Why are goblins a playable race now?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 458 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

7 people marked this as a favorite.

So the basic question I have is-

Why are elf, dwarf, gnome, halfling etc. characters allowed to be individuals who make their own choices and have their own preferences, goals, fears, etc. but not goblins?

"They were monsters" doesn't really hold water for me since hobgoblins and "lizardmen" (sic) were monsters just as recently and nobody is saying you can't play an Iruxi iconoclast or a Hobgoblin outcast.

The only things I would consider "out of bounds" for a PC ancestry are not "monsters because they are monstrous", but things that are intrinsically powerful and out of bounds with the other ancestry options.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
graystone wrote:
It's like the old forgotten realms escapee good drows: sure one can happen but when you see multiple ones with no relation to each other...

I actually think this is kind of obvious though, escapee 'good drow' in FR with no relation to each other are a given in the same way LGBTQ+ folks transplanted from highly conservative communities with no relation to each other are a given.

When a community makes it impossible to live as yourself, you leave, and in the real world plenty of people feel outcasted from their communities, we have Japanese people who are completely alienated by the high pressure society, we have kids in religious situations who grow up to be atheists. We have kids whose parents taught them to accept arranged marriages who later reject it.

We have Americans who feel disaffected by mainstream American culture and instead immerse themselves in media from elsewhere as much as they can. Chefs who claim they didn't understand food could be art until they were exposed to something wildly different than where they grew up.

In the real world, culture is far from destiny, its actually kind of a plot hole that more 'good' members of the traditionally evil races don't exist in FR, and a holdover from alignment as biology.

I'm a black sheep in my own family, and in my community, so its not hard to imagine that a lot of Goblins could not fit into 'classic' goblin society.

I don't have much else to add to the thread at this point, but as a person who is also the black sheep (an plays in a group of black sheep who have all found each other), this is an excellent write-up.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Why are elf, dwarf, gnome, halfling etc. characters allowed to be individuals who make their own choices and have their own preferences, goals, fears, etc. but not goblins?

That's a bad faith characterization of their position. So is the notion that this is exclusive to goblins, because people have absolutely complained about this sort of thing when it comes to dwarves or elves.

It's not that a character can't have their own choices, preferences and what have you, but that a character is still part of some heritage and that sometimes writers try really hard to absolutely reject any notion of that in their portrayal.

It's not like this is a new phenomena or restricted to tabletops, either.

There's some well-worn jokes about "How men write female characters" around the internet you could read, about women in fiction that are depicted in a very male-gaze fashion.

It's not that these characters aren't "allowed to be individuals" but that the female characters and their creators being lampooned lack any conception of any biological or social realities about sex and gender. They're female characters, but only in the strictest sense to fulfill some superficial goal and the writer never expresses it beyond that point. Much like someone picking a race or ancestry in a video game for mechanical reasons and then doing everything in their power to downplay it otherwise.

Similar criticisms have been levied about writers Europeanizing characters of different racial or ethnic backgrounds.

While the portrayal of a goblin PC doesn't have the same real-world weight to it as the above examples do, it's definitely in the same vein and not all that peculiar that someone might question another player's motives when they're trying so hard to reject everything about their chosen ancestry except for the stats.


20 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I think the issue some people are having is that logic effectively paints a catch-22.

Either you play a murderous pyromaniac goblin and "see, goblins are disruptive characters", or you play a non-murderous, non-pyromaniac goblin and "you're just playing a human in goblin skin".

The part that annoys me about all that is that while certainly the murderous pyromanic goblins are the best known, even 1e has no shortage of canonical examples of goblins that are not murderous or pyromaniacs.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've played in a group with two goblins in PF2. One of them is a pyromaniac sorcerer who's CN, and really wants to burn captives, but doesn't when people object. The other was a (relatively) erudite goblin alchemist who rebuilt as a melee bard. Both also play up a lot of goblin tendencies (like not bathing, eating trash, and things like that). It wasn't a bad experience, but I also didn't enjoy it a lot.

