Caladors's page

So make a better build don't try and tear down anyone elses.

I am the DM.

Because in fourth ed they gave the magical item shoping list to players in the players handbook rather than being a DMs option.

Caladors wrote:

If you want to chose the best spells for your level ecta. they would be.

But I don't see them being the same I can see a dwarven arch mage standing in one spot unlessing a hail of arcane fire power in contrast I see the elven mage dancing about using a combination of spells that melee, missle, hinder opponent and improve allies.
One is staunch and stout the other lithe and graceful.

But as things stand thats not how they are if your a high level dwarf wizard there is no reason for you to choose different spells.

Of course not. This is D&D, not diablo, where every necromancer must be male and every sorcerer female. And neither should the races keep telling you how to play your character.

I sometimes like to play characters against the grain. I like it when others do it. But with classes that grant abilities every level, people are discouraged from doing that: "I would have liked to play a brawny halfling rogue, but why should I when I miss out on so many things because they assumed that I would play my halfling rogue agile and sneaky?"

I said 'not to aruge', an attack is more vicious as general rule.

because DMs will allow you to min/max your stats it doesn't mean he hands over the magic item compendium as your magic super store wallmart.

If it was all that you would be playing fourth ed.

Snipping is a bad thing to do moyer you imply things that I did not.

Caladors wrote:

8th Monk/ 2sd Bard

Lunging Strike (PHB) +5ft to melee attack range ...{snip}... Sai which has reach 10ft and he can use flurry with
...
Your role is to keep multiable enemies occupied with a chain tripper style strategy and you use the spell grease combined with distracting performance

Nope, the "Lunging Strike" Feat doesn't work with "Flurry of Blows", assuming that's what you meant; Both are "Full Round Actions".

I said use a sai as it can be used with flurry of blows nothing otherwise, you are suggesting I base my build on this on feat which is not the case.

Grease(as cast by this build) - DC14 Reflex, 30 Ft. range, 2 Rounds. ((You might get mooks/minions with that. Spell Focus & Greater Spell Focus might help, but thats still only DC16.*shrug*))

Monk restricts you to no Armor... Might consider carrying Wands of Cat's Grace, Mage Armor & Shield.

When giving a build I do not give magical item advice as people can not pick and chose there items as freely as some others may.

"I believe there is a "Reaching" weapon property in the Miniature's HB that you could put on non-reach weapons, but I don't have the book here to check, that might've been a "E.N. Arsenal" PDF.

Feats to consider...
-Fiery Fist (PHB2 pg.79)
-Ki Blast (PHB2 pg. 80)
If I were to...

Same as again with the whole magic items case.

Plus the whole ki blast thing uses ki points when you can get range from being a bard.
Also Grease is not the sole part of the build i said you use bardic music and distracting performance with improved ability focus so that they have a minus four to there skill rolls.

Please don't imply things I didn't say it makes annoyed when I have to comment.

Not to argue for the sake of arguing but last time I brought up racial feats in a much different thread Chaos, you went into a rant about it (pathfinder) is not diablo2...

Why the heck is everyone so darn hostile?
Everyone is conceding the point that humans are better and it seems that people are getting angry over details frankly it seems... small.

Anywho my bit on all of this is that why restrict humans.
People who want to play there like sorry some other people broke this guys before so the answer is no.
Humans are the everyman but there focused they don't have time that other races have.
So like I said before rather than restricting humans just give other races unique feat trees or abilities that make them more appealing.

I know some people may look at that and go ohhh no's fourth!
But forth did get something’s right and anyone who doesn't want to say that is just silly.

I can't remember in which dragon but they were the first to do ninja also they were the first to address the fact that it was limited to a Air/wind ninja.
And in another they have rules for earth fire and water though I never really got that i mean the chinese believe in five elements and air is missing from there chart.
They have Water, Metal, Earth, Wood and Fire.

Anyway enough of random tangent.

I think more base classes would be great.
You can make a fighter rogue and call it a swashbuckler all you want but it doesn't mean it feels right.
You can do any combination of base classes to make them feel like it.
But I love some of the class that are not cover in this new pathfinder.
I would love to see the pathfinder knight, swashbuckler and scout.
I'll admit that there is alot that make me want to hurl my guts out like the hexblade and Shugenja.
But i would love to see some new things like a revamped shaman from 2ed where they get powers from spirts not unlike the binder but less scary more nature/anciestor orinated.

