The Goblin - Pathfinder 2's Newest Ancestry!

​

Today's Pathfinder 2nd Edition update is all about the Goblin! Paizo introduces the first (and the newest) of the game's Ancestries. As always, this information will be added to the Pathfinder 2nd Edition Compiled Info Page!

• Goblins! Last night Paizo revealed the first of the Ancestries - the Goblin!
  • Boosts to Dexterity and Charisma plus one other ability score of your choice
  • Flaw to Wisdom
  • 6 hit points
  • Speed 25'
  • Common and Goblin starting language
  • Darvision (see in the dark as though it were daylight)
  • Sample Ancestry feats --
    • Burn It -- bonus damage on fire spells or alchemical items, and increases persistent fire damage by 1 points.
    • Junk Tinkerer -- craft ordinary, poor quality items out of junk.
    • Razor Teeth -- 1d6 piercing damage.
    • Very Sneaky -- move additional 5' when taking the sneak action (normally half speed) and possibly render target flat-footed.
• Jason Bulmahn on including Goblins -- "Concerning goblins and how they fit in Golarion: Times change and so do people's opinions. Goblins as PCs have been a part of our world since the first "We Be Goblins" adventure. Many of the comments here echo those from back during the launch of 3.0 when Half-Orcs returned to the game as a player choice. There was a lot of conflict at first, but the tone of them shifted over time. We always knew this would be a bit controversial and that there were some who would loudly proclaim "not at my table" and I get that. It's your table and your game after all. We are moving forward, trying to allow players to explore these characters, their culture, and their viewpoint. We are hoping to give you plenty of reasons, both mechanically and story-driven, to allow goblins in your game."
• Mark Seifter on that flexible ability boost -- "It's one of ways you get to really customize your ancestry to fit your character concept, melding the story and life of your character to the mechanics. Plus you can play the class you want without worrying about as much of an uphill battle with ability scores if you don't match the bonuses from the race with the class you had it mind. Incidentally, it provides a really nice design space to much more easily create and handle subraces that have different ability modifiers... "
• Mark Seifter confirms that repairing an item is a untrained use but building is trained only.
• Seifter on failed saves vs. dominate -- "the wording is subtly different now. Anyway, because it implies what you've said here, I wouldn't say "if you critically fail your save against dominate, you are completely under the spellcaster's control". There is still some possibility to resist a particularly abhorrent new order on a critical failure, but you're going to have to fulfill that first command no matter what."
• Community News --
  • Frank "Mottokrosh" Reding has put up the results of his survey regarding the future of his Pathfinder character sheet app.

 

[Charlaquin]

Wut? Math often matches the narrative. That it sometimes doesn't, isn't a good reason to accept more poor quality design.

The match between the narrative and the math is a quality of the writing, not the design. Having one Race with objectively worse stats than all the others is poor design. Describing a race with the same (lack of) strength modifier as humans as “weak and scrawny” is poor writing.

Also I think you picked two poor examples to support your argument. Having personally saved someone's life with CPR, I can definitely say common sense helps a lot.

Sure, in the same sense that common sense helps with literally everything. My point is, common sense is a terrible description of what the Wisdom Ability actually does.

And you are right, it is not good hand-eye coordination that makes you sneaky, its good foot coordination.

Which is not what the word “Dexterity” means.

 

[snickersnax]

The match between the narrative and the math is a quality of the writing, not the design. Having one Race with objectively worse stats than all the others is poor design. Describing a race with the same (lack of) strength modifier as humans as “weak and scrawny” is poor writing.

But in this goblin situation the writing came first, and the math description came second.

Sure, in the same sense that common sense helps with literally everything. My point is, common sense is a terrible description of what the Wisdom Ability actually does.

From a dictionary definition, "common sense: sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts." This doesn't sound that bad to me. It includes perception and avoids the complex thought process that would be associated with D&D intelligence.

During my own experience. I have a very strong memory of making a snap decision, "This person is NOT going to die here". Since I have background in hands-on healing. It actually felt like I reaching into her chest and grabbed hold of her heart. In D&D terms, I can't think of a better ability score than wisdom to describe what happened.

Which is not what the word “Dexterity” means.

From both PF1 and 5e: "Dexterity measures agility, reflexes, and balance." seems like foot coordination would be included in that. This definition is fairly consistent with the dictionary definition:

1. skill or adroitness in using the hands or body; agility.

 

[Charlaquin]

But in this goblin situation the writing came first, and the math description came second.

Yes it did, but changing the math to match it would actually be bad design. I don’t really care about what came first, I care about what makes a better game.

