David Fryer's page

This is my first attempt at using Pathfinder to make a character. I would sincerely like everyone input.

Lyda
Female Tiefling Sorcerer 4
N Medium Outsider (Native)
Initiative: +3
Defense
AC 13, Touch 13, Flat-footed 10
(+3 Dex)
hp 20 (4d6+4
Fort +2 (+4 vs. poison), Ref +4, Will+6
Fire Resistance 5
Offense
Spd 30 ft
Melee mwk shortspear +4 (1d6+2)
Ranged mwk shortspear +6 (1d6+1)
Ranged mwk light crossbow +6 (1d8+1/19-20)
Special Attacks Corrupting Touch
Spells Known
2nd-Melf’s Acid Arrow (3 per day)
1st-Protection from Good, Magic Missile, Shocking Grasp, Summon Monster I (6 per day)
0-Acid Splash, Dancing Lights, Detect Magic, Light, Ray of Frost, Read Magic
Spell-like Abilities Darkness 1/day
Statistics
Str 13, Dex 16, Con 13, Int 11, Wis 15, Cha 14
Base Atk +2, CmB +3
Feats Dodge, Eschew Materials, Spell Penetration
Skills Knowledge (Arcana) +7, Spellcraft +7
Languages Common, Infernal
SQ Darkvision 60 ft
Combat Gear Two potion of mage armor
Other Gear mwk light crossbow w/20 bolts, mwk shortspear, gear and coins worth 150 gp

Pneumonica wrote:

By and large I agree, but there might be some oddities. A liger, for instance, is larger than both its parent species, so if you were to merely create a "half-lion" and a "half-tiger" template and merge them, you'd come up with something other than an liger. To me, the half-elf is one of them, or at least was when they still got diplomacy bonuses.

Its my favorite animal...

Actually, some gene in lions and tigers that controls growth maximum is in one sex in the lion and the other sex in the tiger, so if you breed the opposite sexes from that, yes you get a liger with no growth stopping hormonal control. If you breed the other pair of sexes, however, it's not the gargantuan 12' long dire liger thing.

No you get a Tigon, which is the offspring of a male tiger and female lion.

I discussed the issue at length here, but basically I think that the paladin has to stay Lawful Good.

Because a paladin has a code of behaviour and adhering to that code makes them lawful.

Holy warriors of other alignments are fine, but they aren't paladins because a CG character, for instance, would never define themselves by a code of behaviour. And this can apply to even seemingly chaotic characters.

I think the example I gave in the linked thread is Robin Hood. Easy to say, oh, CG, for sure. But actually I think LG is more accurate. He doesn't abide by the law of the land, but he does abide by a very stringent code of moral behaviour.

I like the alignment restriction because it helps define the paladin, and its never made me feel I couldn't play a holy warrior of another alignment. Just...not a paladin.

But the definition of someone who is Chaotic Good is someone who follows their own code of honor over the laws of the land. I quote from the SRD: "A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society."

Therefore Robin Hood is by definition a CG character because he abides by HIS stringent code of moral behaviour, rather than society's. Maybe instead of opening paladin up to all alignments it should be open to all lawful or good alignments. This would still fit into the "code of honor" qualification that you are putting on paladins while still allowing a little more flexibility with the class.

David Fryer wrote:

I would like to see an option for evil paladins though. Every god should have access to their own holy warriors, and Hellknights should be built as paladins. There is no way that you would have an order of devil worshiping LG paladins.

Yeah, because the fastest way to do it with current rules would be to let the Hellknight candidate gain one level of Paladin, and immediately "Fall" into the Blackguard Prestige Class...

But to qualify for the Blackguard prestige class you need to be at least 7th level 6 levels in paladin to meet the prereqs and then one to get into the blackguard class. This makes it difficult for a group of first level characters to have an encounter with a hellknight or two.

lonewolf23k wrote:

Just something I've been wondering.. Would it possible to include an alternate "Blackguard" build for Paladins, instead of making Blackguard a prestige class?

Um, I don't know... I like how Prestige Classes work, and I wouldn't want to see Assassins, for example, as an alternate "build" for the rogue or Kensai, for the fighter. It would complicate things too much and most likely end up messing up the core mechanics in PF.

I would like to see an option for evil paladins though. Every god should have access to their own holy warriors, and Hellknights should be built as paladins. There is no way that you would have an order of devil worshiping LG paladins.