Plus with pazio on the job there will be less hit and miss cases more soild classes that is if they decide to do.
Imagine a marshal class that doesn't suck...

I can dream right.

His right it is just easier to play a human.
My friend 'address provided but withheld' whom is the best min/maxer I know said there has to be a damn good reason your not a human before you start your character.
The bonus to two stats for pathfinder is a bonus but humans are still better they get it to whatever they want.

That's why when talking about the races I was suggesting feat trees exclusive to races.
Which is what I have done in my campaign.

But the thing is with favoured classes they can be decent it just that the human will always end out on top.
He has an extra feat, that's huge when making build.

8th Monk/ 2sd Bard

Stats

Strength 12
Dexterity 18 (+2 via level)
Constitution 10
Intelligence 13
Wisdom 14
Charisma 16 (+2 via human)

Feats
Ability Focus (MM) Bardic Music
Battle Dancer (PHB2) may use bardic music with other actions
Improved Trip (Bonus feat from Monk)
Combat Reflexes (Bonus Feat Monk)
Lunging Strike (PHB) +5ft to melee attack range
Iron Skin Chant (CtA) DR5/- with bardic music
Agile Maneuvers
Hold the line (CtW) stops charging enemy with AoO

Spells Grease!

everything else is basically unimportant all he needs his a Sai
which has reach 10ft and he can use flurry with.
Your role is to keep multiable enemies occupied with a chain tripper style strategy and you use the spell grease combined with distracting performance (Dance preferability as marshal arts at it's top levels is basically dancing) so that they have minus four to there rolls on getting up
Pretty simple.

If I had some time I'm sure one of my player could break it worse than me.

(I am not sure but i think that is all the correct abberations for the books)

levels of bard needed?

I am really on the character optimizationist side.
I know this is really random but has anyone ever read history's strongest disciple kenchi?

Long story short the main character starts out as a regular person becomes a marshal artist.
But when you look at the masters comments, though it is a fiction you can see reality in what they say.
Like I remember them saying 'ahhh look at all of that wasted movement'
characters start out wildly inexperienced and then slowly but surely they turn into efficient killers.

If a person has a weakness, they have two options ignore it or address it.
Characters who feel weak in certain areas may work to fix them, even multi classing such as a Paladin taking one level in rogue.
Some people would say they would never do that.
Ohhhhh Really?
Ever heard of under cover?
Or statements in fantasy archetype characters, paragons of good saying something like 'To beat my enemy I must become like them.'

Suddenly you have a Paladin wise to rogues and there traps and able to 'sneak' some extra damage in some of the times.

Characters start out naive they don't stay that way.
Multi-classing is just away that characters are able to express this in stats.

A pre constructed foes group also sounds very appeling to me.
Something where you have mooks, elites, mid boss(es), captain and boss for each foe section would be great.
Something where when on a random tangent my players say well were going to do this i can go.
I have the stat blocks for those...

It doesn't matter if you can design something well the most broken charater in all of history is a kobold.
kobolds have had a speical place in my heart.
first adventure, level one charaters not being one hit by enemy with CR three kobold fighter from the mini stat cards.

Ask a player who does not know of this broken combo a group that doesn't and say to them ok now one of you has to be the kobold.
Player will run and scream in fear, wail and lement.

Warrior are not about spellcasting how many times have I had to say this a paladins aren't going why can't I be a spellcaster.
Paladins get there spells to be better at combat that is it.
That was the intention that paladins where ment to give divine insight so they could see past evils and help them smite the wicked.
But since when has warriors being about paladins?!
Sure both rangers and paladins have spells but has that ever been there main focus?
No not even close!
Ranger are to fall into two groups there wild dervishs whirling hurrcaines of death or silent arrow for justice, robin hood style.
Paladins are holy men (or women) who uphold law and goodness and are never comprimised in anyway they won't let themselves be.
How does that mean that spells should be a part of it...

