mind hobgoblins having melon heads, but they should have more bulk" camp

(on sidenote: I do like both designs of Bruthazmus the bugbear, but I think I slightly prefer his 3.5 rise of the runelord design)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
That's a great look for a hobgoblin. It's also the 3rd edition D&D look for a hobgoblin, and that means we want ours to look VERY different. Which is a big part of why we went the route we did.

Yeah, I understand. If wishes were horses and all that. You're doing a good job.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Indagare wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
That's a great look for a hobgoblin. It's also the 3rd edition D&D look for a hobgoblin, and that means we want ours to look VERY different. Which is a big part of why we went the route we did.
Yeah, I understand. If wishes were horses and all that. You're doing a good job.

? Okay, I was confused, googled and still am confused

"If wishes were horses, beggars would ride" apparently is "which suggests if wishing could make things happen, then even the most destitute people would have everything they wanted"

Like, umm, what? This proverb doesn't make sense in this context because they wanted to have different look for hobgoblins and so they did


I think of lot of this is that's a still a new change, and the artists are still trying to figure out the exact look and feel yet. Sure, we have the basics but there's still some adjustment to exact proportions and typical equipment to be made.

Personally I tend to think of hobgoblins are disciplined soldiers, and really dislike seeing them in poor quality scavenged equipment. I'm not saying they all need full plate, but boots would be a good start.


James Jacobs wrote:
Indagare wrote:

I think that it's a pretty interesting look, and I'm glad that they're trying to keep the Goblinoids thematic instead of them looking like completely different species.

For my part, I always liked the Hobgoblins who looked like burly, hirsute Elves (as can be seen here), and if I had a vote, I'd want all of the Goblinoids to have this sort of look.

That's a great look for a hobgoblin. It's also the 3rd edition D&D look for a hobgoblin, and that means we want ours to look VERY different. Which is a big part of why we went the route we did.

James - a bit OT but why did you change the Ogres then? PF1 Ogres had a distinct look that - frankly I thought was a better 'Paizo' identity than goblins - but they are now back to 'generic ogres'. Seeing this answer - I want to accept it but then I think 'ogre' and go ... huh?

/sigh


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:

? Okay, I was confused, googled and still am confused

"If wishes were horses, beggars would ride" apparently is "which suggests if wishing could make things happen, then even the most destitute people would have everything they wanted"

Like, umm, what? This proverb doesn't make sense in this context because they wanted to have different look for hobgoblins and so they did

They have to have as different a look as possible for their goblins, hobgoblins, and so on because if their designs are too close to those of 3E (or anyone else's) they could get sued for copyright violations.

My wish would be that they could use a design that I, personally, happen to like better (which would be me getting everything I want). That bit of selfishness aside, I can appreciate what they are doing with the limits opposed on them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the D&D Hobgoblins and Bugbears have become more attractive in appearance over the years.

I understand why Paizo wants to make their monsters their own.

I also think some just hate change. Any change.

I think that's what leads to many a heated thread here on the boards.


Squiggit wrote:

The general does look kind of uncomfortable... or maybe even dead, with the white eyes and the sort of flat expression I certainly get a vague zombie-ish vibe from that image.

The jaw also have a very pronounced triangular shape to it that strikes me as a bit odd.

Finally uh, the porportions feel a bit off to me. New hobgoblins have spindly limbs with oversized extremities compared to humans, which is fine, but the Hobgoblin general has almost human sized and shaped arms, but very stylized proportions in the legs and feet. The alchemist by comparison seems to be slightly more balanced (hands are bigger, feet are a bi smaller) and I think it works a little better.

I think one thing to also note is like we see in monkey goblins the goblinoids seem to be one that is a lot more physically malleable in appearance than most. So having some consistent features that just jump out and say goblinoid helps a lot.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
scary harpy wrote:
I also think some just hate change. Any change.

You mean the people who rejected D&D 4th ed in favour of something familiar might not like change!?

Colour me surprised!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Indagare wrote:

I think that it's a pretty interesting look, and I'm glad that they're trying to keep the Goblinoids thematic instead of them looking like completely different species.

For my part, I always liked the Hobgoblins who looked like burly, hirsute Elves (as can be seen here), and if I had a vote, I'd want all of the Goblinoids to have this sort of look.

That's a great look for a hobgoblin. It's also the 3rd edition D&D look for a hobgoblin, and that means we want ours to look VERY different. Which is a big part of why we went the route we did.