I generally like the necromancy school's power to command undead but I do think that there is one minor change that I would like to see made. The rules as written say that a character can command 8 HD of undead per caster level. As it is right now, it means that PCs might be expecting to go up against a 1st level necromancer only to find that he has brought a funky undead Egyptian (mummy) to the fight. So I would suggest that there be a cap on the type of undead that can be commanded. I would say that each commanded undead cannot have more HD than the character's caster level. A 1st level wizard with eight kolbold skeletons is a lot less dangerous to other 1st level characters then one with a single 8HD mummy as his minion.

Considering that gnomes in PFRPG are supposed to be more liked to fey and the natural world, would it not make more sense to give them sorcerer and druid as their preferred class? Halflings already have bard as a preferred class and there are currently no classes that have druid as a preferred class. Also, the iconic druid is a gnome and it would make sense that she would represent an aspect of gnomish culture. I know that this is not true with all the iconics, I would never suggest that dwarves get ranger as preferred class. However, have gnomes be tree huggers because of their ties to the fey makes sense to me.

Goblins Eighty-Five wrote:

I think with so many giants it makes sense, except for the actual conception. I mean yuck and/or ouch!

The Half-Giant flavortext (and the original 2nd ed version) talks about the fact that they didn't actually "breed" together - they are a psionically-induced hybrid, I imagine made through judicious use of polymorphing the same way that half-dragons are produced.

And then like a half-elf or half-orc they become their own race which breeds true. Since the mul (half-dwarf) is the only halfblood that is explicitly stated to be sterile, one can only infer that the others are able to breed amongst each other. In fact WotC has stated that if a half-elf breeds with an elf the offspring is treated as an elf in terms of game statistics and as human if a human was the other partner. Not to mention the half-giant/ogre mage hybrid race in Eberron.

Personally I have always thought of the division between cleric and druid as more to do with what they worship rather than how civilized they are. A Druid might be like a modern enviromentalist who is perfectly content with civilization but is also concerned with nature. Meanwhile a cleric of Gozreh or Lamashtu could be just as savage as any barbarian. I would let a half-orc choose if they wanted cleric or druid but the choice is made once they take a level in one class or another. For the character that never takes a level in either the argument is academic anyway.

I'm making one last push to have one new race added to the PFRPG. I have been reading over the adoption of giants in the Realm of the Mammoth Lords and I realized that this would give a perfect justification for including half-giants as a core race. If you removed their psi-like ability and their natural psionics and changed their favored class to barbarian they would fit in perfectly with the other core races in PFRPG without a level adjustment. Just thought I would throw it out there and see if anyone else agrees or disagrees with me.

When did worgs grow a nut-sack on the end of their tails?

Maybe only males have them and it's part of their reproductive system.

As writen, would a player have to declare that he was using this feat everytime they wanted to cast a spell and is that the intention of the feat.

It seems kinda odd, more like a simon says kinda rule. "Oops, you didn't declare AAT, your going to have to pay the full cost of spell failure."

Yes, and several people have had a problem with it. because it requires an action, you have to declare at the start of each round that you are using it. It can be funny some times when people forget to use their feats, like the guy in my party who didn't declare his dodge right away and when he finally did it was against an enemy that ended up dead at the end of the round. However, usually these things are just frustrating.

Stockton California and im also a teacher

What subject?

Reading the messages posted here, I have come to realize that there are a lot of people outside of the US eagerly awaiting Alpha 3. Does anybody know percentages of where people are from that are playing/reading Pathfinder? Just curious what the demographics look like.

I'm from South Dakota, USA.

I'm from Utah, U.S.A.

My college History advisor was named David Frye. One letter off. Also on the opposite side from Washington (CT) and a closet D&D player...

weird.

Well I'm not a closet D&D player, I'm pretty open about it. I am, however, a history teacher. Weird.

Well crap, thats not for another 3 hours then! How will we ever survive?!!?!?!!

I know lets each say what we are most looking forward out of Alpha 3. For me its the new Bard, I've always loved the feel of a bard.

The ranger. I have found that I usually play a ranger best and like the feel of the class. Since I have generally like the way that Pathfinder has reworked the classes so I'm waiting to see how they have changed my favorite class.

Jason said about noon today washington time on the chat last night

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That means that I have to wait another 2 hours and 45 minutes. Curse you Jason and the Pathfinder staff!

