|
10 months ago ::
Aug 07, 2012 - 4:16AM
#1
|
|
|
Wandering Monsters: When Is a Goblin Not a Goblin?James WyattIn 4th Edition, we included goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears under a general “goblin” entry, which caused our editors some consternation. You see, by doing things this way, the word “goblin” had to do double duty because it meant both the general class and the specific race—genus and species, as it were. When we did this, though, we were also extending a line of thinking that started back in the earliest years of D&D, when these monsters were grouped together into the broad category of goblinoid. Talk about this article here.
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire Concerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 07, 2012 - 4:23AM
#2
|
|
|
I think they pretty much nailed this one, as opposed to some niggling details from last week's article that didn't feel right. I definitely like the "goblinoid" idea of having goblins, hobgoblins and bugbears share an evolutionary tree, and language. I'm not entirely sure they should "always' be found together working in groups, but that should certainly be a possible theme. I would think that such creatures generally like to be on their own in unmixed groups, with the exception of hobgoblins who appreciate the strengths and weaknesses that each "sub-race" brings to the table. But unless there is a very powerful hobgoblin leader it takes a much more powerful force to bring them together such as a warlord, mage or evil priest.
Can't wait to see how Dragon’s-Eye View depicts them.
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster ExtraordinaireConcerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 07, 2012 - 5:11AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Dec 15, 2009
|
I agree, they did a good job with this article. I also think that Orcs should be included as a Goblinoid, but that mostly comes from growing up reading Tolkien, LOL.
I like the emphasis that the three races are related but different, and work together mostly only when a Stronger force compels them. Whether that's as simple as a couple of Bugbears bossing around a local tribe of Goblins, or a lair of Hobgoblins using goblins and Bugbears as labor and canon fodder. Or a powerful Necromancer bringing an area's monsters to heel to use against his enemies.
What I don't like is the forced emphasis they placed on Alignment. They did a good job of describing each race's natural tendencies and society traits without having to say they are LE or NE. Goblins are sneaky, devious and cowardly little monsters, Gotcha. Saying they are Neutral Evil because of 'X' and not Chaotic Evil because of 'Y' seems forced and unnecessary to me. As many GM's are likely to use Goblinoids and monsters in general as they see fit, and not always as the Monster Manual intended, it really serves no purpose. Leave Alignment as fluff only, or better yet remove it altogether.
A man (or monster) is defined by his actions, and those actions are what are 'Good' or 'Evil'. How he goes about those actions will determine whether he is 'Lawful' or 'Chaotic', and often may vary from situation to situation.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 07, 2012 - 5:16AM
#4
|
|
|
I have to agree about the alignments. It just felt tacked on and completely unnecessary.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 07, 2012 - 6:08AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2006
|
Orcs could, or should, have got a goblinoid subrace (by mixture of blood, captured concubines), at least like option.
* For me goblins are small but very crafty and spiteful. Kobolds with dragons allies can create empires but goblins are too wild. goblins are the oucast, the humanoid scavenger from ecosystem. And sometimes they can be less stupy they look. They shouldn´t be understimated because they could give you some unpleasant surprises.
Goblins from some clockpunk settins can be the archienemies or favourit rival or antagonist of tinker gnomes.
* I miss the AD&D bugbear picture. His eyes were enoughly shrewd. Ogres are the official muscle without brain. Bugbear can´t be only stronger but stupier.
* For me the D&D hobgoblins are like klingons from Star Treck, powerful army but with some sense of honor. They want conquer all kingdoms but they can get your sincere respect. They can be the worthiest enemy.
* Trolls are a subrace of giants. The closest one could the fomorian giant.
* Oni or mage ogres could have got goblinoid blood, from "crossbreed" ancestors.
"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)
Book 13 Anaclet 23
Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 07, 2012 - 6:14AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Feb 28, 2012
|
What I don't like is the forced emphasis they placed on Alignment. They did a good job of describing each race's natural tendencies and society traits without having to say they are LE or NE. Goblins are sneaky, devious and cowardly little monsters, Gotcha. Saying they are Neutral Evil because of 'X' and not Chaotic Evil because of 'Y' seems forced and unnecessary to me. As many GM's are likely to use Goblinoids and monsters in general as they see fit, and not always as the Monster Manual intended, it really serves no purpose. Leave Alignment as fluff only, or better yet remove it altogether.
A man (or monster) is defined by his actions, and those actions are what are 'Good' or 'Evil'. How he goes about those actions will determine whether he is 'Lawful' or 'Chaotic', and often may vary from situation to situation.
I think the alignment point is moot. Some DMs will want it and others will view it as unnessercery and ignore it. You proclaim it appears to be an afterthought, I view it as a sore thumb to be a precursor to the eventual moduleization of the game. Play your game as you see fit as it does not affect me.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 07, 2012 - 6:19AM
#7
|
|
|
Alignment is in. Can't do anything about that. I suggest those who don't like it try to ignore it. We're going to continue to see it time and time again throughout the development process and in the final game.
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster ExtraordinaireConcerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 07, 2012 - 6:21AM
#8
|
|
|
Since the books haven't even been finalized yet, much less printed, nothing is 100% 'in'. there's still time to get the designers to come to their senses and flush alignment down the toilet.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 07, 2012 - 6:23AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Overall I like it.
But....
Goblins have way too many negatives. Low Strength, Constitution, Wisdom, AND Charisma? How can I make a credible threat out of that? Trying to make kobolds look good? Goblins need something to explain why Survival of the Fittest has not killed them all. And high birth numbers wont cut it. That is the Kobolds stitck of being pathetic, dextrous, and numerous.
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 07, 2012 - 6:23AM
#10
|
|
|
Since the books haven't even been finalized yet, much less printed, nothing is 100% 'in'. there's still time to get the designers to come to their senses and flush alignment down the toilet.
Actually it has been stated that the nine alignments are in. No discussion. I'm surprised you missed the uproar around this when Mike made the statement.
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster ExtraordinaireConcerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