James - a bit OT but why did you change the Ogres then? PF1 Ogres had a distinct look that - frankly I thought was a better 'Paizo' identity than goblins - but they are now back to 'generic ogres'. Seeing this answer - I want to accept it but then I think 'ogre' and go ... huh?

/sigh

They didn't change the ogres. The bestiary pictures don't really capture their bloated deformities, but if you check out the ogres in the Second Edition Demo art or the new GM screen, you'll see that they are still the same old ogres. Indeed, even the bestiary text references such features, and emphasizes them more with new extreme mutations like the Ogre Glutton.

Much like has already been discussed for the hobgoblins and bugbears, you probably shouldn't put too much stock in any single piece of art because they won't always be consistent with other pieces. Heck, they still can't quite decide how bestial troll snouts are, and its been 10 years. (Trolls might also just run a wide spectrum of how much snoot they have to boop.)

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
The bestiary hobgoblins made a terrible first impression of the new art direction. I feel it's more constructive to point out why rather than simply allow Jacobs to be confused as to why people don't like goblinoids who look like goblinoids. I don't claim to speak for everyone upset by the new look but I really do not feel my criticism was out of line.

I disagree. I think the bestiary Hobs look awesome. The General is wearing complex armor that a standard goblin wouldn't is wielding a martial weapon not a cobbled together dogslicer or horsechopper. All of your complaints are subjective. Maybe not you particularly but I feel a lot of the dislike comes from that 1E Hobgoblins were a continuation of how they have been in D&D for a long time. Well this isn't D&D these are Paizo hobgoblins not D&D hobgoblins and I for one love paizo and pathfinder the more they separate themselves from WotC. All the D&D tropes are old and boring. Let Paizo do Paizo and if in your game that isn't how you like hobgoblins well then good thing there are decades of that old style of art to work from to make your game yours.

I find it odd people don't complain about the changes in other races like the fact that elves have solid colored eyes which changed really early in 1E or the new look of dwarves with the pronounced T shaped brow ridge.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:
Any online source for a reference for the Hellknight Hill bugbear?
Yo

Oh god, that made me verp.

The great thing about using the same creatures is you have a number of different iterations of them floating round the interwebs. That allows you to pick whichever iteration floats your boat.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:
Cydeth wrote:

I very, very much dislike the direction of the appearance of hobgoblins. Previously, I enjoyed using them as common opponents and empires in my games. Now I'll simply avoid anything to do with them. Simple enough to do, generally speaking.

I liked hobgoblins far more than orcs before. The art change puts them at the bottom of the list of antagonists I'd use, or allies for that part.

Have you considered just using different art if you need a prop to explain what they look like?

I mean, somebody could draw a human or dragon or elf in a style I don't like, but doesn't mean that dictates the game...?

Doesn't matter to me if I use other art or not. Every time I look them up, I'll see that art (unless I do it online, but that's another subject) which will make me not want to touch them. I'm currently debating canceling my LOCG since they'll be in the book, though I probably won't.

While the appearance of hobgoblins may not have been a deal-breaker for me where PF2 is concerned, it and the iconics art very nearly made me abandon the game entirely. As it is, I do everything in my power to avoid their art.

AKA: What's important to me isn't necessarily important to anyone else. JJ indicated people should throw out their opinions, so I gave mine. If my opinions diverge from what Paizo produces enough, I will quietly drop their products and leave.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BellyBeard wrote:
spectrevk wrote:


I think it's the hunched posture, the spindly, weak limbs, and the sad, crestfallen facial expression. She just doesn't look comfortable in that outfit, or holding the weapon. Compare it to the posture, limbs, and facial expression of the hobgoblin leader from Ironfang Invasion. Note that both have nearly the same skin tone.
I've been looking at that picture as Arachnofiend's avatar for weeks and it never crossed my mind that could be a hobgoblin. I thought it was a purplish orc or half-orc.

I wasn’t sure what Arachnofiend’s avatar was either. I thought it might have been a dhampir-orc or some type of outsider.

“Wheldrake” wrote:


I don't see what all the hubub is about. Where's the beef?

This hobgoblin looks plenty intimidating, and still has the wide mouth of pointy teeth we associate with PF goblins in general.
This one looks a bit too spindly, but given it's female, and has this wierd orientalist look about its gear, it still works for me.

