Wandering Monsters: Goblins, Bugbears and Hobgoblins!

[Tovec]

I like and better yet understand the distinction of calling smaller races goblinoidss - the goblins, kobolds and whatnot. I like and understand the reason for calling the larger creatures giant-typed. I don't understand why these ideas were so utterly abandoned over the course of two editions.

As far as classification of giants, I'm already having troubles defining what makes a bugbear a bugbear. Worse yet what makes an ogre and ogre compared to a hill giant. I would just like more information about the different type of giants given that they are all brutes and all too similar to one another. I'm talking about the non-elementally typed giants.

In 4e terms it is easy to see, tactic-wise, what makes a bugbear different from an ogre but as far as mythology/lore and even physical descriptions it gets harder. If both (and indeed a lot of giants) are just brutes then it defeats the purpose of having so many different kinds in the first place.

Something else that annoyed me, but possibly worked wonders for others, was when Wyatt used the opening paragraph to describe two different goblins from adventures and how goblins are fun him that way. That is good for those who played WotC adventures, or indeed adventures at all. But if you haven't played them they provide remarkably little information at all, other than Snig was the axe?

I agree with the articles assessment about goblin's strength (dex) and weaknesses (everything else) and I'd like to see some sort of trick or tactic that they get from acting in large groups. Or indeed more group tactics at all, with goblins just being more likely to act in groups. I don't really need something that they get individually for just being the special racial snowflakes they are. That has the effect of being too good when they are in large groups, or being too weak (and often annoying) when used solo.

Also, where do the hobgoblin tactics come from? They are smarter than typical goblins, but I always took that to be 'more cunning' as opposed to straight tactical smartness. I like that hobgoblins can use different maneuvers but I don't get why they are the ones who can create siege engines and build empires, when none of the other monsters so far have been described as being able to - not even orcs.

Overall I'm going to keep running goblins the way I always have because these descriptions don't really give me much to work with. I like weak goblins who can be easily pressganged into service by bigger/stronger/smarter races. I like them being cunning enough to use tricks to ambush their enemies or maybe even convincing some dumb giant into protecting them.

Personally, I'll use hobgoblins as bigger, stronger, tough, smarter goblins but I don't really need them as empire builders. Hobgoblins for me are just elite members of the pack, though I don't use them much anymore.

The descriptions they gave will work I guess but I'd rather something else. I'd like a second crack at the descriptions to get something truly insightful.

OR KM could stop by and give us something good

 

[Mengu]

Just give me the stats, clear, concise, compact. Release Ecology of Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Dark Sun and other fluff books to go with it, where monsters can get in depth descriptions. I just don't want it to get in the way of the core game. My goblins are perhaps created by the twisted rituals of an infamous transmuter who experimented on halflings. Maybe they have yellow skin, large flappy leathery ears, bug-eyes, hooked noses and jagged teeth. Maybe I want to grab hobgoblin stats, and call them Persian Immortals. Maybe my bugbears look like Wookies and live in jungles, who are a peaceful folk, unless you make them angry.

I really just don't care what a D&D goblinoid is. I don't want D&D the campaign world, I want D&D the game system.

 

[Stormonu]

Granted, when I first moved up to AD&D, I did not have the MM. I just used the monster stat reference pages in the DMG and winged the monsters appearance, culture and whatnot based on what I already knew.

However, by the time expanded monster entries came out with ecology and whatnot sections in the Monsterous Compediums, I loved it. But things like "the Ecology of..." and Elminster's ecology were just too much information to be useful at the table.

I can handle short entries like in 4E's MM. I like entries like the 3E MM more, and like 2E's entries best. These entries so far fall between the 3E and 4E entries to me. I'd like to see a little more on the social and ecology of these guys and what they do away from the battlefield.

 

[stonegod]

For me, goblinoids are always going to be flavored by Eberron for me. But then again, much of D&D is. which is why I have to suppress a cringe at pretty much all the default fluff for the monsters. I can see the previous edition parallels, though, so thats good I guess.

 

[Klaus]

I concur on bugbears, they always look like goblin brutes. Maybe they should fill that role so that we have dextrous, organised and dumb-but-strong goblinoids?

When I say "veer", I don't mean "radically change", actually.