Some of the members of my gaming group have posted all over the place some adds for starting up a 4e campaign just to try it out and no one has bitten at all. When they did the same thing for Savage Tide there were so many inquiries that people had to be turned away due to space and time limitations. For as much hubbub as there is around 4e, no one really seems that eager to play it. Not even on ENworld, which is arguably the most pro-4e community online (aside from WotC, but they don't count).

I must admit that I am in love with the artwork for fourth edition. That's about the only thing that I like about it so far. However, I like the Pathfinder artwork better. When is Alpha 3 coming out?

The closer it gets to GenCon, the more and more convinced that the line at the Paizo booth is going to be tons longer than the one for 4th Ed. I mean we are seriously geeking out over this and I haven't seen one person nearly as excited about 4th Ed.

I concur. When my group first began to see the first tantalizing peeks of 4th edition our response was to start buying as many 2nd edition PDFs as we could from Paizo. We figured if we were going to have to munchkinize everything we might as well use a system we know.

And thus commences my refresh button endurance test.

Fortunately I have classes to teach, so I will only be checking during passing periods.

And what is the benefit of these revisions? More realism? Or is it just to benefit non-OGL classes at the expense of the Pathfinder core classes?

Don't get me wrong. I like Duskblades. I just don't see the point in nerfing my wizard to make things easier for a class that is already pretty badass.

Actually my goal to try and put wizards and sorcerers on par with duskblades and beguilers. As I stated earlier, as written I feel that the Arcane Armor feats puts the core arcane casters behind the eight ball compared to the other mentioned classes. The idea behind my suggestion was to give core arcane spellcasters on the same level power wise as a duckblade or beguiler. I want to boost the wizard and sorcerer, not the duskblade and beguiler.

I thought about the Armoured Mage idea as well from the Beguiler, etc. However, those classes have restricted spell lists and I wanted a universal feat for wizards and sorcerers. So, I found a variant of sorts (PHBII? Complete Mage?) for fighters where you can ditch heavy and medium armour proficiencies so that you can cast spells in light armour with zero arcane spell failure - and here's the important part - of a spell level no higher than half your fighter level, rounded down. I adapted this into...

Armoured Mage (Light)
You can freely cast some spells while wearing light armour.
Prerequisites: Armour Proficiency (Light), able to cast 1st level arcane spells.
Benefits: You can cast spells while wearing light armour with zero arcane spell failure so long as the spell being cast is of a level no higher than one-half your base attack bonus round down.

There would be similar feats for medium and heavy armour. Maybe for shields, but I don't think it matters that much - you only need one free hand to cast a spell.

Thoughts?

That's a great idea. That also means that spells like the afore mentioned wraithstrike become less of a concern. A wizard or sorcerer wearing armor would have to be somewhere around 5th level, at least, to cast 2nd-level spells, which is where wraithstrike falls. The problem I see is that at low levels it takes away the magical abilities that are the very reason for playing a spellcaster/fighter.

You cannot, at present, trade in a move or standard action to get another swift action in the round. This rule is used as a balancing factor for a number of spells and abilities (particularly stuff out of the Tome of Battle).

Backswing, maybe not without metamagic, but you could certainly use Improved Vital Strike, Cleave, or any other full round action combat feat that you can use with a one-handed...

You're right. I was getting it confused with Star Wars Saga Edition. However, I was under the impression the the point of feats like Arcane Armor Training is to make wizards and sorcerers as attractive as other basic classes like warmage, duskblade and the like. My point is that as written I am still going to play a duskblade or warmage over a wizard or sorcerer, because I get to wear light armor for free and with the expenditure of one feat I get medium armor as well, and I never suffer a penalty at all. Even with Bloodlines and Arcane Schools, the classes with Armored Mage as a class feat are simply too attractive to pass up, especially when you earn enough gold to buy Mithral full plate.

I'm starting to warm up to the idea of Arcane Armor Training and Arcane Armor Mastery being Combat Feats. It prevents a warrior-mage type character from combining some swift action spells (e.g. the infamous wraithstrike) with some of the more potent Combat Feats (Backswing, Two-Weapon Rend, Devastating Blow), if you still want the benefit of wearing armor.