As a GM, goblins are flat-out banned at my tables. So are all of the Lost Omens: Character Guide ancestries, at least unless I have a campaign that specifically fits them (like if I convert SS from PF1, I'd almost certainly allow lizardfolk). While I fully accept that some people like playing goblins or hobgoblins, not at my table. It is not something I would enjoy. Of course, I'd make an exception if I were converting the setting of Magic Lost, Trouble Found to Pathfinder 2, but that would necessitate a lot of changes to the goblin ancestry to convert anyway.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

So the basic question I have is-

Why are elf, dwarf, gnome, halfling etc. characters allowed to be individuals who make their own choices and have their own preferences, goals, fears, etc. but not goblins?

"They were monsters" doesn't really hold water for me since hobgoblins and "lizardmen" (sic) were monsters just as recently and nobody is saying you can't play an Iruxi iconoclast or a Hobgoblin outcast.

The only things I would consider "out of bounds" for a PC ancestry are not "monsters because they are monstrous", but things that are intrinsically powerful and out of bounds with the other ancestry options.

In my PF1 games the party has included the standard dwarf, elf, gnome, half-elf, halfling, and human characters (no-one tried half-orc), but also goblin, grippli, human/drow crossbreed, kitsune, lyrakien, samsaran, sylph, and strix characters.

The most disturbing one was a halfling, Wealday Addams, played by my wife. Wealday was raised as a lab experiment, barely understood civilized behavior talked to her doll in Aklo, readily ate bugs and weeds, and possessed abberant bloodline powers to go with her addled personality. The Nidalese human Dr. Addams had no moral hesitation about conducting horrific experiments on his halfling slaves.

We had a running gag about the half-drow that most people assumed his dark skin came from his human side, since drow were mostly a secret. Likewise, people mistook both lyrakien party members as familiars. The kitsune looked human most of the time, going by Nathan or Nuriko depending on the sex she chose. The samsaran used a Cap of Human Guise to disguise himself as a gnome (that cap is a badly written magic item), because he feared anti-samsaran prejudice, despite anti-gnome prejudice being more common. the grippli was a reincarnation of a previously-human character who never made an effort to change back.

The goblin had been a friend of the NPC literate goblin Scribbleface from the Licktoad tribe in The Brinewall Legacy, had fled his tribe when he saw what goblins did to Scribbleface, and learned alchemy and philosophy while away from the goblins. In that adventure, he became the new chief of the Licktoad tribe and set them on a more civilized path as Goblin Gulp coffee brewers.

MaxAstro wrote:

I think the issue some people are having is that logic effectively paints a catch-22.

Either you play a murderous pyromaniac goblin and "see, goblins are disruptive characters", or you play a non-murderous, non-pyromaniac goblin and "you're just playing a human in goblin skin".

The part that annoys me about all that is that while certainly the murderous pyromanic goblins are the best known, even 1e has no shortage of canonical examples of goblins that are not murderous or pyromaniacs.

Consider the strix skald Kirii in my Iron Gods campaign. Strix live in Cheliax (now Ravounel) and violently hate humans. To fit into Numeria, Kirii came from a less-known strix tribe in the Shudderwood in northern Ustalav and lacked the hatred. Does this make her a human in winged strix skin? Nope, the player read Nightglass by Liane Merciel and made Kirii follow the strix culture from that book. And strangers in Numeria guessed that she was an alien or mutant or harpy or devil or angel. Only one paladin NPC who had served near Shudderwood in the Worldwound recognized her accurately at first sight, and he respected her because the strix fought viciously against the Worldwound demons.