As far as bugbears go, this one just looks like deranged Ewok on steroids. Burly and scary, but that face isn't doing it for me.
This other one, though, is downright disturbing That's a really unique look, it's got kind of a cheshire cat vibe going on with that big bushy head, even if most of it is probably fur.

It's good to have some distictive monster looks. I like a lot less that in the bestiary we have a male harpy. I get that these days we need to be all inclusive and hugs-for-different-folks-like, but my view of harpys and medusae (or more properly, gorgons) is irreversibly colored by classical mythology, and I don't really go for the gender reversal. Some iconic monsters just work better as one gender or the other.

I agree. The art so far is looking great. I think the problem, more so than the proportions, of the hobgoblin general is the posture. Hunching, when not done as a Maneuver while attacking of dodging, does not give the impression of military bearing and discipline. I do, however, like the pictures of the bugbears, both the ewok and Cheshire Cat. I wonder if bugbears are furry beasts now though.

Dark Archive

Cydeth wrote:
While the appearance of hobgoblins may not have been a deal-breaker for me where PF2 is concerned, it and the iconics art very nearly made me abandon the game entirely. As it is, I do everything in my power to avoid their art.

? Isn't iconic arts still by Wayne Reynolds? I mean, kinda surprised that made you almost abandon the game since he has been around doing art since 1e

Sovereign Court

spectrevk wrote:
Tender Tendrils wrote:
I love the new hobgoblins, they actually feel like they are related to other goblinoids now instead of just being Gray humanoids (1e hobgoblins reminded me a lot of LOTR Uruk-hai, which isn't a great thing as pathfinder goblins are veeerrryyy different to the goblins that uruk-hai are related to).
Goblinoids have never looked alike. Bugbears *still* look totally different from Goblins or either version of the Hobgoblin design.

Not really. They still have the long ears that all goblins have. Bugbears just look hairier and more brutish, like a Neanderthal Hobgoblin.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Huh. I like the bugbear art. It feels like a good step up from just “buff monster”, and fits something that uses fear as a weapon. (Before, they’d stood out mostly for being the best reincarnation table result.) Hobgoblins went from something I largely ignore to something that I largely ignore, but now they’ve got a better lore spot and more distinction from orcs and half-orcs.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
Cydeth wrote:
While the appearance of hobgoblins may not have been a deal-breaker for me where PF2 is concerned, it and the iconics art very nearly made me abandon the game entirely. As it is, I do everything in my power to avoid their art.
? Isn't iconic arts still by Wayne Reynolds? I mean, kinda surprised that made you almost abandon the game since he has been around doing art since 1e

I liked the iconics in Pathfinder 1st Edition. I do not like the renditions in the 2e core rulebook.

I have no issue with Wayne as an artist, he's amazing, but I don't care for all of his work, and in particular Merisiel and Lini's redesigns were ones I disliked. Merisiel is unnaturally thin, and Lini no longer looks like an adult to me. (I don't care much about half of them, but the other half grate on me.)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Cydeth wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Cydeth wrote:

I very, very much dislike the direction of the appearance of hobgoblins. Previously, I enjoyed using them as common opponents and empires in my games. Now I'll simply avoid anything to do with them. Simple enough to do, generally speaking.

I liked hobgoblins far more than orcs before. The art change puts them at the bottom of the list of antagonists I'd use, or allies for that part.

Have you considered just using different art if you need a prop to explain what they look like?

I mean, somebody could draw a human or dragon or elf in a style I don't like, but doesn't mean that dictates the game...?

Doesn't matter to me if I use other art or not. Every time I look them up, I'll see that art (unless I do it online, but that's another subject) which will make me not want to touch them. I'm currently debating canceling my LOCG since they'll be in the book, though I probably won't.

While the appearance of hobgoblins may not have been a deal-breaker for me where PF2 is concerned, it and the iconics art very nearly made me abandon the game entirely. As it is, I do everything in my power to avoid their art.

AKA: What's important to me isn't necessarily important to anyone else. JJ indicated people should throw out their opinions, so I gave mine. If my opinions diverge from what Paizo produces enough, I will quietly drop their products and leave.

So if I'm reading this right, you're saying you are debating canceling a book order, due to the art choice, of one race among 100s in a fantasy product? And may leave the entire game due to that same single race and slightly different art style for the Iconics?

I do agree that what's important to one person is very much different to another.

That just seems like a bizarre reason to table flip and walk out.