The thing is though, that unless you give them something like the Duskblade's Arcane Channeling ability, they still have to choose between casting a spell OR using a weapon. Spells like wraithstrike which are not OGL are not a factor in core Pathfinder. Also such Combat Feats as Backswing require a full round action to use so even wraithstrike doesn't come into play when using it. Besides you can always trade in your move action for a second swift action and still use Arcane Armor Training and wraithstrike on the same turn as the rules are written now.

I've been looking over the Arcane Armor Training and Arcane Armor Mastery feats.I think that it would make more sense if you add a level that is lower than Arcane Armor Training. It could be some variation of the Armored Mage class feature that the Warmage, Duskblade, and Beguiler class has. It would look something like this
Armored Mage
You have been trained in the arts of magic and warfare. This includes the skills to reduce the chance of miscasting spells while wearing armor.
Prerequisites
Armor Proficiency (Light), Caster Level 1st
Benefits
When wearing light armor and using a light shield the caster suffers no arcane spell failure.

The other thing I would like to see is that the other two feats provide a constant bonus, rather than having to be activated. That seems more in line with similar feats like Agile Maneuvers, Armor Specialization, Combat Casting, or Defensive Combat Training.

David Fryer wrote:

If used correctly, Levitation can be an interesting spell from a tactical standpoint. In the game session I played in today, our party's Warmage use Levitation to lift one of our opponents 20 ft in the air and then all of our ranged combatants hammered him while he was helpless to retaliate. Sometimes it just takes a little creative thinking to find inventive ways to use a spell. Oh and by the way, I have been playing D&D since the late 70's and I had never thought of using Levitation that way either.

OT but - The creature affected by the Levitation spell has to be "willing" per the spell description. Just wanted to point out that someone made a minor mistake :)

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll make sure and let my DM know.

If psionics were redesigned to be equally powerful to arcane & divine magic (including the removal of the point-based system that's so open to abuse), but the flavor was retained... would fans of psionics still want them in the game? I would. But I'm not sure that sentiment would be shared by many fans of psionics.

I would say yes, I would actually prefer psionics be adjusted to operate on the same system as spells. I love playing psionic characters but at the same time I really hate the current power point system. I would actually be more inclined rather than less if magic and psionics operated on the same system.

I like the idea of the Spell like abilities granted at various levels. But why not allow the Wizard to pick the spell? As a level 4 universalist, I get to cast levitation as a spell like ability. This isn't even a spell my character knows. In the six or so years I've been playing D&D (never said I was the most experienced of the posters here)... I can't think of a time I've ever used this spell.

If used correctly, Levitation can be an interesting spell from a tactical standpoint. In the game session I played in today, our party's Warmage use Levitation to lift one of our opponents 20 ft in the air and then all of our ranged combatants hammered him while he was helpless to retaliate. Sometimes it just takes a little creative thinking to find inventive ways to use a spell. Oh and by the way, I have been playing D&D since the late 70's and I had never thought of using Levitation that way either.

One thing that I have never liked about 3.5 is the fact that you have to confirm critical hits. I understand that this most likely will not change because of backward compatability issues, but I would suggest reformimg the system anyway. One house rule that I have been using for a long time now is that critical hits do twice your maximum damage. This way a player is not penalized for a crappy damage roll on a critical hit. Imagine the half-orc barbarian with 18 strength and greataxe who flubs his damage roll and ends up only doing 15 points of damage on his critical hit. Compare that with the 48 damage that they would do if the did max damage. Remeber the excitment you used to feel when you rolled a critical? Its time to bring it back.

I am starting a playtest for PFRPG in Cedar City, Utah. Anyone interested in participating can get a hold of me for more details.

My thoughts:
With Lloth gone and a demon of some sort involved, it seems like the drow would be more bestial. Lloth was often viewed as cold and calculating. Demons are fairly agressive and bloodthirsty. Play that up and go for Chaotic Evil vs. LE/NE.

Pete

Actually I would rather see them go the devil route rather than the demon route. Devil's are sneaky and manipulative, which is the way I have always pictured drow being. However, I'm all in favor of dumping the drow's arachnid fetish once and for all.

Can we expect a player's guide for this arc? I've been using them as the basis for my own campaign. I hope to be able to buy the adventure arcs as soon as I get some more money coming in.

Dear God, please no anthropophormic animals. I hate having furry crap in games I play, and if it's in the core manual, somebody's going to want to play one every time.