We have fun weaving pieces of culture into our characters without going into full stereotypes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My expediences with goblins are rather silly, I'm in 2 campaigns run by the same GM in the same homebrew world setting that has similar goblin hatred lore with the "Goblin Invasion of the Freelands" event that happened 20+ years before the campaigns start, so there's plenty of racial tension. I'm playing a goblin bard who was raised in a carnival because the carnies found a burned down goblin village and found a still alive gob-baby, and decided to keep him. He's not homicidal, but he is very absentminded and like to eat weird stuff (A. goblins have jank tastebuds, and B. you eat what you can on the road)and has a HORRIBLE singing voice (thank you Goblin Song feat) but is great at the violin. The other is a goblin liberator who was raised by some dragon riders and was a stablehand before he got the right for having his own pet drake, he's a Charhide so he doesn't mind dragons sneezing on him much. Both act really silly, but neither are particularly disruptive, they're more comedic relief in a serious setting than active derailment of the mood the GM is trying to set. So I welcome our cute little green mascots, and am super excited to see where the lore goes with them now that there's that country of monsters in the Eye of Terror region, and see where the canon leads us. There are some goblin NPCs that are less moral than some, and one or two that were nice, we also met a pair kobold villages that were only mean to each other, and were very kind to the PC, as well as some tradesmen NPCs that came upon them while on the road, so kobold PCs should also totally be chill when they get published, yeah? :P


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

Mathmuse, your stories always leave me slightly in awe. You have a fantastic group.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Mathmuse, your stories always leave me slightly in awe. You have a fantastic group.

My players were actually two separate groups with only my wife in common. I ran Rise of the Runelords and Jade Regent campaigns at The Family Game Store (now 3 Gear Games) in Maryland. I ran Iron Gods and Ironfang Invasion campaigns among my housemates and church friends in upstate New York. I view this as confirmation that all players have the potential to be awesome.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:

There's some well-worn jokes about "How men write female characters" around the internet you could read, about women in fiction that are depicted in a very male-gaze fashion.

It's not that these characters aren't "allowed to be individuals" but that the female characters and their creators being lampooned lack any conception of any biological or social realities about sex and gender. They're female characters, but only in the strictest sense to fulfill some superficial goal and the writer never expresses it beyond that point. Much like someone picking a race or ancestry in a video game for mechanical reasons and then doing everything in their power to downplay it otherwise.

Similar criticisms have been levied about writers Europeanizing characters of different racial or ethnic backgrounds.

Well, the reason that you don't want (as a writer) to write a person in who is in a marginalized group as "essentially just a person from a non-marginalized group" is that you audience presumably includes people from that specific group and you do not wish to alienate them by having the character's experiences not reflect the reader's experiences.

But a roleplaying game is different from a book or a movie or a TV show. Your audience is not unknown to you, and presumably you're in a safe space among friends. So while certainly you should tread carefully playing a character that more closely mirrors another person at your table than it does you (and if they let you know something isn't cool, you stop with that immediately and forever), this doesn't really apply to entirely fictional things like elves.

I mean, one of the benefits of a roleplaying game being a safe space with friends is that if you want to try on being a person of a different ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, etc. that you can do it and the people around you will presumably forgive you when you mess up. Since a large part of RPing a character is "figuring out who this person is, through the process of playing them" if your starting point for "a character who is different from yourself" is "yourself, but with a few significant details changed" but you keep these differences in mind and they inform your choices as you go, then that's perfectly fine.

Plus, I mean "I reject almost everything about the identity I was raised as" is, in a way, reflecting that identity in a way that is true to life for many people.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

21 people marked this as a favorite.

I also think one of the cool things that having goblins as a core ancestry does is allow Paizo and home groups to tell stories from the goblins' point of view in a way that is much harder when you need to open up a book called a Bestiary to find their player stats. Golarion is human-centric (because, unsurprisingly, the target audience is primarily humans), but that means that most stories are told from their perspective. This means that despite humans being the single most destructive force on the entire planet, they still get to be the good guys by virtue of being the ones who usually win.

