Ironically, Goblins make great PCs!

[Particle_Man]

They gain the benefits of being small without the movement penalty. They have a bonus to move silently, which combined with the size bonus to hide makes for a great stealthy type (rogue, ninja, scout). They have darkvision, and unlike some humanoids, have no problems with bright sunlight. And if you want to do the elfquest wolfrider thing, they have a great ride bonus too!

If you don't need str or chr, there is no real downside!

They are even core (if MM is core)! SRD anyhow.

[bravelove]

One of my main dnd character is a druid goblin named Chew and she is AMAZING, the ability to disengage and pick your fits with a goblin thanks to Nimble Escape cannot be overstated ENOUGH!

Ironically she is also best friends with a skeleton which is really funny to me and no one else

[Goblin_Priest]

You kinda do, though.

You can make an wizard, to benefit from that dex and size bonus on all ranged touch attack rolls, but no bonus to int, which is a serious handicap.

You can make a mounted combatant, but not a mounted charger, because that str penalty will hurt a lot. It also completely negates the advantage of keeping the 30ft move speed.

You can make a rogue to be sneaky and all, but again, what about damage? Sneak attack is limited to 30 ft. That str penalty will hurt on damage. Maybe not the end of the world, but still. Ranged sneak attack is unreliable.

An archer? Again, that str penalty will hurt dpt a lot. Also the smaller bow size also hurts.

A penalty to strength combined with no mental bonus is far from optimal.

Mounted archer is probably the best bet, and with the right mount could make great recon, but still.

[Worldsong]

You kinda do, though.

You can make an wizard, to benefit from that dex and size bonus on all ranged touch attack rolls, but no bonus to int, which is a serious handicap.

You can make a mounted combatant, but not a mounted charger, because that str penalty will hurt a lot. It also completely negates the advantage of keeping the 30ft move speed.

You can make a rogue to be sneaky and all, but again, what about damage? Sneak attack is limited to 30 ft. That str penalty will hurt on damage. Maybe not the end of the world, but still. Ranged sneak attack is unreliable.

An archer? Again, that str penalty will hurt dpt a lot. Also the smaller bow size also hurts.

A penalty to strength combined with no mental bonus is far from optimal.

Mounted archer is probably the best bet, and with the right mount could make great recon, but still.

Mainly sounds like a concern if you're focusing on min-maxing rather than just having a build which works even if it isn't flawless.

Especially since so far as I'm aware the damage from sneak attack isn't modified by str, so you may not be the hardest hitter but it's not like you'll be doing no damage at all.

[ti'esar]

As someone who doesn't actually play D&D, I've actually always kind of been idly curious about this. In SOD the Dark One's (supposed) response to one of the gods pointing out that there are rules for monster PCs was to yell "Those rules are crap and you know it!", end of story... but while I've always assumed that must be a reasonably widespread opinion or else Rich wouldn't have played it like that, I do wonder about the ones like goblins that don't involve any level adjustment or the like.

[Morty]

As someone who doesn't actually play D&D, I've actually always kind of been idly curious about this. In SOD the Dark One's (supposed) response to one of the gods pointing out that there are rules for monster PCs was to yell "Those rules are crap and you know it!", end of story... but while I've always assumed that must be a reasonably widespread opinion or else Rich wouldn't have played it like that, I do wonder about the ones like goblins that don't involve any level adjustment or the like.

While goblins are more or less playable, if pretty weak, hobgoblins and bugbears aren't.

[Particle_Man]

You kinda do, though.

You can make an wizard, to benefit from that dex and size bonus on all ranged touch attack rolls, but no bonus to int, which is a serious handicap.

You can make a mounted combatant, but not a mounted charger, because that str penalty will hurt a lot. It also completely negates the advantage of keeping the 30ft move speed.

You can make a rogue to be sneaky and all, but again, what about damage? Sneak attack is limited to 30 ft. That str penalty will hurt on damage. Maybe not the end of the world, but still. Ranged sneak attack is unreliable.