If there is a new book on warriors i don't want spells or to turn my kringer into battle-cat.
I want rangers to be shown new an interesting ways that there tracking can help.
Rangers should put on a pair of fully rounded sunglasses with red tin and a bonno song screaming in the background when they see a dead body and CSI: D&D popping up in the background.
Not I cast a spell to find out....
NO your the g!$ d$*n greatest gift to investive work before sheirlock.
I want paladins to the house of moral delmas always coming out on top.

But before any of that I want warriors to be wanted.
And not because of there spell list.
I want warriors to be screaming death bots which make mince meat of people.
And I don't want people have to follow a strict feat tree to make that happen.
Wizards don't have to follow a strict feet tree, they say ok I'll take one sudden silence it sucked last adventure when I had to use that magic item to blah blah blah.

I want my player to be screaming 'NO you had the warrior last campaign and i was stuck with the lousy spell slinger all campaign all i got to was clear rooms you may as well have ignored me when it came to boss fights.'

and to your last point mr chaos
That sounds like you have three players so it sounds more like the people got to pick and choose there roles and no one was left with the bill.
Well I am a killer DM and anyone who plays in my campagins knows go in with a missing piece and you may miss member after people still need a warrior.
But even with the risk of losing multiable charaters in an adventure.
People still have considered no going in with on x2 skill monkeys a healer, a spell slinger and a spellslinger/skill monkey i hadn't seen the class before anywho.
One charater surived that adventure and still people didn't want a warrior something give and recive damage.

You can say what you want about X and Y build unless player have the desire to play them no one will.
They need a boost.
And they need not to be spellcasters.

is this from a book somewhere which i can purchase or is this just a subscription?

I think level adjustment is absurd.
But I am not sure about the whole template thing, because if it is a template I would like to see at least three different variants for both Aasimar and Tieflings if it was to be templated.

But i think having a single one shot for the basic different races isn't as bad as it sounds other than three of them being shorter races there still mammalian in nature, giving to live birth, mothers breast feed and bi-pedal
Also the demonic or angelic nature added to the mix has some obviously more dominate genes in the mix I am no genealogist but according to the flavor of how they have been spun out it seems that is the defining factor in that characters make up.
It seems like it has control over multiable thing so I have never sold Tieflings (those are generally what people have wanted to play) as a Half race.
I have always sold them as there own race because half demons or devils are a different breed all together.
So after a few course of going through thing of the demonic blood (as i said generally people have wanted to play the tiefling) their traits are still dominant so I think making a template is silly because one the time involved and two, there no a Half breed.
They have spent several generations trying to thin the blood.

even if this has been traveling through dwarven ancestry it seems that demonic blood would come out on top on a number of things.
Without going through a full break down a tiefling.
I can see the only difference from the average tiefling the strong amount of body and facial hair, because that cross with several demonic factors.

When you think about it this way Tieflings and Aasimar make perfect sense as a single race.

Druid? aka the most broken class 3.5... ahhh good times good times.

Anyway away from sorting your record collections and back to the topic... unless the topic was that 4E sorts music by.... NO, no enough of that.

So I do see some other peoples point about powers being spells i hated tome of battle book of nine swords for that reason.
They said how do we fix fighters? I know we make them spell casters.

I would really like to see a complete warriors don't suck.

and for those you who go but some warriors can cast spells, the first spell in the complete warrior is for wizards the very first!
So yes spells in a warrior book does suck.
I would like to see feat trees, alternaive use for full round attack bonus (meaning people for people with more than one attack)

Something that just when a new campaign starts and people are spliting the four base rolls of spell slinger, skill monkey, healer and tank
rather than one person being 'stuck' with the warrior and making the best build of it they can.
I want three people saying no I want to be the warrior I'm going to make a 'fill in the blank' no I am going to make 'blanked in the phil?'

People want to enjoy there charaters and atm no one wants the warrior because i go beyond 7th level.

To be fair a Demon is a unique baddy it's not as if everyone has that ability and this is designed to use against spell casters first and for most.
Ofcorse theres going to be situations where it is less than ideal.
Thats why it give the charater the option to do this not the charater must do this.
Against demons the average fighter would say ok let him have his five foot i will just five foot in next turn he doesn't get to attack me.
Your looking at it to much as what it can't do you for than what it can.