Goblins are underdog survivors with quirks that other ancestries see as weird or incompatible with "civilized" society, but they've helped shaped the events of Golarion for a long time. The first ever AP for the Pathfinder RPG had a LN hellknight goblin who was trusted with guarding the secret sewer entrance of the hellknight base. In the first adventure ever made for the original Pathfinder game, an entire company of hellknights had a trusted goblin ally.

They also open up stories that the other ancestries don't. When you've been playing TTRPGs for 20+ years, sometimes you want to explore facets of the world you take for granted. Like, most people familiar with Golarion know that halflings get a raw deal in Cheliax and are often captured and sold as slaves, and your PC is probably going to be pretty sympathetic to their halfling friend who made a daring escape to freedom. But what about that goblin over in western Varisia whose people lived wild and free in the Rasp for millennia before humans showed up, categorized the goblins as pests, and then murdered them all so they could build towns and villages in land that used to belong to the goblins? On the one hand you've got rapacious colonialism, and on the other hand the victims are members of an evil culture that are inherently opposed to humankind's two closest allied species (dogs and horses). Goblins as a core ancestry expands the world and the stories that are easily explored within it.

Plus, for a lot of people goblins are just fun. They have weird biology and getting to play a bouncier goblin who ping-pongs around the battlefield like Speedball from the New Warriors or a charhide goblin whose go-to move is lighting itself on fire is a fun thing that you can't do with halflings or gnomes.

In my personal opinion, anything that makes the game more robust and draws in new gamers is a plus. Pathfinder goblins are iconic, they're easily recognizable, and they represent "modern" fantasy and it's evolution beyond the roots Tolkien laid down in a way that almost nothing else could.

Grand Lodge Premier Event Coordinator

Tolkien:
Funny you mention Tolkien. My 2E hillock halfling refers to himself as a hobbit and uses the last name "Underhill."

Shadow Lodge

because marketing.

Everything else is fluff made up to justify that decision. It's all fantasy make believe though, so who cares in the end. The trend with modern fantasy stories and games is to have your own completely made up species not based on classic fantasy at all. Dwarves and elves are considered passé these days.

Sadly for including other species as playable characters, it's not as easy as pf1. PF2 requires pc rules independent of npc rules, you can't just grab anything from the bestiaries and make them work. You'd have to homebrew a bunch of ancestry feats.

Silver Crusade

Uh, Goblins have existed for awhile now as well.

Also it is just as easy to grab something from the Bestiary to make playable, just easier in a different way.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

Uh, Goblins have existed for awhile now as well.

Also it is just as easy to grab something from the Bestiary to make playable, just easier in a different way.

It really isn't. You need to makes stats, at least 1 heritage (more if you wan't to do it properly) and at least 1 feat per level you actually get feats (way more if you want to do it proper.) That is a lot more work.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

I hope that the equivalent of the Advanced Race Guide, should such a thing come to be, will have a dozen or so general ancestry feats and a couple heritages that could be applied to several ancestries, so that we can eventually just pry some basic stats from the Bestiary, use these basic ancestry feats until they get around to making a proper entry, and go play.

Wouldn’t work for PFS, but it’d be better than nothing for home games.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Uh, Goblins have existed for awhile now as well.

Also it is just as easy to grab something from the Bestiary to make playable, just easier in a different way.

It really isn't. You need to makes stats, at least 1 heritage (more if you wan't to do it properly) and at least 1 feat per level you actually get feats (way more if you want to do it proper.) That is a lot more work.

In P1 you had to a grind the creature down to playable, basically build it in reverse. Also alternate traits and FCB, if you want to do it “properly”.

(Also a bunch of P1 Ancestries had ancestry specific feats as well in addition to the above)

Compared to that, assigning its stat boosts and flaw and Heritage/Ancestry feats is a breeze.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Uh, Goblins have existed for awhile now as well.

Also it is just as easy to grab something from the Bestiary to make playable, just easier in a different way.

It really isn't. You need to makes stats, at least 1 heritage (more if you wan't to do it properly) and at least 1 feat per level you actually get feats (way more if you want to do it proper.) That is a lot more work.