Most of my "fey goblin" needs are served by the 4e spriggans. IMC, they are the "true" goblins, with the others being those who left Faerie and lived in the mortal world for so long, they became mortals themselves.

 

[ComradeGnull]

Looks alright though they went too crazy on the goblin negatives. Four bad ability scores? Wow. Are goblins that pathetic? These are D&D goblins not MTG goblins.

Yeah, I winced a little at that as well. Firstly because I want goblins to be credible threats even when there aren't 100 of them, and secondly because I quite like the idea of PC goblins being viable- I liked having that option in Eberron, particularly, since goblins had a lot of great history and potential character concepts in that setting.

With bad Str, Cha, and Wis, you would wonder how goblins survive at all without being knocked off by conventional threats like bears, much less being actively hunted and killed by adventurers from the shiny happy races. I really think that they could use at least average Wis, or at least a bonus to Perception. We are talking about critters whose survival strategy hinges on ambushes and skulking- you won't get far in that line of work if you can't hear your prey (or your attackers) coming.

I actually thought the 4e goblin bonus to Cha made some sense, particulaly in the context of how 4e powers worked. While goblins are neither pretty nor great leaders, I would expect them to be highly skilled at bullying (Intimidate), lying (Bluff), and cowering and wining (Diplomacy) given their nature and the fact that they live in big, extended social units.

One semi-mechanical things I didn't see addressed was that 3e+ goblins had a bonus to Ride, which I always thought was a typo from Hide. Not much mention of goblin cavalry to support that mechanic, outside of the 'they like wolves and critters' line.

 

[Minigiant]

Yeah, I winced a little at that as well. Firstly because I want goblins to be credible threats even when there aren't 100 of them, and secondly because I quite like the idea of PC goblins being viable- I liked having that option in Eberron, particularly, since goblins had a lot of great history and potential character concepts in that setting.

With bad Str, Cha, and Wis, you would wonder how goblins survive at all without being knocked off by conventional threats like bears, much less being actively hunted and killed by adventurers from the shiny happy races. I really think that they could use at least average Wis, or at least a bonus to Perception. We are talking about critters whose survival strategy hinges on ambushes and skulking- you won't get far in that line of work if you can't hear your prey (or your attackers) coming.

I actually thought the 4e goblin bonus to Cha made some sense, particulaly in the context of how 4e powers worked. While goblins are neither pretty nor great leaders, I would expect them to be highly skilled at bullying (Intimidate), lying (Bluff), and cowering and wining (Diplomacy) given their nature and the fact that they live in big, extended social units.

One semi-mechanical things I didn't see addressed was that 3e+ goblins had a bonus to Ride, which I always thought was a typo from Hide. Not much mention of goblin cavalry to support that mechanic, outside of the 'they like wolves and critters' line.

I've always hated that. If goblins are so bad, threat threat level is reduced some much that you must jump through hoops to explain why anyone is afraid of them.

---

As for the fey/normal divide for goblins. In my setting goblins were original fey but not anymore.

Goblins were the first rulers of the Faeryland but lost the elf led rebellion. They were stripped of their link to nature and dropped on the material world as normal humanoids.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

To follow up on this article we now have a sketch of what the goblin will look like here.

I think it needs an evil grin - a grinning monster always says tricksy, and potentially ready to run away, to me.

 

[delericho]

The article, again, was fine. But, again, I'm inclined to think "See Monstrous Compendium" does virtually all of the work for them.

I'm not sure I approve of them grouping goblinoids like that - if the goal of 5e is to be "a D&D for everyone", then that presumably means making it as flexible as possible. That sort of setting assumption, then, is questionable. (That said, given the history of this particular bit of lore, I don't think it's too bad.)

Goblins. Okay. It's going to be hard to compete with the fun that is Pathfinder's manic pyromaniacs.

I would suggest that the answer here is "don't try". Indeed, WotC might well be wise to reverse the Paizo model - have the kobolds be largely comic relief (see: Meepo), and use the goblins as "straight-men" low-level humanoids who can, if necessary, be levelled up to make a viable threat later.

Bugbears... they really strike me as lone monsters and less a civilization. Stealthy brutes.

This raises something I've been thinking about for a while - the Monster Manuals seem determined to present every single monster as an entire breed, with a place in the ecosystem, means of reproduction, and so on. The problem being that once you get to a couple of thousand such beasties, your wilderness starts to look absurdly full.