An archer? Again, that str penalty will hurt dpt a lot. Also the smaller bow size also hurts.

A penalty to strength combined with no mental bonus is far from optimal.

Mounted archer is probably the best bet, and with the right mount could make great recon, but still.

But that also applies to the core races Halfing and Gnome, only more so. They have str penalties, no mental bonuses, and their movement is 20', and they don't get darkvision. Yet people play those.

[Goblin_Priest]

Mainly sounds like a concern if you're focusing on min-maxing rather than just having a build which works even if it isn't flawless.

Especially since so far as I'm aware the damage from sneak attack isn't modified by str, so you may not be the hardest hitter but it's not like you'll be doing no damage at all.

Rogues are kinda weak to begin with. Making a weaker rogue doesn't help with anything. I mean, for /some/ adventure types, maybe it would work, but I don't see many stealth campaigns, for example. For NPCs they can make decent assassin types, whether they have the prestige class or not.

It's not completely unplayable, but it's inferior to human when it comes to being a PC.


As someone who doesn't actually play D&D, I've actually always kind of been idly curious about this. In SOD the Dark One's (supposed) response to one of the gods pointing out that there are rules for monster PCs was to yell "Those rules are crap and you know it!", end of story... but while I've always assumed that must be a reasonably widespread opinion or else Rich wouldn't have played it like that, I do wonder about the ones like goblins that don't involve any level adjustment or the like.

What the next guy says.


While goblins are more or less playable, if pretty weak, hobgoblins and bugbears aren't.

Hobgoblins have a LA (level adjustment) of +1, if I remember correctly, all for a meager stat buff (two +2s, no penalties, again iirc). There's no way their perks are worth a level, it's really pretty ridiculous. Bugbears have an ever bigger LA.


But that also applies to the core races Halfing and Gnome, only more so. They have str penalties, no mental bonuses, and their movement is 20', and they don't get darkvision. Yet people play those.

People play those?

I mean, sure, one doesn't always have to make optimized characters. I like goblins, as my name may imply, and I've made really non-optimized comboes, like a goblin psion, a goblin barbarian, and... I think I even made a goblin sorcerer...? They were plenty of fun. But they weren't really on par with a human equivalent.

[Worldsong]

Okay, but that just begs the follow up question how many races can compete with humans when you're trying to optimize. Because from what I've heard humans just tend to outperform in any field thanks to their flexibility and bonus feat.

[Particle_Man]

Yes oddly enough in a fantasy game prominently featuring elves, dwarves, half-elves, half-orcs, gnomes and halflings, there are people that play elves, dwarves, half-elves, half-orcs, gnomes and halflings. Heck, there is even a halfling in the comic The Order of the Stick.

I know different tables do things differently so some of you may just have to trust me on this one - there are 3.5 players that play halflings and gnomes and enjoy it. I personally think that goblin is also viable as a pc race, whether one goes the “I am the one good goblin!” route or a more cosmopolitan “goblins are good just as often as humans” route.

Similarly, people play 3.5 rogues. Are they weaker than tier 1 casters? Yes. Do some people play them anyhow? Yes.

Put those together and you have people that would enjoy goblin rogues, should the race be allowed as PCs at the table. I will agree that a human wizard will be more powerful than a goblin rogue if you agree that there are people that play halfling and gnome rogues. ;)

[Goblin_Priest]

I get the impression that there are a lot more halfling/gnome "iconic characters", i.e. publisher and story characters, than there are halfling/gnome PC characters. On the ratio, anyhow.

I'm not even sure I remember anyone at our tables playing either of these back in the days, and we were not optimizing munchkins back then. Half-elves are bad, but get played a whole lot more. Something more appealing to them than "the body of a kid, but with pubes" halflings, I guess.

Even in Pathfinder, I don't recall anyone at our table playing halfling (though I know halfling cavalier is a "thing"). Gnome gets +2 charisma, so it gets a bit of usage, but not much.