In P1 you had to a grind the creature down to playable, basically build it in reverse. Also alternate traits and FCB, if you want to do it “properly”.

(Also a bunch of P1 Ancestries had ancestry specific feats as well in addition to the above)

Compared to that, assigning its stat boosts and flaw and Heritage/Ancestry feats is a breeze.

Alternate traits are a luxury in pf1, not a core assumption. If you dont have a choice of alternate traits in pf1 your interaction with race mechanics is unchanged past level 1. That isnt so in pf2 where you interact with the mechanics of your ancestry regularly. Ancestry specific feats in pf1 also weren't a given either.

I need to think of maybe 6 things to make a pf1 races, to do a pf2 race that's closer to 20.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I have to side with Malk here.

A lot of the extra bestiary races in PF1 were pretty bare bones: stats plus one or two abilities and that's it.

Stats and a heritage are basically the equivalent of that, but then a PF2 race needs a bare minimum of 5 ancestry feats too.

There's also the more philosophical question of whether or not bare minimum is going to be good enough. In PF1 people seemed largely okay with them, but given PF2's more involved ancestry system in general I think it's less clear whether or not people would find ancestries with one heritage and five feats to be acceptable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

I have to side with Malk here.

A lot of the extra bestiary races in PF1 were pretty bare bones: stats plus one or two abilities and that's it.

Stats and a heritage are basically the equivalent of that, but then a PF2 race needs a bare minimum of 5 ancestry feats too.

There's also the more philosophical question of whether or not bare minimum is going to be good enough. In PF1 people seemed largely okay with them, but given PF2's more involved ancestry system in general I think it's less clear whether or not people would find ancestries with one heritage and five feats to be acceptable.

I would say 1 heritage and 5 feats would be unacceptable. Choice is at the core of pf2e ancestry paradigm. Not having any choice is a failure to meet pf2 on its strengths. For me a minimum would be 2 heritage and 10 feats.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can simply take a monster, any monster, from pf1 and play it as a pc. Just add class levels to advance it level up like any other pc. Whether it is balanced or not is another question.

You can't do that in pf2. Monsters and PCs are simply built using different rules, they don't combine. You have to do some homebrew to make a monster function as a pc.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

No sane GM would let you do that in P1 so no you couldn’t.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

For allowing monster characters in 2E, the easiest (and probably most ad hoc) method would probably be to just allow the player to play the monster as is. However, only allow the monster in the party when its values roughly match that of the other player characters in the party. When the PCs level up, just increase all the numerical values of the monster by 1 to keep up. Every few levels, add 3 to the monster role's primary attributes instead, to account for training increases. Alternatively, for a monster that is too powerful as written, reduce the numbers to match the party (and perhaps remove some inappropriately balanced abilities too).

When it comes time to level up, you can also give back abilities that were stripped, poach new abilities from other monsters that fit the theme, or else emulate existing class abilities to represent a monster with class training.

It's rather roughshod, but if the numbers are in the right place, I'm willing to bet it would play seamlessly and players would still have a lot of fun despite the nonstandard progression.

Rysky wrote:
No sane GM would let you do that in P1 so no you couldn’t.

Please don't throw out far-reaching blanket statements with no basis in reality.

Also, I take offense to the implication that a GM who doesn't play like you or think like you is somehow insane.

I've hosted several successful games in which I allowed monstrous PCs. I even have a few listed in my 1E character emporium.

They're not always balanced as written, but with careful observation and making use of the level adjustment system, it was totally possible, easy even.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

No sane GM would let you do that in P1 so no you couldn’t.

Some of us GMs are not quite sane. I happen to be madly in love with my wife, an adorable gamer girl (gamer woman really, but I like the alliteration of "gamer girl").

In March 2011 my wife had to step down as the GM of her Rise of the Runelords campaign due to health problems. I decided to retire my 8th-level character and take over as GM. And she, a fanatical roleplayer, thought that maybe she could handle being a player, if she had an excuse for missing several game sessions.