Had to edit cause i couldn't read other peoples comments at the same time.
I can think of plenty of uses for this.
Chain fighters the machine gun trip people try and five foot out so that you no long have control of the situation build says no.
Low level baddys I have my arrows and go pew pew, five foot step and, your still right next to us....
I have yet to bring this to the table and set five creative minds to the task, you want something broken give it to some players.

As one of my players says D&D combat is all about where you are on the field.

By far the best feat there and most elgant also.
Step up.
So many a warrior has come undone by the humble five foot step.
Love it.

Like Masika, I am an ozzie so I need things shipped down here and the exchange rate kills me but I have all the completes minus scoundrel.
So I like to get my hands on book but I am not a big fan of modules and that sort.
Anywho to the point.

I need.
Not want but need a complete warriors do not suck.
I have the tome of battle, book of nine swords but i hate it.
Because rather than making warriors (I am just using this to refer to the full base attack bonus classes)
into the ass kicking machines, it was suggesting you know how we fix warriors SPELLS!
Yes that exactly why we need warriors (sorry i know that sarcasm doesn't translate well into text but still)
I need something to make my players say NO I WANT TO PLAY THE WARRIOR!
The only thing that ever got them really existed was the frenzied berserk class with buffs from spells.
I mean he got to +30 strength but i never made verse grease (ie auto fail for build).

Anyway long story short make warriors cool.
I want some balance in my group, the skill monkey generally says ok some of the time I am fantastic but I gets to do all sneaky cool stuff.
Spell slinger says WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooo................
have you ever played a mage?
Healer says well I guess I heal.... except for my buff, DID I MENTIONED MY BUFF DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW REDONK MY BUFFS ARE! erhm... I mean I heal people...
and the warrior says
My arrows go pew pew which mean i actually get to use full round attacks for once! just i don't deal that much damage and if anything has damage reduction i lose.
or
I sure hope someone stands still next to me or with in five feet or I get one attack, that's right one.
at +15 bonus.... one....

I know Jason the lead designer in some post said that he was toying with somethings (note the S at the end of the things).
But until I have seen something fighters are still the best class at level 1-3 and then the worst class from then on.
Basically I want to be thinking this as a DM ok how the hell to I keep the fighter away from this Villain.

So long story short.

I would like to see a fighter book. (that doesn't make fighter spell casters)
Some redone second ed campaign setting, dark sun or planescape (ok i know this is not happening)
A Pathfinder Players handbook two for Pathfinder.

(this is most properly going to be another random tangent)
Player handbook two of all of the no core books has to be my favorite, it sells the cool of d&d it really gives new players or some old ones who are have been trying out the bizarre just back to the basic grounding of the game.
It sells every class, gave fantastic new feats, improved combat expertise fantastic, bounding assault phenomenal, and shield ward so inventive.
This made fighters a deadly force.
That's what I want from a book fluff that makes you sit up, and abilities that makes you reach for it when you level up.

end of random tangent
anyway long story short

Complete warriors don't suck.
Pathfinder players handbook two Pazio view on 3.5 classes and quick upgrades (ie not so much that they have to playtest every single class again now that would be painstaking
And some sort of setting book even if it has to become generic and it's not planescape or other it's just steam punk or modern all that jazz that's what i would want.

But I am sorry I will lump you and leave you I am one purchase guy I will by your books and move on sorry.

I do agree that having spells in a fighter book is pretty lame.
Even if there just called powers instead of spells it gives people a completely different feel to the class.
Look at how pathfinder changed that whole mage with crossbows thing.
The made it so they can use cantrips infinitely I mean the difference is that it is a touch attack so mages will hit more easily but with less damage but the whole thing the feel is completely different they feel like mages.
Instead of resorting to crude ranged weapons, in the eyes of the average wizard little more than sharpened sticks.

Naming it powers does give a completely different feel to Warriors (not the NPC class).
But I do agree Warriors epically fighters got the short end of the stick even in pathfinder they are still just men with raging muscles in an automatic weapon world they are out classed. (excuse the pun)
Pathfinder may yet make a complete tank or complete rage or whatever depending on how much the book sells.

P.S. for the guy who said it's better to have it all in one book.
Have you ever lifted that book in need two binders for it but soon one book woot.