If the art bothered you that much for the Hobs, couldn't you just use the old 'Blue orc' art? Or... use one of the other 100s and 100s of species?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I actually really like the new Hobgoblin direction, once I saw how it connects to Goblins and Bugbears, I always was frustrated about how these folks were supposed to be connected but didn't look like it, I also really enjoyed it in the preview of the art in Lost Omens Character Guide.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Indagare wrote:

I think that it's a pretty interesting look, and I'm glad that they're trying to keep the Goblinoids thematic instead of them looking like completely different species.

For my part, I always liked the Hobgoblins who looked like burly, hirsute Elves (as can be seen here), and if I had a vote, I'd want all of the Goblinoids to have this sort of look.

That's a great look for a hobgoblin. It's also the 3rd edition D&D look for a hobgoblin, and that means we want ours to look VERY different. Which is a big part of why we went the route we did.

James - a bit OT but why did you change the Ogres then? PF1 Ogres had a distinct look that - frankly I thought was a better 'Paizo' identity than goblins - but they are now back to 'generic ogres'. Seeing this answer - I want to accept it but then I think 'ogre' and go ... huh?

/sigh

That was an actual error. The look we have for ogres is one we've been happy with since Hook Mountain Massacure, but wee got the art for ogres in way too late to make changes and had to go with off-model illustrations. It's pretty much my biggest frustration with Bestiary 1. We have on-model ogres for the pawns and stuff and will be swapping in the correct art when we reprint.

Dark Archive

James Jacobs wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Indagare wrote:

I think that it's a pretty interesting look, and I'm glad that they're trying to keep the Goblinoids thematic instead of them looking like completely different species.

For my part, I always liked the Hobgoblins who looked like burly, hirsute Elves (as can be seen here), and if I had a vote, I'd want all of the Goblinoids to have this sort of look.

That's a great look for a hobgoblin. It's also the 3rd edition D&D look for a hobgoblin, and that means we want ours to look VERY different. Which is a big part of why we went the route we did.

James - a bit OT but why did you change the Ogres then? PF1 Ogres had a distinct look that - frankly I thought was a better 'Paizo' identity than goblins - but they are now back to 'generic ogres'. Seeing this answer - I want to accept it but then I think 'ogre' and go ... huh?

/sigh

That was an actual error. The look we have for ogres is one we've been happy with since Hook Mountain Massacure, but wee got the art for ogres in way too late to make changes and had to go with off-model illustrations. It's pretty much my biggest frustration with Bestiary 1. We have on-model ogres for the pawns and stuff and will be swapping in the correct art when we reprint.

Wait really? O_o; I can't remember Paizo ever changing art in reprint(or maybe my memory just sucks)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I for one love the new hobgoblin and bugbear look.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pepsi Jedi wrote:
Cydeth wrote:

Doesn't matter to me if I use other art or not. Every time I look them up, I'll see that art (unless I do it online, but that's another subject) which will make me not want to touch them. I'm currently debating canceling my LOCG since they'll be in the book, though I probably won't.

While the appearance of hobgoblins may not have been a deal-breaker for me where PF2 is concerned, it and the iconics art very nearly made me abandon the game entirely. As it is, I do everything in my power to avoid their art.

AKA: What's important to me isn't necessarily important to anyone else. JJ indicated people should throw out their opinions, so I gave mine. If my opinions diverge from what Paizo produces enough, I will quietly drop their products and leave.

So if I'm reading this right, you're saying you are debating canceling a book order, due to the art choice, of one race among 100s in a fantasy product? And may leave the entire game due to that same single race and slightly different art style for the Iconics?

I do agree that what's important to one person is very much different to another.

That just seems like a bizarre reason to table flip and walk out.

If the art bothered you that much for the Hobs, couldn't you just use the old 'Blue orc' art? Or... use one of the other 100s and 100s of species?

I said I was considering canceling LOCG, or should have said my subscription that would get the Lost Omens Character Guide, because the ancestry is in the book.

Now to be even more clear, I nearly didn't buy the PF2 books at all due to what I'd seen of the art style. The examples at the time I was very hesitant were the iconics (half of which had gotten worse, from my perspective), and the art in Doomsday Dawn, which had a hobgoblin (which I disliked the new design of) and other art that felt lackluster compared to PF1.

Previews of other art from the core book changed my mind, because it turned out not all of it was terrible, IMO. I still find some of the art to be bad, such as the drider and hobgoblin (those that immediately come to mind), but I will freely admit these are personal opinions. There's nothing wrong with other people liking the art. There's also nothing wrong with me hating the art enough to avoid doing anything with them.