She thought of playing a pixie, a tiny whimsical creature that might easily disappear. I checked through the Bestiary and suggested lyrakien instead, a race more similiar to the playable races than a pixie. Her lyrakien could be working for the goddess Desna and could unexpected get called away for a mission from Desna. Thus was born Moonrider, a lyrakien bard on vacation from her job as a divine messenger, but possessing a Robe of Stars so that she could shift to the Astral Plane when Desna had need of her.

She missed a few games due to health problems over the first three months, but she soon learned to play with a migraine and stopped missing game sessions.

Years later, I allowed a robot and another lyrakien as Leadership cohorts, but after the publication of the Advanced Race Guide my players have not asked for a PC that was not already set up as a playable race.

RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

No sane GM would let you do that in P1 so no you couldn’t.

I guess I am insane then. I have had a player join late in my ironfang invasion game and he has been playing a wood giant for a couple levels, and everything is fine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

In PF2, monster level and character level line up well enough that it is fine to let a player play a monster as is, and even modify it to match the party level pretty easily, but the player is going to get bored with the character after not too long because monsters are not built to have the same diversity of choices that players get, to make life much easier for GMs.

But that gives you probably weeks to months as a GM, if you have a player really wanting to play something outside the current box, to play as the bestiary entry for a while and then construct ancestry and heritage choices that fit what the character is really enjoying out of the creature, and then have the creature turning into a full PC class be a special thing that will happen at a point where they won't suddenly become terrible at something that they could previously do.

The only place this would really break down is if the PC is deliberately wanting to pick a creature with flight for mechanical advantages that the Party is not supposed to have access to, but if you wait until level 7 to let them become a PC class with ancestry traits that grant flight, you won't really be breaking anything anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

I have to side with Malk here.

A lot of the extra bestiary races in PF1 were pretty bare bones: stats plus one or two abilities and that's it.

Stats and a heritage are basically the equivalent of that, but then a PF2 race needs a bare minimum of 5 ancestry feats too.

There's also the more philosophical question of whether or not bare minimum is going to be good enough. In PF1 people seemed largely okay with them, but given PF2's more involved ancestry system in general I think it's less clear whether or not people would find ancestries with one heritage and five feats to be acceptable.

I would say 1 heritage and 5 feats would be unacceptable. Choice is at the core of pf2e ancestry paradigm. Not having any choice is a failure to meet pf2 on its strengths. For me a minimum would be 2 heritage and 10 feats.

Welp, guess I have my weekend homebrew project sorted.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There’s plenty of basis

Ravingdork wrote:
They're not always balanced as written, but with careful observation and making use of the level adjustment system, it was totally possible, easy even.

The former highlights my point. Having three level one humans in a group and a white dragon is not balanced in the slightest, moreso when you start stacking on levels, which is what the post I was responding to suggested, not using level adjustment.

Silver Crusade

Grumpus wrote:
Rysky wrote:

No sane GM would let you do that in P1 so no you couldn’t.

I guess I am insane then. I have had a player join late in my ironfang invasion game and he has been playing a wood giant for a couple levels, and everything is fine.

In addition to the Wood Giant HD do they have the same amount of levels as the other party members?


Pathfinder 1st edition had rules for giving monsters class levels. But these were pretty much fundamentally like the race builder from the ARG- it exists to give the GM options, not for a player to pick whatever they want.

I don't think any PF1 GM worth their salt would let a player pick iiterally any monster from the bestiary and make a PC version of it. You might make an exception for a player who has a specific idea for "a minotaur character" (but even so you might just ad hoc homebrew the race, rather than use the bestiary entry) but you're not going to say "you want to play an Efreet? Go for it"... I mean, that's what the Ifrit was for.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Having three level one humans in a group and a white dragon is not balanced in the slightest, moreso when you start stacking on levels, which is what the post I was responding to suggested, not using level adjustment.