But yea, I'd reckon goblin is on par with the crap tier PC races. The bigger issue is really with the rest of the goblinoids, especially hobgoblins, as far as PC mechanics go. Goblins didn't make the cut because monstrous/evil.

[Emanick]

For what it's worth, almost every campaign I've been in has had a gnome or halfling (and I've been in maybe... five different groups? Like nine different parties? Hard to keep track). I'd say that about one in six characters played has been a gnome/halfling.

[Particle_Man]

For additional irony, the person arguing goblins are crap has the username goblin priest. ;)

[The MunchKING]

But that also applies to the core races Halfing and Gnome, only more so. They have str penalties, no mental bonuses, and their movement is 20', and they don't get darkvision. Yet people play those.

I don't know about D&D on those species, but in Pathfinder Gnomes have a Charisma bonus, which when combined with the free spells makes them decent sorcerers.

[Jasdoif]

As someone who doesn't actually play D&D, I've actually always kind of been idly curious about this. In SOD the Dark One's (supposed) response to one of the gods pointing out that there are rules for monster PCs was to yell "Those rules are crap and you know it!", end of story... but while I've always assumed that must be a reasonably widespread opinion or else Rich wouldn't have played it like that, I do wonder about the ones like goblins that don't involve any level adjustment or the like.Goblins, as implied by their flavor text and their substandard challenge rating, are intended to be used in numbers. They're designed to be simple for a DM (who's also responsible for every other NPC and the entire world at the time) to run, and less combat-capable individually to justify those numbers...which makes for a lackluster PC.

It's important to remember that PCs (each run by a single player, through and between multiple encounters) and NPCs (all run by a single DM, pretty much just conceptual outside encounters they're involved in) have different priorities for the people running them, and a creature well-designed for one is rarely as well-suited to be used as the other.

[Goblin_Priest]

For what it's worth, almost every campaign I've been in has had a gnome or halfling (and I've been in maybe... five different groups? Like nine different parties? Hard to keep track). I'd say that about one in six characters played has been a gnome/halfling.

Wow. I've played 3.x since it came out, with a bunch of different people, with different table cultures... I've really not seen them much at all.


For additional irony, the person arguing goblins are crap has the username goblin priest. ;)

Extra irony is that despite the fact I'll play a goblin pretty much every time my GM will allow it, and I've made a bunch of clerics, I can't even remember playing an actual goblin cleric (or any divine off-brand class). The closest I came to it was a hobgoblin cleric (Pathfinder) who later retrained to paladin, but I've been using this alias since far earlier than that.

And yea despite my optimization arguments, I don't really let that stand in my way. On one of my paused campaigns (Pathfinder), I play a goblin conjurer. A venerable (age) goblin conjurer. I spend half the time cracking "back in my days" comments on the half-elf, despite him being like 3 times older. Those -6 to all physical stats... not quite optimal! XD I think he's got a total of 2 str. Lots of fun to play, though, and he pulls his weight quite well in the party with his crowd control spells.


I don't know about D&D on those species, but in Pathfinder Gnomes have a Charisma bonus, which when combined with the free spells makes them decent sorcerers.

Gnome Traits (Ex)

Gnomes possess the following racial traits.

+2 Constitution, -2 Strength.

And their favored class is... bard...

But yea, I've played a gnome sorcerer in Pathfinder, that's good. Small size bonus to AC, to ranged touch attacks, and bonus to charisma, all good stuff. 3.5, though, yikes.

[brian 333]

Just for fun, try a 3.x Ranger Goblin. We ran a Humanoid Campaign the summer before Neverwinter Nights came out, and my character Oodro was set up as a stealth / crossbow specialist. Dude was good, especially in melee against mobs of low CR opponents.
But where he was at his best was against enemy mages. His dual wielded shortsword and dagger would disrupt virtually any caster, and they couldn't even run away!

The character was my inspiration for Merogo Oakenroot, (random name generator...) which was the halfling ranger I played on the Myseria RP server for the next decade.