I agree with the person who was suggesting that you keep it simple.
I am not sure about dex instead of intelligence I mean it already needs intelligence requiring two stats means that you're not going to be strength based.

Anywho i think the old version was not that bad.
I do use a lot of books beyond PHB, but just the complete for base classes and PHB2.
Just something like this is fine like the old versions.

By subtracting from your attack to a maximum of your base attack bonus(max 5.) you gain that much defense

and you just have that feat from PHB2 also that allows you get improved combat expertise where you take the cap of max five from it.
but i do think the int 13 is fine.
Dex may make you move faster but it doesn't mean you think faster most of the marshal artists i know are reasonably intelligent they're not going to cure cancer but they're not a box of rocks as someone said.

I think the power attack series is plenty to represent the 'dumb' fighters people who just use brute force to overwhelm there opponent

Hey all I was wondering how do you make a good marshal without taking levels in bard or another class.
I usually pride myself on the fact I can make fairly lethal NPCs where the PCs have to change tactics from spend your spells and special abilities (or they just use all of them....)
Anyway long story short I am wondering about how to make a good marshal beyond redonk stats ect.
As per the theme I was thinking reach weapons, and maybe the feat which allows you to make an opponent stop moving after an attack of opportunity and the goad feat.
It seams like something a party leader would do.

I have been using a similar system which all of my play characters are happy with.

What I am doing is, same DCs ect but
Abjuration spells may counter any school.
You must use the same or higher spell level of the same school* to counter a spell.
But with the checks if you pass you don't get all the information.
Pass by less than 5 the level of spell, pass by more the school and spell, Pass by ten and you know the acuall spell.
This makes combat much more relevant for non casters.
Once you get to a certain level it becomes all about the spell slinger and healer.
But if the caster(s) are having a big magical pants off dance off then the expert and warrior are more likely to enjoy themselves rather than go oh joy yet another room cleared by the caster.

And i think as far as flavor goes it all fits.
One Abjuration has bad go at things I mean there best first level spell is an Conjuring spell (mage armour) and second level is Illusion (mirror image).
Sure we know there not Abjuration spells but the school is meant to be the defensive school and as it stands it's not fantastic.
I can't see why anyone would specialize in it.

Second if see a picture two parties fighting as per the classic image
I see two wizards one in blue the other red, two beams of energy flying at each other.
A black robed cleric in skull motif and the other in a white sun motif with darkness sent for to at one and light protecting the other.
and two fighter face to face as there swords clash.
Now why can't we actually do that in a game of D&D i mean we chose Pathfinder for the classic image of romantic fantasy.
Rather quick keyed fireballs.

as for the meta magic thing i make it raise the level of the spell needed to counter because that spell would be raised for the caster.

In my opinion anything that does not allow an attack of opportunity should be uncounterable

Well these new rules look really interesting and are much more akin to what countering should like.

But if you guys want it to be popular and pontially in the book, streamline and simple.
And if you were wanting abjurationist to be better at give them a speical feat for it or something.

Just clean and simple is how people like, you don't want another grapple.

I am a DM and my biggest problem with Paladins has nothing to do with the class itself it's the kind of people it attracts.
When people go off and decide there roles in a group at the very start of the campagin they choose there whatever and there is clashing but only to a degree enough to make interesting role playing moments where they play off one another.
Last campagin I had a mix of alignments and it created some great role playing situations where there they clashed and clashed alot.
Not going to go into detail it would take to long but.
I have had one player from a couple years back now that choose to a Paladin and he seemed to hog the spot light.

It caused a level of distress in the players which was unnessary.
I don't think there is anything wrong with the class as a DM however it's generally (note: generally not always) the kind of player that chooses it that makes it a problem.

It was my player looking for it so I didn't know they had updated it.
It seems interesting it.

What about poisons needs updating?

Are you saying they need to be harder to use?

Need better damage?

Need better save DCs?

what?

As they stand they still work in Pathfinder so "updating" may not be the word you are looking for, "fixed" might apply, "downgraded" might too.

As they are there pretty irrelvent or overpowered.

will poison be updated as well as everything else?
and does anyone else think it needs updating.
Short and sweet.