From a dictionary definition, "common sense: sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts." This doesn't sound that bad to me. It includes perception and avoids the complex thought process that would be associated with D&D intelligence.

During my own experience. I have a very strong memory of making a snap decision, "This person is NOT going to die here". Since I have background in hands-on healing. It actually felt like I reaching into her chest and grabbed hold of her heart. In D&D terms, I can't think of a better ability score than wisdom to describe what happened.

Sounds to me like you succeeded there thanks to a combination of instinct and training. But whatever, I’m not really interested in arguing with you about whether or not common sense is a major factor in CPR capabilities. My point is, Wisdom is a hodgepodge of different abilities, and “common sense” is a poor way to describe them. Common sense is not something I picture a goblin having much of. But the skills it contributes to do seem like things I’d expect a goblin to be good at.

From both PF1 and 5e: "Dexterity measures agility, reflexes, and balance." seems like foot coordination would be included in that. This definition is fairly consistent with the dictionary definition:

1. skill or adroitness in using the hands or body; agility.

Alternatively, “skill in performing tasks, especially with the hands.” But, again, I don’t care to argue dictionary definitions with you. The point is, lots of narrative elements in D&D and Pathfinder don’t match up well with their actual game functions.

 

[Teemu]

D&D has given higher-than-average Charisma to creatures like mind flayers, beholders, and gibbering mouthers. Charisma can mean different things, but personally I think of it as "presence". If a gibbering mouther is more charismatic than the average human, I honestly don't see why a Pathfinder goblin couldn't get that Cha bonus.

 

[snickersnax]

The point is, lots of narrative elements in D&D and Pathfinder don’t match up well with their actual game functions.

And I'm saying when a new edition is coming out its an opportunity to match the math to the language or the language to the math, and when is it easy to do so (as it would be in the case of goblins) why not do it? That are some things where the language and math don't align in the current game is a poor excuse to add more.

 

[snickersnax]

D&D has given higher-than-average Charisma to creatures like mind flayers, beholders, and gibbering mouthers. Charisma can mean different things, but personally I think of it as "presence". If a gibbering mouther is more charismatic than the average human,

Many people have ideas about charisma that may or may not be consistent. I think of charisma as natural ability to socially influence. Mind flayers and beholders are clearly leadership style monsters and they are very good at it. Charisma seems consistent with their lore. However, AFAIK Pathfinder doesn't have mindflayers or beholders, so they are irrelevant to the argument.

Gibbering mouthers are creatures of insanity that influence others to become insane through their gibbering. I personally agree with you that gibbering mouthers should probably have lower charisma, and 5e has already adjusted their charisma to 6. OTOH 5e doesn't give a charisma bonus to goblins either. Maybe Pf2 will fix this as well.

Goblins with a +2 charisma bonus is from the pathfinder playtest.

Paizo describes gobins as tending to follow strong leaders, but why would they do that if goblins are charismatic enough to be strong leaders themselves? In their lore, Goblins still occupying low social status places, trash tinkerers, and cannon fodder.

A +2 ancestral charisma bonus means that goblins should be occupying higher social status/ leadership positions, and for PC parties that means that goblins may often be the most socially influential and best choice for a "face" for the party. This represents a HUGE break from previous D&D editions.

I honestly don't see why a Pathfinder goblin couldn't get that Cha bonus.

It's not A pathfinder goblin it's ALL pathfinder goblins. Since it is an ancestral bonus, it implies that it comes from goblin genes, not from the backstory of a particular goblin who is more charismatic than the rest of his family.

 

[Charlaquin]

And I'm saying when a new edition is coming out its an opportunity to match the math to the language or the language to the math, and when is it easy to do so (as it would be in the case of goblins) why not do it?

I agree! That’s why I think Goblins’ description should be changed to match their Ability Scores.

skill in performing tasks, especially with the handsThat are some things where the language and math don't align in the current game is a poor excuse to add more.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely. I would rather they change the narrative descriptions to more closely match the rules. But that’s unlikely to happen, on account of sanctified bovine.

 

[snickersnax]

I agree! That’s why I think Goblins’ description should be changed to match their Ability Scores.

They only way to do that is to say that goblins are now the most charismatic of all races (perhaps in a tie with.... wait for it... halflings ) They are more persuasive, diplomatic, and intimidating than the other races. They lie better. If there were a singing competition, goblins would likely win.

Also now that dwarves no longer have an ancestral feat to hate goblins, dwarves now like goblins more than they like other races, perhaps including other dwarves.