And I think planetouched and dragonborn are a bad idea because A: a lot of people hate dragonborn, and B: too much like the hated 4e...

my vote goes to half giants or goblins.

I guess that this all depends on your taste in characters and gaming. Remember that gnolls, minotaurs, lizardmen, and the like are all "furry" by definition, but they don't get hated on like cat-folk do. I personally fell in love with cat-like characters when I watched Star Trek:TAS as a kid.Lieutenant M'ress was the most interesting character on the show to me, and it wasn't until almost 20 years later that I was introduced to anime. So I have never really considered anthropomorphic animals of any kind to be anime or "furry" because they have been around since the myths and legends of ancient Greece and Egypt.

Dragonborn are another matter. I'm not sure about all these people who say they don't like them because half the group that I'm currently playing in is running a dragonborn or half-dragon character. I personally don't think the dragonborn is bad, its just too powerful to be a ECL +0 race.

Okay now test that same fighter against...

This assumes that you fight them on their home turf (since that is were you would most likely find them). Using the tactics section as a guide on how they fight.

After this, then that would give you a better measure on where the pathfinder fighter stands. Doing one test isn't enough.

So I went through your list and added a few of my own as well. Against things like the Abolith or the Succubus the fighter loses because they are set up in such a way that a straight fighter simply doesn't have the resources to handle them all by himself. But arguably neither does any other class, on their own.

Against a straight up brawler however, a 7th level fighter against an EL 7 encounter or a CR 7 creature is much more likely to hold his own. He ended up winning 3 out of every 4 encounters that he had to deal with. For example a group of four gricks is smacked down in two rounds without ever hitting him. Meanwhile the bullette gets beaten up pretty badly but takes our fighter down in the end. The dire bear on the other hand mauls our hero pretty badly, knock him down to 24% of his original hit points, but a few really solid hits and a few lucky criticals and the dire bear is toast.

It was like this for most of the encounters that the DM ran and we went for about four hours trying different combinations. Large opponents that could provoke an AoO by simply moving close to them, or opponents like dragons or a chimera that have ranged attacks generally gave the fighter fit and often came out victorious, while an opponent or group of opponents that he could get up close and personal with generally ended up losing to the fighter. This is why 4th Edition has codified the roles of various classes in the party. In military terms fighters are infantry, while wizards are artillery. They don't need to be balanced against each other, just against their role on the battlefield.

Mechanically, it cuts into the bard's territory a bit, but I have no issue with that. Overall, I think it's a sound concept.

Flavor-wise, the name and description seem more barbarian-like, somehow. I'd maybe make it do the exact same thing, but I'd call it "Tactical Awareness (Ex)" or something, and have it represent the fighter telling the other combatants where they're needed and how to best coordinate their attacks -- like Lee at Gettysburg or something.

Since this would be more of a tactical mastery thing, I'd maybe have them gain it at a slightly higher level.

I had actually tried to avoid cutting into the bard's territory by making it usable only by the fighter. I like the name "Tactical Awareness" but to make it a better fit for individual use I would call it "Battlefield Awareness."

I was thinking about ways to bump up fighters since that seems to be what most people want. One idea that I came up with was a class feature called "Battle Cry." Here is the description.

Battle Cry: As a standard action the fighter can let out a rallying cry that grants a +2 inspiration bonus on attack and damage rolls for a number of turns equal to her class level+ Cha modifier.

I haven't decided when the fighter should get this feature, although I'm leaning toward either 1st or 3rd level. Please let me know what you thing of this idea.

Yesterday I sat down with the DM of the current campaign I'm playing in and we playtested a 7th level fighter against a CR 7 ogre barbarian. The Ogre got in one good hit but only managed to do 21 hp damage to the fighter. Meanwhile the fighter slaughtered the ogre barbarian in just about seven rounds. I would say that the new fighter class in Pathfinder is pretty powerful based on that test.

Let me relate the tale of Kailor Axwarden.

Kailor is now 16th level and very useful to his team.
He hardly ever kills anything or does anything immpresive.

What he does do his soak up damage for the party. His 250 hp covered in a AC 42 coating of steel and fort save of 23 will save of 18 makes him a tough nut to crack. every fight his goal is to place him self in the most danger to protect the other members of the party. It is not a glamourous role, but it is an important one.

His role to the party is just a valid as Maglor the elven archer who can drop a 120hp of almost guarenteed damage a round.