No they didn't? They said you could put a monster in a party with players and add class levels. They never said anything about putting CR6 monsters next to level 1 characters and calling that balanced.

Silver Crusade

Squiggit wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Having three level one humans in a group and a white dragon is not balanced in the slightest, moreso when you start stacking on levels, which is what the post I was responding to suggested, not using level adjustment.
No they didn't? They said you could put a monster in a party with players and add class levels. They never said anything about putting CR6 monsters next to level 1 characters and calling that balanced.

I didn’t say they did, the white dragon was an example I brought up.

Adding [creature] to a group of humans and just having everyone gain levels like normal is not balanced in the slightest is my point, and why I said no sane GM would do that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

That is explicitly unbalanced. Which is why the general rule was "the monster races must delay getting class levels by their HD".

The point is that a PF1 race is not more complicated than a PF2 race; And both can have the same number of choices. But PF1 is a lot more front loaded.

***************
PF2 Ancestry feats being their own silo makes them a lot better at distinguish the experience of different characters as they adventure.

PF1 racial traits are better at showing difference of species, culture, and how they were raised.

Silver Crusade

Bingo.


If I were to pick a system where I'm more likely to let players play a monster, 2E would probably be it. While it isn't something the system explicitly lets you do, 1E required a lot of work on the GM end to make it function - I'd have to do less work in 1E.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The tricky thing in 2e would be advancing a monster PC. You can't just do +1/level to everything and expect it to work. Look at the Elite adjustment - it gives +2 to most things and still only increases level by 1, because monsters get more from a level up than just +1/level.


Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Henro wrote:
If I were to pick a system where I'm more likely to let players play a monster, 2E would probably be it. While it isn't something the system explicitly lets you do, 1E required a lot of work on the GM end to make it function - I'd have to do less work in 1E.

Yep.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
I would say 1 heritage and 5 feats would be unacceptable. Choice is at the core of pf2e ancestry paradigm. Not having any choice is a failure to meet pf2 on its strengths. For me a minimum would be 2 heritage and 10 feats.
Welp, guess I have my weekend homebrew project sorted.

In case you thought I was kidding:

Basic Ancestry Guide

I'm calling it basic because it certainly isn't an advanced guide.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Something I keep forgetting to ask: since goblins and the core player races have been enemies up until recently (and in some places still are), do goblins face a lot of racism from the other races?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That entirely depends on where and who.

They haven’t “been enemies” with the other races, there’s been certain groups and tribes starting s~@~, with the except of the Ironfang and Oprak, but that’s Hobgoblins, and even still, Hobgoblins in that area.


Yqatuba wrote:
Something I keep forgetting to ask: since goblins and the core player races have been enemies up until recently (and in some places still are), do goblins face a lot of racism from the other races?

Roughly as much racism as is experienced by other folks that have had recent conflicts with each other.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I forget how long the events of PF1 are apart from PF2, but if its within 1-3 generations. I feel Goblins could easily still be hated by a sizeable population in Sandpoint and other places due to the troubles they have caused.

Also there have always been okayish tribes and individual goblins. Problem is that those are few and far between. So I do feel most places would still encounter the evil groups, and have a hard time believe one can change (depending on how said goblin acts).


Temperans wrote:

I forget how long the events of PF1 are apart from PF2, but if its within 1-3 generations. I feel Goblins could easily still be hated by a sizeable population in Sandpoint and other places due to the troubles they have caused.

Also there have always been okayish tribes and individual goblins. Problem is that those are few and far between. So I do feel most places would still encounter the evil groups, and have a hard time believe one can change (depending on how said goblin acts).

Its been 10 years. That's not even one human generation.


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

Places like Sandpoint almost certainly still have a deep distrust of goblins - and with good reason, the goblins near Sandpoint are mostly jerks.

In lots of big cities goblins are probably treated roughly the same way they seem to have been treated forever in big cities - annoying but mostly harmless pests that are as inevitable in junkyards as flies.