As for 'table-flipping', you're being rather rude in the characterization of me there. I said that if my opinions of what I like are different enough from what Paizo produces, at that point I'll quietly leave the game system behind. It won't be a good product for me at that point, so I won't buy it. I won't harangue them, demand they do exactly what I want, or anything else. I'll just find a product which works for me.

But Paizo won't know about even the possibility if they don't ask for feedback.

Dark Archive

Speaking of driders, I like that they remembered the "males have spider heads" thing from 1e, but I have to admit their conical headshape with mohawk reminds me of Coneheads movie :D I mean I still like the drider design yeah, but I find their headshape kinda funny


CorvusMask wrote:
Speaking of driders, I like that they remembered the "males have spider heads" thing from 1e, but I have to admit their conical headshape with mohawk reminds me of Coneheads movie :D I mean I still like the drider design yeah, but I find their headshape kinda funny

I don't like the male drider design...but the female is good.

I don't see why both can't be un-hideous.

Dark Archive

scary harpy wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
Speaking of driders, I like that they remembered the "males have spider heads" thing from 1e, but I have to admit their conical headshape with mohawk reminds me of Coneheads movie :D I mean I still like the drider design yeah, but I find their headshape kinda funny

I don't like the male drider design...but the female is good.

I don't see why both can't be un-hideous.

But by having both driders, you get to satisfy both the monster girl fans and "I want my spider centaurs to be fully spider monsters" fans!

I mean, imagine if we got girtablu that instead of being human body on scorpion body was fully scorpion like torso, it'd be just as amazing as having humanoid horse torso on a centaur!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:


But by having both driders, you get to satisfy both the monster girl fans and "I want my spider centaurs to be fully spider monsters" fans!

This is probably it. Unfortunately it kind of perpetuates this annoying trend where you have a monstrous race and the females are traditionally cute or pretty and the males are more traditionally monstrous, which has some potentially problematic undertones to it.

I think it would be better if the more centaur-like and the more overtly monstrous driders were separate subspecies rather than sexual dimorphism.


Cydeth wrote:
Pepsi Jedi wrote:
Cydeth wrote:

Doesn't matter to me if I use other art or not. Every time I look them up, I'll see that art (unless I do it online, but that's another subject) which will make me not want to touch them. I'm currently debating canceling my LOCG since they'll be in the book, though I probably won't.

While the appearance of hobgoblins may not have been a deal-breaker for me where PF2 is concerned, it and the iconics art very nearly made me abandon the game entirely. As it is, I do everything in my power to avoid their art.

AKA: What's important to me isn't necessarily important to anyone else. JJ indicated people should throw out their opinions, so I gave mine. If my opinions diverge from what Paizo produces enough, I will quietly drop their products and leave.

So if I'm reading this right, you're saying you are debating canceling a book order, due to the art choice, of one race among 100s in a fantasy product? And may leave the entire game due to that same single race and slightly different art style for the Iconics?

I do agree that what's important to one person is very much different to another.

That just seems like a bizarre reason to table flip and walk out.

If the art bothered you that much for the Hobs, couldn't you just use the old 'Blue orc' art? Or... use one of the other 100s and 100s of species?

I said I was considering canceling LOCG, or should have said my subscription that would get the Lost Omens Character Guide, because the ancestry is in the book.

Now to be even more clear, I nearly didn't buy the PF2 books at all due to what I'd seen of the art style. The examples at the time I was very hesitant were the iconics (half of which had gotten worse, from my perspective), and the art in Doomsday Dawn, which had a hobgoblin (which I disliked the new design of) and other art that felt lackluster compared to PF1.

Previews of other art from the core book changed my mind, because it turned out not all of it was terrible, IMO. I...

"Considering" "Debating" In context means the same thing.

While I can totally agree that if one hates the art, they will avoid aspects that it represents. There's an artist that Palladium books likes to use. Burles. Who's work just looks like piles of vomit or snot on a page. Lumpy, indistinct, a-symmetrical, just groady. And due to that, it makes it very hard to use/play anything that his art depicts.

That said, he's one artist and I tend to just sweep past his crap as quickly as possible.

In this case though, you still have a decade of previous artwork for Hobgoblins that you don't seem to object to. Could you not just use that?