I think, just an idea, that paladins should be the anti druids, ie never nuteral.
I mean they are fantics by nature and is devotion to a cause strickly limited to one ideal?
taking a look at the world today, I would say no.
I think blackguard is a good idea but why do they always have to fall?
I mean surely the bad guys look at that and go hey thats not a bad idea why don't we train people like that?
I see no reason for paladins to be purely lawful good.

Future man your right for something to be able to breed together it has to be the same species.
But in this sense it is try to show the muteabiility of humans.
Humans will surive anywhere with anyone.
I think that is the orginal conscept.

But did anyone get my link?
I have no idea how to get a picture here I don't think it is possiable but take a look at the link and post eleven it sums everything up.
Well for my arguement.

Anywho take a look at it all of these views have aready been presented and as far as i see it comes down to a stale mate.

As far as I can see there is no reason to introduce the concept of rape in the CORE book.
The people who know it know it and as for the people who don't I can not see D&D being used as a tool of sexual introduction for youngesters.

And the reason I have my opinion.
I deal with children alot, and no I am not talking adults that act like though I do that as well.
Anywho the reason I have my opinion is because there are people out there like that young girl (I am sorry I can't see your user name when righting this reply)whom say a sexual assualt
There is no reason for them to know this or even have to think about it.
This is the disscussion for the Core Alpha release.
Now if you say that it is alright for rape to be implied in the core book I think were taking a jump backwards in maturity.

Have all of your nitty gritty, just don't have it in core.
thats my opinion.

Tragicly I am a bit of a fence sitter on this.
Yes lets not skirt around it but we do want this game to be able to be played young people whoms parents may be conserned about such things.

but this has already been done else where my thoughts I agree with post eleven
No Rape, Legitimate Half-Orcs

Skyscraper my retort to your comments

I love the Idea of having racial traits it makes people more of a charater and it give people a more viseral sense of what there charater is.

Here is what I am doing in my campagin however I don't know if it is balance or even playable but hey thats up to you right?
I give every Core Race a racial ability as well as one for there sub race.
Here is an example for elf

Anywho this is what I am doing when it comes time for the ability bonus charater in my campagin my instead elect to choose a racial feat.
This way standered feats can be spend on the progression of the class as is standered but you still get a feel for your race.

But this is the steal my hook part.
I am doing it so that there is is six different paths that don't class to go down.
First feats that progress the core race abilities, second that progress sub race abilities and third through to sixith is the different takes a race and/or as subrace would have on the four different themes of charaters (Ie Warrior, Arcane, Divine and Adventure or Tank, Spellsliger, Skill monkey and Healer)
For example An Elven Warrior is more likely to be lithe and graceful, they make there hits matter where as a Dwarven Warrior is more likely to be waging a war of artition with the opponent which they are desetend to win.
This way it presents a way that races and classes mix regardless of if there the favoured one or not.
But anywho that is my thoughts.

P.S. Yeah charaisma is a bit of a dump stat for alot of players.
But I don't think force of personaility is all there is to charisma.
Take a look at some models they have the personaility of a stick but still thats charaisma having the ability to command the room regardless of weather is through personaility or not.

The problem with feats as they stand is this everysingle racial feat system has relied on the fact that you must take lots of raical feats for it to be any good as it says "for each 'fey' feat you have X"
A new system maybe great and I would love to see on work I do not know how they would intend to implment such a system but the problem with the past ones is that you have been an Elf that can cast spells not an Elven Spellcaster.
To be more preise in what I am saying they made you choose your race over your class and you shouldn't have to do that.

In addition this does not show the difference between how one race would go with a certain class.
Sure have brawling halflings but is a brawling halfling going to try and fight like a half orc?
Not on your life.

And why must mechaincs and flavour be seperate.
Sure you may like role playing and doing things that way, however i am running two new groups and one of the best ways of them understanding something is it to have something relvent rules wise.
Wizards are of poor health why because they have d4 hit dice (in standered 3.5 mind you they haven't switched yet)
That maybe obious but there are other things like that the cleric is melee charater as well as a spell caster why he has high hit points and can wear armour.

Hold up there is mechanical effects and flavour at the same time!
Sorry I just find the idea that one can only find flavour in the role playing absered.