Goblin adventurers in places that aren't like Sandpoint are probably more of a curiosity than anything else. When I have chosen to play up that element, it's mostly been people disregarding the goblin in my party as some sort of "team pet" (which she finds both hilarious and frustrating*, since she's both the leader and face of the party).

*Frustrating in character, I should note; I've talked to the player out of character and she's fine with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean, it's a big world. We've spent a lot of time in Varisia (where jerky goblins are) and Cheliax (where all non-humans are second class citizens) and Ustalav (where the locals have all manner of dire threats at the doorstep)- none of which are places where you'd expect goblins to be well-liked.

But even in Cheliax we've gotten several examples of goblins who are tolerated.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Kasoh wrote:
Temperans wrote:

I forget how long the events of PF1 are apart from PF2, but if its within 1-3 generations. I feel Goblins could easily still be hated by a sizeable population in Sandpoint and other places due to the troubles they have caused.

Also there have always been okayish tribes and individual goblins. Problem is that those are few and far between. So I do feel most places would still encounter the evil groups, and have a hard time believe one can change (depending on how said goblin acts).

Its been 10 years. That's not even one human generation.

It's been 13 years since RotRL, but that was very small scale, only really effecting Sandpoint, a single small town. It's also very plausible that this story canonically resulted in goblin orphans who were then likely to be raised in a more congenial fashion somewhere in the immediate area.

It's been more like 19 years since the Goblinblood Wars, which were the most recent large scale goblin-related thing, and that is a human generation (though only one). And that was led by hobgoblins, who are where the majority of the ill-feeling is likely directed at (especially since the goblins were very obviously their slaves). That was also pretty much just in Isger and its environs, and that's also explicitly where the goblins have more recently been very helpful with the new undead problem. They're viewed primarily as allies of convenience at the moment, but they are very convenient.

And, in Inner Sea terms in general, they've also gotten some serious good publicity from one tribe (in Isger) helping the survivors of Lastwall successfully get to Absalom. So that's a pretty big deal.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Funny how people have an issue with goblins evolving over 10 years of the setting but have no problem with Darklight Sisterhood, Absalom cornucopias, Folca's ice cream cart and few other elements of the setting vanishing into thin air and never being mentioned again.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Funny how people have an issue with goblins evolving over 10 years of the setting but have no problem with Darklight Sisterhood, Absalom cornucopias, Folca's ice cream cart and few other elements of the setting vanishing into thin air and never being mentioned again.

Actually, the cornucopias have been mentioned, the magic in them just explicitly ran out.

The others are both exceedingly minor setting elements. They may be assumed to exist if you want them to, but they're not gonna be major focuses of anything very often. I don't think they've even been 'officially' retconned (though Folca comes close, they're pretty explicitly never gonna mention him again).


To answer the OP, because Kender /s

I've never been a fan of comedy relief races (I really hate 5e for that Cower ability because I do like Kobolds). I...just kind of don't see the point of the Goblin when the Gnome and Halfling are Core. There's races I'd like to have seen first that I think offer more things to the table like Strix, Hobgoblins, Bugbear, Kobold, Gnoll, Dhampir, Fetchling. I get why goblins (Company mascot at this point, etc.) I just don't find them very interesting. Also in some cases disturbingly kender-ish. At least in-universe that behavior is seen as a bad thing.

Silver Crusade

19 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Folks, it's 2020. Nobody knows what kender are. Dragonlance is out of print. It's a dead reference outside of people who are still playing D&D with the same group since 1978.

That game in 1988, when Joey played a kender and kept stealing underwear from your Paladin and made silly jokes and instead of being the heroic bulwark of Light and Goodness you spent most of the game dealing with Joey's kender turning a heroic game of steafast heroes challenging darkness into a cricus? The problem was Joey, not kender.

101 to 150 of 458 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Why are goblins a playable race now? All Messageboards