As for not getting into PF2 due to the art, well I suppose some of the above could be said but it's an entire game system. Are you playing the game or getting the books for the snazzy art. ((Not judging or being snooty. There's been more than one book I've bought for art. I have tons of art books on the shelves))

And I'm not attempting to be rude. The "take my ball and go home due to a race being ugly" just seems to be a bit extreme. yes you did say you'd quietly leave, but you're posting here to the effect so I was asking.

There's always going to be some art, or write up, or description, or rule you don't like in an RPG. Especially one the size and depth of PF. Leaving because you don't like a more goblin, less orc, hobgoblin seems excessive. Especially if you've put the money in to buy the books.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pepsi Jedi wrote:
"Considering" "Debating" In context means the same thing.

Except that you ignored the context. I am considering canceling that book because I don't really like the Hobgoblin. Not that I'm considering leaving the game because of one option. It's one small thing at the moment, while the iconics or art are another.

However, I'm not going to answer you further, because if you can't tell the difference between someone quietly packing up their stuff and leaving when a game isn't for them, and flipping the table, there's no room for discussion. I found the implication highly offensive, since I was trying to be relatively polite when giving my feedback on the subject.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you found it highly offensive it's because you wanted to be offended. Either way you're threatening to leave over some art you didn't like.

Describe it how you wish. You're not so 'quietly' packing up and leaving if you're putting the threat on the forums for how ever many people to read. (Including the creative director who's been posting in the thread)

It is a "I'll take my ball and go home" moment either way. Which is fine. That's how people are supposed to show what they like in a product. With their wallet.

But feigned offense because you didn't like how I phrased it just reiterates the fact that it's an extreme reaction to leave over art of a race. Finding it HIGHLY offensive is just more extreme reaction.

You're dodging the point that you have years and years of other depictions of hobgoblins to use if you like those better. Or that it's just one race of 100s.

My point is, you're threatening to leave a game because they drew a race a new way, and the iconics style is a touch different. To -me- that seems like a rather nuclear option for a minor thing. The iconics are a little different but they're the same people. The art style isn't a radical 180 or anything.

You're free to do as you wish though. I hope you find groups and play, in spite of some art. The things we play are illustrated in our minds by our minds eye. Your hobs can look how ever you wish them to. :) Don't let a few drawings rob you of the fun man.

Dark Archive

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pepsi Jedi wrote:

If you found it highly offensive it's because you wanted to be offended. Either way you're threatening to leave over some art you didn't like.

Describe it how you wish. You're not so 'quietly' packing up and leaving if you're putting the threat on the forums for how ever many people to read. (Including the creative director who's been posting in the thread)

It is a "I'll take my ball and go home" moment either way. Which is fine. That's how people are supposed to show what they like in a product. With their wallet.

But feigned offense because you didn't like how I phrased it just reiterates the fact that it's an extreme reaction to leave over art of a race. Finding it HIGHLY offensive is just more extreme reaction.

You're dodging the point that you have years and years of other depictions of hobgoblins to use if you like those better. Or that it's just one race of 100s.

My point is, you're threatening to leave a game because they drew a race a new way, and the iconics style is a touch different. To -me- that seems like a rather nuclear option for a minor thing. The iconics are a little different but they're the same people. The art style isn't a radical 180 or anything.

You're free to do as you wish though. I hope you find groups and play, in spite of some art. The things we play are illustrated in our minds by our minds eye. Your hobs can look how ever you wish them to. :) Don't let a few drawings rob you of the fun man.

Umm, you are being unnecessarily passive aggressive about this. I mean, its one thing to ask someone about why they would leave the game because of something you consider small thing and another being continuing to prod them about how you think they are overreacting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not being passive aggressive at all. I straight up said it seems like an extreme reaction to the depiction of one race among 100s.

Canceling an order on a book due to the art of one race seems extreme to me. There's going to be three ancestries in the book and tons of other stuff. So I said so. I also gave options on how to enjoy the game if one didn't like the depiction of that one race. Like all the other depictions we have before the new one.

He's of course free to buy or not buy what he wishes. I'm free to say it seems silly to draw the line where he's drawing it. It very much -does- seem like a table flip to me.

To straight up say you're considering not getting an entire book, of which the part you don't like boils down to two or three illustrations on two or three pages, and canceling your subscription due to it, seems nigh on comically excessive to me. Thus.. the table flip characterization.

I'm unsure why someone would hang the entire book purchase on such a thing, but, it's their money. What ever makes them happiest.

51 to 100 of 132 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / 2E Hobgoblins - What do they look like? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.