[Particle_Man]

I don't know about D&D on those species, but in Pathfinder Gnomes have a Charisma bonus, which when combined with the free spells makes them decent sorcerers.

Fair (and 1st ed Pathfinder halflings get +2 CHR too, I think). But Pathfinder 1st ed. Goblins get +4 Dex, which again is great for Rogues.

[edit: also at third level pathfinder unchained rogues get to use dex bonus to damage for one weapon that is finesse-friendly]

Not sure about Pathfinder 2nd ed, except that, since goblins are explicitly a core race (like in their main rulebook that is the combined players' handbook and DMG) in that edition of Pathfinder, the point is moot, I guess.

[RatElemental]

All of my DND characters have been Humans (mostly when I was starting out) or either gnomes or goblins. Optimization definitely isn't everything. As long as you don't have LA you can be a passable mage, and pretty much anything can be okay at being a martial character in some form.

[bravelove]

My goblin druid's arson track record says that in fact, goblins are very playable and fun and that you really shouldn't mess with a goblin that can throw fire at you as a cantrip

[Particle_Man]

Oh wow, the consolidation of skills means that in pathfinder move silently and hide becomes the single skill stealth. So between the dex bonus, the size bonus and the goblin racial bonus we are looking at +10 stealth before spending a single skill point.

[Goblin_Priest]

Oh wow, the consolidation of skills means that in pathfinder move silently and hide becomes the single skill stealth. So between the dex bonus, the size bonus and the goblin racial bonus we are looking at +10 stealth before spending a single skill point.

Yea, you can really optimize a goblin in Pathfinder.

Issue is, stealth rarely comes in play when your buddies have an average of -1 to it.

[Chronos]

Yeah, goblins are, at worst, the third-best race for non-charismatic roguish types, in all of the sourcebooks. Humans might be better, and strongheart halflings (from one of the Forgotten Realms books) probably are, but both of those still lack darkvision, which is a pretty big deal for a rogue. And they're unambiguously better than any other race. Goblin spellcasters are also quite viable, even though they can't leverage the race's advantages quite as well as rogue, and the lack of bonus to Int or Wis is hardly disqualifying, given how few races (none from the PHB, and one variety of elf from the MM) have those.

Hobgoblins, though, did definitely get the short end of the stick, largely as a result of the granularity of the level adjustment system: They're just slightly too good for LA 0, but not nearly good enough to be worth LA 1. And bugbears are even worse off.

[mucat]

Yea, you can really optimize a goblin in Pathfinder.

Issue is, stealth rarely comes in play when your buddies have an average of -1 to it.
Not seeing how your buddies' skills are relevant, unless at a table where skill rolls in general come up mainly as "OK, everyone simultaneously, give me a roll on such-and-such skill."

When something sneaky needs to be done, the sneaky person does it.

[Emanick]

Not seeing how your buddies' skills are relevant, unless at a table where skill rolls in general come up mainly as "OK, everyone simultaneously, give me a roll on such-and-such skill."

When something sneaky needs to be done, the sneaky person does it.

Well, yeah, but only if you’re cool with sending the party rogue out alone to quite possibly get horribly killed. Some groups are not terribly keen on that possibility.

[KillianHawkeye]

They are even core (if MM is core)! SRD anyhow.

It is. The core books are the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual.

With only these three books, you at home can run your very own game of D&D!

[Goblin_Priest]

Not seeing how your buddies' skills are relevant, unless at a table where skill rolls in general come up mainly as "OK, everyone simultaneously, give me a roll on such-and-such skill."

When something sneaky needs to be done, the sneaky person does it.


Well, yeah, but only if you’re cool with sending the party rogue out alone to quite possibly get horribly killed. Some groups are not terribly keen on that possibility.

Stealth is a bad sub-game.

If everyone does it, then the lowest roll invalidates everyone else's. That fighter with no ranks, a small bonus to dex if any, and a huge armor check penalty is going to make sneaking pretty much impossible, even when he rolls decently.