Those are the consequences of making the narrative match the math.

That's why I think that the math should be changed back to match the narrative that makes sense.

 

[Charlaquin]

They only way to do that is to say that goblins are now the most charismatic of all races (perhaps in a tie with.... wait for it... halflings ) They are more persuasive, diplomatic, and intimidating than the other races. They lie better. If there were a singing competition, goblins would likely win.

It seems you’ve lost track of the argument. I am not in favor of Goblins getting a bonus to Charisma. What charisma actually does - making the character more likely to succeed at persuading others, lying to others, intimidating others, performing, and using magic devices, among a few other things, are not in my opinion a good fit for Paizo’s goblins to be better at than other races. I am, however, in favor of Goblins following the +2 physical, +2 mental, -2 any, and +2 floating structure for racial ability modifiers. They need that +2 mental somewhere, and based on the ability scores’ actual in game functions, I think Wisdom is the most appropriate mental ability to receive the bonus, making them more likely to succeed at searching for things, sensing others’ motives, surviving in the wilderness, and administering first aid, among other things. It’s not a perfect fit, but it works better than Charisma or Intelligence in my opinion. Whatever they do decide to put that +2 in though, the narrative should match that.

What we were arguing about was Strength, which certainly could be the -2 Ability, but I think Charisma would be the more appropriate -2. I think it would be easier to narratively justify Golarian goblins being as good at hitting things with melee weapons and performing feats of athleticism as humans than it would be to justify them being as diplomatic as humans.

Also now that dwarves no longer have an ancestral feat to hate goblins, dwarves now like goblins more than they like other races, perhaps including other dwarves.

That’s not really an effect of Charisma. Charisma, by its actual in game functions, doesn’t determine how much two given characters like each other. It only indicates how likely one character is to succeed at swaying another’s opinion socially. I still don’t think goblins should be good at that, but ancestral relations is not a factor in my formulation of that opinion.

QUOTE=snickersnax;7394639]Those are the consequences of making the narrative match the math.

That's why I think that the math should be changed back to match the narrative that makes sense.[/QUOTE]
There’s really nothing about goblins being good diplomats and dwarves liking them that doesn’t make sense. Goblins and dwarves aren’t real, they can like each other if the author wants them to, the “sense” it makes or doesn’t make is a mater of how internally consistent the presentation is.

 

[snickersnax]

I am, however, in favor of Goblins following the +2 physical, +2 mental, -2 any, and +2 floating structure for racial ability modifiers. They need that +2 mental somewhere, and based on the ability scores’ actual in game functions, I think Wisdom is the most appropriate mental ability to receive the bonus, making them more likely to succeed at searching for things, sensing others’ motives, surviving in the wilderness, and administering first aid, among other things. It’s not a perfect fit, but it works better than Charisma or Intelligence in my opinion. Whatever they do decide to put that +2 in though, the narrative should match that.

Wisdom is a poor fit for a bonus, because they have already decided that goblins have poor impulse control,are easily swayed by charismatic leaders, and have a hard time intuiting the unintended consequences of their actions.

Arguably, intelligence could fit for a bonus. Apparently they have a knack for tinkering together improvised items from trash, making a Wile E Coyote, super-genius style goblin a possibility.

Alternatively constitution could have a bonus. Goblins are supposed to be able to eat almost anything without getting sick. PF1 NPC goblins have a 12 constitution.

What we were arguing about was Strength, which certainly could be the -2 Ability, but I think Charisma would be the more appropriate -2. I think it would be easier to narratively justify Golarian goblins being as good at hitting things with melee weapons and performing feats of athleticism as humans than it would be to justify them being as diplomatic as humans..

I would rather see both be -2, but if I had to pick one it would be strength. Only because they are trying to rehabilitate goblins and for some unrevealed reason everyone likes them now.

When I imagine a human that weighs 30 lbs with normal strength. That's like standing on the moon. That guy ought to be able to high jump 10-15' no problem. Same thing for a human-strengthed 30 lb goblin. Putting -2 in strength puts goblins in the same spot as the other smalls:gnomes and halflings who both will presumably be -2 on strength. This still makes them all amazingly strong for their size and none of them should have a movement penalty because of their small size, because of their relative super strength.

In the end goblins are just too weak to be a core PC ancestry it requires giving up too many weakness that are fundamental to goblins:

They are not strong, they are not smart, they are not wise, they are not charismatic. You might be able to fudge one or two, but it doesn't feel good and by the time you get to three they aren't goblins any more. They are brownies or elf-goblins or something else.