How I plan to implement it in my game is there is going to be six different paths by giving them effectively free feats as a swap for the ability bonus (but hey I already said this but hey remember some people don't approve of racial feats until someone else has said something about it)
One the Core race path feats
One for sub races
And one for each of the four charater paths ie one path for arcane users, one for divine users, one for combat charater and one for skill intensive charater.

That way there are halfing brawlers but they do it the halfing way, they knee cap there opponents they don't wildly swing and axe and hope it connects.

To Kae Yoss

No harm done just give ya a bit of a ribbing.

I think the idea is that it gets a cover all skills so that some skills are accually better or more used.
Sure you open locks in dungons all the time but when it comes to an RP encounter they say well ok thief we know he has it just come up and slight of hand it when you meet him and their responce is.
One I am a rouge not a thief two, i didn't sink any points in to slight of hand.

ELVEN GRACE

Your fluid movement and keen senses often get you out of harms way.
Prereq: Elf
Benefit: Once per day when you have been hit you may reduce the amount of damage you take from one hit by one half.

Didn't happen to get that from somewhere aye?

KaeYoss my retort to you is that flavour is a great thing thats why they should have racial abilities.

Wile looking at the race chart they have all of these bonus which give them a great over all view but when it comes down to it, it's just some bonus to abilities and skills and thats not very flavourfull.

So your telling me that a Dwarven Arch Mage and Elven Arch Mage Should be the same?

If you want to chose the best spells for your level ecta. they would be.
But I don't see them being the same I can see a dwarven arch mage standing in one spot unlessing a hail of arcane fire power in contrast I see the elven mage dancing about using a combination of spells that melee, missle, hinder opponent and improve allies.
One is staunch and stout the other lithe and graceful.

But as things stand thats not how they are if your a high level dwarf wizard there is no reason for you to choose different spells.

Where is the flavour in that mechaincily they have one ability bonus as a difference.

Flame wars is not the intention of this post so anyone whom has issue with fourth ed take it else where if your commentary is flame like I will ignore it.

Something I liked from fourth ed. some other people I believe also enjoyed this was the racial powers from fourth, where your charater had an ability that only your race could do.
As things stand the difference between a first level elven wizard and first level dwarven wizard is chalk and cheese however the difference between tenth level elven wizard and tenth level dwarven wizard well all of those raical bonus seems to be wash away under a torrent of other modifiers.
This is also true of other race/class comparisions.

The powers from fourth were fun and viseral, you could see tieflings were people who didn't take abuse and made people pay, dwarves liked there personal space and it was simply more enjoyable than a mere ability modifer and some skill bonus.

I know this is merely a home brew idea but I thought I would throw it out there as this is alpha test and some people may also like the idea ofcorse I am not a professional game designer but there maybe people who read this that have a better way to implement the same idea.
So I simply added a once per day ability to each race and there sub races (ok so you may not use sub races I do).
Also giving racial feats at each fourth level (in place of stat bonus if they wished) to upgrade or get futher racial abilites
It was intutive things such as Grace for elves

It is my belief that I am not in alone in this opinion.

I have give it quite a bit of thought I am going to be converting to pathfinder (obv.) but my party (I am the DM) has just reached third level last week.
Now here is the thing, we used to have a joke "why is the wizard here, rule for first level wizards: Stay home and lock the door"

So this is it my DM who is not currently at my town at the moment we have had long discussions about what level to start at and he refuses to have level one parties they must be at least and it takes quite a bit for him to get to this level two he prefers level four.
Why hit points.

So I think having your +1 to favoured class from race and maxed hit dice plus constution is the way to go.

He is my reasoning, you have fiense fighters like swashbulckers, or two handed builds and you have strength fighters (generally barbarins but still) but you don't have endurance fighters.
And it's not as if as icon they don't exist.
It makes a whole new way to run a melee fighter (doesn't accually have to be fighter but still)

Also you can have wizards whom don't have to assign one of there higher stats to constution.
lets admit it, 17 hit points for a wizard is amazing compared to what it is now (10 con, 6 wiz 1 favoured)

As a DM these alows me to have a first level party go against accual challange rating one creatures, well you could at the moment just so long as you sent them one at a time with 3 rounds before the next one
(ok I exgerate but still)

I just think that is the best option but its only my way of thinking