If you only send the best guys at the task, then you run into two issues: 1rst is that you've got one guy playing single player, while the rest of the players just sit and wait for it to pass, second is that if he fails, he's a frail combatant left to fend all on his own. And if the enemies were easy to begin with, stealth probably wouldn't have even been bothered with. Thus, he's REALLY screwed. Either he dies, or he gets caught, either way, it's THAT's player's turn to sit and wait with nothing to do.

And no matter who does it, stealth involves a continuous series of rolls, and it's inevitable that the player(s) will end up rolling poorly. Or sentries rolling exceptionally well. Statistically, it's almost always bound to fail. Sure, that one time, my rogue snuck into a barracks's sleeping quartiers, and murdered like 6 guards in their sleep without waking anyone up, and we still laugh about that one (it's basically the only time that any of my rogues ever did good), and when I GMed one of my PCs once managed to sneak into an outpost to free a VIP PoW. But it's just soooo vulnerable to luck. And the player has so little meaningful informed choices about it.

So yea, overall, stealth has the potential to generate some memorable moments, but overall it's not a really fun mechanic that can be used regularly, and failure can often mean disaster.

[brian 333]

Stealth is a bad sub-game.

If everyone does it, then the lowest roll invalidates everyone else's. That fighter with no ranks, a small bonus to dex if any, and a huge armor check penalty is going to make sneaking pretty much impossible, even when he rolls decently.

If you only send the best guys at the task, then you run into two issues: 1rst is that you've got one guy playing single player, while the rest of the players just sit and wait for it to pass, second is that if he fails, he's a frail combatant left to fend all on his own. And if the enemies were easy to begin with, stealth probably wouldn't have even been bothered with. Thus, he's REALLY screwed. Either he dies, or he gets caught, either way, it's THAT's player's turn to sit and wait with nothing to do.

And no matter who does it, stealth involves a continuous series of rolls, and it's inevitable that the player(s) will end up rolling poorly. Or sentries rolling exceptionally well. Statistically, it's almost always bound to fail. Sure, that one time, my rogue snuck into a barracks's sleeping quartiers, and murdered like 6 guards in their sleep without waking anyone up, and we still laugh about that one (it's basically the only time that any of my rogues ever did good), and when I GMed one of my PCs once managed to sneak into an outpost to free a VIP PoW. But it's just soooo vulnerable to luck. And the player has so little meaningful informed choices about it.

So yea, overall, stealth has the potential to generate some memorable moments, but overall it's not a really fun mechanic that can be used regularly, and failure can often mean disaster.

I disagree. I used stealth all of the time.

While the rest of the party moved down the trail making noise my character moves ahead just off the trail to spot ambushes.

When the party encountered enemies my character would hold back to identify the spellcaster, then attack and disrupt him to death.

And of course, every rogue hates to be flanked while flanking.

Use the skill to augment what the party is doing and it is awesomely effective.

[Zombimode]

Hobgoblins, though, did definitely get the short end of the stick, largely as a result of the granularity of the level adjustment system: They're just slightly too good for LA 0, but not nearly good enough to be worth LA 1. And bugbears are even worse off.

Yeah, thats true. But setting Hobgoblins LA to 0 should not upset things to much. This is not a competative multiplayer game :smallwink:
At least it wouldn't in my group. We pick our race because we want to play a member of the race.

[Particle_Man]

Interestingly hobgoblins are LA +0 in Pathfinder 1st ed.

[Goblin_Priest]

Interestingly hobgoblins are LA +0 in Pathfinder 1st ed.

PF is easier to balance because all PC races basically got a buff, imo. Hobgoblins remain strong and really potent to min-max, but we aren't on drow noble level...

[Kardwill]

And no matter who does it, stealth involves a continuous series of rolls, and it's inevitable that the player(s) will end up rolling poorly.