I think there is a place for monsters that aren't full civilisations or species - they're unique menaces, or there's a single tribe of scorpion-men, or the occasional goblin somehow transcends his limitations to become a bugbear, or whatever. Given that most groups will only ever use most monsters a handful of times, I don't think adopting that model would make the Monster Manual any less useful.

 

[delericho]

To follow up on this article we now have a sketch of what the goblin will look like here.

Interesting. I enjoyed that article a whole lot more than "Wandering Monsters", and yet I disagreed with it considerably more.

Goblins are described as being small, stealthy, cowardly, weak, agile, and beady-eyed. Doesn’t sound like an inspiring creature, does it?

Inspiring in what way? From an artist's point of view, surely the cowardly and the weak can serve as inspiration just as much as the strong, noble and heroic? From a DM's point of view, the inspiration for using goblins is easy - they're useful and easy-to-use low-level fodder to throw at your PCs.

Not every monster needs to be a world-beater. Some of them are the pathetic and the down-trodden.

Meta-World View: A goblin is small, stealthy, cowardly, agile, weak.

In-World View: Describe the goblin from an in-world point of view . . . from the point of view of a goblin, a human, a dragon, or a host of others. (I’m not listing adjectives here because I have an exercise for you that I want you to enjoy!)

For example, a goblin wouldn’t see itself as being cowardly. Goblins would talk about the wisdom of overwhelming their foes with numbers, about being crafty and opportunistic, and about finding opportunities to take someone out or bolt for reinforcements.

In that case, I'm a giant of a man, with rippling muscles, a full head of hair, and the intellect of a genius. Whenever I walk past, adoring crowds pause to remark, "what a guy!"

When it comes to illustrations in the Monster Manual, I fall squarely on the "meta-world view" side of the fence. The in-world view makes the book less easy to use, and that's a bad thing.

I put some of the descriptors that James highlighted in the graphic for the goblin. When I look at the concepts, I don’t really think the image looks all that “cowardly.” Sure, he looks a little devious with his hunched posture, but I certainly wouldn’t expect someone to describe the image as depicting someone “cowardly.”

I actually like that illustration, but he's right that it doesn't say "cowardly". Nor, indeed, does it particularly say "stealthy", "agile", or "weak".

In which case, the illustration is at odds with the text. And in that case, something needs to be changed.

The goblins went through a number of visual changes. Rather than bore you with process talk, let me give you a quick overview of the discussions and decisions that went on and get your feedback on the direction that we ended up taking things.

We had several discussions about the “intent” of the goblin in the world. Although they have played the foil or comedic sidekick at times, that is not their intent in the world from a lore perspective. Although a goblin running around by itself might be kind of humorous and slightly annoying, a pack of them could get downright dangerous. With that in mind, we decided the goblin shouldn’t fill a role of “world fool.” Certainly, specific goblins could fill that role, and several goblins have done just that through the history of D&D, but to cast all the goblins in that role would undermine the rich culture that surrounds goblins.

With that in mind, I took on the goblin with a more serious mindset. I ditched all the ideas of a goofy little green guy running around and being a bumbling fool. Instead I dug into the lore that the R&D guys pulled together, had lots of conversations, and chased an idea of a little guy that really fulfilled the vision of the lore.

I also wanted to give the goblin a sense of culture. They don’t just clothe themselves in rags and run amok; they have communities, cultures, hierarchies, religions, and so on. So I wanted to give them some structure and sense of culture. It’s limited and simplistic, sure, but it is culture nonetheless. I wanted to give them a physical presence that removed any visible indication that they were noble or wise. So I hunched them over a bit and sloped their forehead. We played with their anatomy so that they didn’t share human proportions. This helped them to appear more “monstrous” and less evolved.

All of this is fine. I like his thinking. It's just a shame that, in removing any "world fool" aspect from the illo, he also seems to have removed the key descriptors: small, stealthy, agile, cowardly, weak.

Again: I like the illustration, and think that if it gets beefed up a bit it would be an ideal model for a hobgoblin. And I also like that they're going through this thought process, both in the 'lore' and 'illustration' sides.

It's just that I don't think this illustration matches the key descriptors given for the goblin. It just looks like he's done a really good job building the wrong thing.

IMO, and YMMV, of course.