WOW, how do you pull that off?

This is a personal pet peeve of mine, so I will explain the CR system exactly once on this particular thread so that I don't start insulting people.

• A party of Level X is supposed to go down fighting half the time against an encounter of EL X + 4. Another way to say this is that a party of Level X is approximately as powerful as an encounter of EL X + 4.
  
• A group of monsters that is twice the size is an encounter of EL + 2. A party that is twice the size faces Encounters which are EL + 2 vs. those who are not.
  
• Doubling a Double is a quadruple. So if you go from a party of four to a party of one, you face challenges of X - 4.

So a Party of one character is supposed to be an even match for a Monster with a CR equal to his level.

Sorry but this is simply not the case. I quote from the DMG "A monster's Challenge Rating tells you the level of the party for which the monster is a good challenge. A monster of CR 5 is an appropriate challenge for a group of four 5th level characters."

This is rather simple to understand, so I don't know why you would want to make it so complicated. Therefore a 7th level fighter should be able to handle a CR 3 creature by himself while a party of four CR 7 characters should be able to handle a CR 7 creature. By that standard a 7th level fighter is powered just about right.

I'm a big fan of the Warhammer Skaven [Neek! Neek!], to the point that I have a Skaven tattoo. Obviously, they are copyrighted/trademarked.

For my campaign, I have adapted the Skaven into the Vyrmen. Same basic premise: Ratfolk. Culturally, I have them allied to wererats and each 'clan' worships a different demon lord. Favoured class: Psion.

In White Wolf's Scarred Lands setting there is a similar race called the Slitheren. There are different breeds depending on which Titan was instrumental in their creation and each breed has a different prefered class. Some breeds have rouge, others ranger, and at least one breed has sorcerer as their favored class. Such a class would be interesting considering most peoples natural aversion to rats, especially if they were not inherentally evil.

Crazy, untested idea:
Instead of picking a race and then applying the benefits and modifiers at first level, you would pick a race and apply benefits and modifiers at each level gained. The process would look very similar to the extra abilities that Specialist Wizards get per level in the current release of PFRPG.

They are using this very mechanic in 4th Edition. It is one of the few things that I like about the new edition and would be glad to see it included in Pathfinder. The only problem I see is that it would expand the page count by at least 14 pages if not more and it would mean that our beloved Pathfinder team would have to do a lot more work coming up with some good options.

Last night I sat down and worked out what a Pathfinder Dragonborn might look like if it was included as a core race. Here it is for your consideration:

Dragonborn
+2 Strength, +2 Charisma, -2 Dexterity, -2 Wisdom; Dragonborn are strong and gregarious, but they are somewhat clumsy and have a hard time understanding "lesser races."
Medium: As Medium creatures, Dragonborn have no special bonuses or penalties due to their size.
Dragonborn base land speed is 30 feet.
Low-Light Vision: Dragonborn can see twice as far as humans in poor lighting conditions.
+2 racial bonus to Armor Class.
Dragonborn are immune to magical fear effects.
Automatic Languages: Common and Draconic. Bonus Languages: Elven, Dwarven, Giant, Goblin, Halfling, and Orc
Favored Class: Fighter or Sorcerer (Draconic Bloodline Only). A multiclass Dragonborn’s fighter or sorcerer class does not count when determining whether he takes and experience point penalty.

I have debated back and forth over including a breath weapon for the race but I feel that it would make it too overpowered to be a ECL +0 race. Besides not all dragon blooded races have a breath weapon, look at Kobalds or Dragonlance's Draconians for example.

Yes, but if you dig into the backstory of each race you don't find a single progenitor race, you find that god A created elves, god B created orcs, and no one knows which god created humans. If it had been described as a single progenitor species that branched off into the three races, that would be great but the fact is that it isn't. That's why I have problems with half-breeds. Besides I said that it doesn't make sense that humans can ONLY breed with elves and orcs. I don't have a problem with halfbreeds per say, I just think it should be all or nothing.

Get rid of all the halfbreed races. It doesn't make sense that elves and orcs could breed with humans but not anyone else. Then add a cat-like race similar to Mystara's rakastas and a draconic race like the dragonborn, or Draconians. Finally something wild like a pegataur, phanaton, or one of those flying minotaurs from Mystara. If you have to keep the halfbloods than maybe a half-dwarf like Muls from Dark Sun.