Yeah, for any kind of stealth approach to succeed in RPGs, the GM really needs to let go of this "multiple rolls until you fail" nonsense, and come up with another way to do it. I'm trying to go with the "let the first roll stick" principle, both for stealth, climbing and sometimes diplomacy. You make one roll at the beginning of the scene, and you stick with it until you change approach or you go outside your initial goal.

So, if you want to assassinate the Orc chieftain, a roll of 22 will get you through the outside perimeter guards (DC10), sneak around the guys eating around the firepit (DC15), and get into the chieftain's tent (DC18). But if you want to follow that weird-looking shaman that you saw on your way out, you'll have to take a risk and do another roll, because you're basically starting a new chain of actions.

Another possibility : failing at stealth means a complication to overcome, or needing to find another way in because there's a sentry in the way, and not a boring "roll for initiative".

For the group thing, I like to use some form of "group challenge" mecanic, such as having half the players succeed, or needing to get to a common level of success, or using teamwork rules if they exist in the RPG I'm playing. The ninjas cover for the clunky ones, play recon, draw the attention of the guards, select a safe route...

Combining those could lessen the "let's just charge, since stealth is doomed" problem that makes any infiltration suicidal AND boring in most RPGs. Or at least I hope so...

[Quizatzhaderac]

Is there any fluff on goblins, in core or otherwise? Like what their society's are like, their attitudes, et cetra?

Like if I said goblins highly value manners and propriety and their favorite recreation is drawing pictures of kittens with short comedic phrases, would there by anything to contradict that?

Doing a quick search of only 3.5e core, one just seems to know that they're "usually evil" and that the player can expect small groups to be entirely soldiers.

[RatElemental]

I think it largely depends on setting, but the forgotten realms wiki has pretty extensive articles on goblins, including a description of their culture in every edition.

The 3e version says goblins are often kept as slaves by other goblinoids, most often hobgoblins, but that when left to their own devices had a tribal culture with little to no concept of privacy. All but the leaders would sleep in large communal areas which were often not the most sanitary places, and young goblins are taught that to survive you need to be ruthless and care more for yourself than anyone else. Such cultures are also patriarchal, with female goblins being expected to have as many kids as possible to keep population up despite the constant raiding and violence.

[dude123nice]

To clarify, especially for non DnD players, Goblins are better than any Core race save humans and dwarves.

[Goblin_Priest]

Yeah, for any kind of stealth approach to succeed in RPGs, the GM really needs to let go of this "multiple rolls until you fail" nonsense, and come up with another way to do it. I'm trying to go with the "let the first roll stick" principle, both for stealth, climbing and sometimes diplomacy. You make one roll at the beginning of the scene, and you stick with it until you change approach or you go outside your initial goal.

So, if you want to assassinate the Orc chieftain, a roll of 22 will get you through the outside perimeter guards (DC10), sneak around the guys eating around the firepit (DC15), and get into the chieftain's tent (DC18). But if you want to follow that weird-looking shaman that you saw on your way out, you'll have to take a risk and do another roll, because you're basically starting a new chain of actions.

Another possibility : failing at stealth means a complication to overcome, or needing to find another way in because there's a sentry in the way, and not a boring "roll for initiative".

For the group thing, I like to use some form of "group challenge" mecanic, such as having half the players succeed, or needing to get to a common level of success, or using teamwork rules if they exist in the RPG I'm playing. The ninjas cover for the clunky ones, play recon, draw the attention of the guards, select a safe route...

Combining those could lessen the "let's just charge, since stealth is doomed" problem that makes any infiltration suicidal AND boring in most RPGs. Or at least I hope so...

The issue with "single roll for all" is that it's not very thrilling or climactic. It's basically "roll once and then watch it out". Which isn't really great, any more than save or dies are fun. This contrats with traditional combat, where successive rolls chip away at the enemy's pool, until the cumulative successes reach their target, and where failure is simply lack of progress (offensively speaking). Martial combat has little defense, it's really just both sides rolling against target difficulties.

For stealth to be more fun, I think it needs to have some of that cumulative progress. Or maybe at least floating averages. Don't know.