Advanced Race Guide Preview: It's Almost Here!

SQUEEEEEE~! It's a THARK-KREEN! :D

Four arms! THANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANK*'splode*

Really the only thing missing from kasatha to make them thri-kreen is the psionic flavor, and it would be very easy to design an alternate APG-style racial trait. I'm very pleased with this and would consider using it with Dreamscarred's psionics material.

Ideally they wouldn't need/wouldn't be capable of sleep. But maybe that's another option in the final book.

Dumping STR might be a problem, maybe have a choice between STR and CHA or INT

STR is the only one that really makes sense for them to have a negative in. For this race at least.

The -2 STR also helps keep them from playing up the four arms thing as a "superior race" advantage, and plays into their feel as underdogs in their own world.

Void Munchkin wrote:

Dumping STR might be a problem, maybe have a choice between STR and CHA or INT

STR is the only one that really makes sense for them to have a negative in. For this race at least. ** spoiler omitted **

The -2 STR also helps keep them from playing up the four arms thing as a "superior race" advantage, and plays into their feel as underdogs in their own world.

Make sense.

The Kasatha actually makes me think of the Sandfolk from DA3: City of the Gods.

Let's put them in Numeria!!!

I think that Akitron - as the Barsoom-equivalent - just got its 4-armed green Tharks ...

One thing I find sad is that it looks like costs for languages are still in.

One thing I find sad is that it looks like costs for languages are still in.

Yeah, but I wouldn't be surprised if languages only cost something if the race has its own language or some such.

Let's wait and see if it costs more to start with fewer languages (but with a wider bonus languages list) than to start with more languages.

I think that Akitron - as the Barsoom-equivalent - just got its 4-armed green Tharks ...

It already had them; they're called shobhad. If I were to try to sneak these guys into Golarion it would be as a smaller, more agile relative of the shobhad, sort of their equivalent of the halfling.

So with 3 arms being off-hand weapons, when Two-Weapon Fighting do they get one extra attack, or three? What about when using Flurry of Blows?

So with 3 arms being off-hand weapons, when Two-Weapon Fighting do they get one extra attack, or three? What about when using Flurry of Blows?

A kasatha without two-weapon fighting has attacks at the following modifiers:

-6/-10/-10/10

Or with a light weapon in the off hands:

-4/-8/-8/-8

The first attack is at full strength bonus on damage and this is halved for the remaining three.

A kasatha with two-weapon fighting has attacks at the following modifiers:

-4/-4/-4/-4

Or:

-2/-2/-2/-2

All of their other hands are their 'off hand'.

If you take improved two-weapon fighting, you get one more attack. Greater two-weapon fighting adds one more.

So, a kasatha with BAB +20 and all three two-weapon fighting feats has attacks at the following (using light weapons):

+18/+18/+18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8/+3

Interesting how a two-armed human with a longsword and a mace and a BAB of +6/+1 can attack once with each weapon without taking TWF penalties, yet the four-armed kasatha, if doing the same thing, would take TWF penalties. Very interesting indeed.

Elaborate, please?

As I understand it, a human has a main and an off-hand. A kasatha simply has two more off-hands. If a kasatha has a +6/+1 BAB and is wielding a longsword, mace, hand axe, and dagger, wouldn't he be able to attack with any of the four at +6/+1, and then start taking TWF penalties for off-hand attacks after that? The penalty for attacking with an off-hand weapon with a normal iterative attack is that you only add half of your Str bonus to the damage.

I genuinely don't understand why this would be different for the kasatha.

EDIT: Thanks for that explanation, Umbral Reaver!

Jiggy wrote:

Interesting how a two-armed human with a longsword and a mace and a BAB of +6/+1 can attack once with each weapon without taking TWF penalties, yet the four-armed kasatha, if doing the same thing, would take TWF penalties. Very interesting indeed.

Elaborate, please?

As I understand it, a human has a main and an off-hand. A kasatha simply has two more off-hands. If a kasatha has a +6/+1 BAB and is wielding a longsword, mace, hand axe, and dagger, wouldn't he be able to attack with any of the four at +6/+1, and then start taking TWF penalties for off-hand attacks after that? The penalty for attacking with an off-hand weapon with a normal iterative attack is that you only add half of your Str bonus to the damage.

I genuinely don't understand why this would be different for the kasatha.

EDIT: Thanks for that explanation, UmbralReaver!

FAQ on TWFing.

You never ever ever take TWF penalties until you gain an extra attack, regardless of what weapons you use. If you have a BAB of +Bazillion and take a million iterative attacks, there's no penalty, even if you use different weapons. You have no off-hand.

It's not until you gain that single extra attack that you're suddenly using the TWF mechanic, have an "off-hand" that you didn't before, and take penalties to your attacks.

And apparently, the writer of this sample race was not aware of this (or else phrased things incorrectly).

As I understand it, a human has a main and an off-hand. A kasatha simply has two more off-hands. If a kasatha has a +6/+1 BAB and is wielding a longsword, mace, hand axe, and dagger, wouldn't he be able to attack with any of the four at +6/+1, and then start taking TWF penalties for off-hand attacks after that? The penalty for attacking with an off-hand weapon with a normal iterative attack is that you only add half of your Str bonus to the damage.

I genuinely don't understand why this would be different for the kasatha.

I appreciate the link, Jiggy, but the FAQ only seemed to reinforce what I thought about it before. Simply calling the kasatha's off-hands "off-hand" doesn't mean they take any penalties (if they take an off-hand attack at a BAB-iterative attack with it), as the terminology doesn't affect anything. And where it says they take TWF penalties as normal, I feel that the operative term there is "as normal."

Meaning, they don't start taking penalties until they try to use more attacks than they would get from BAB alone.

I'm really trying to see where this is messed up, but I can't. It seems to work just like any two-armed race to me.

EDIT: Clarified a statement.

EDIT 2: I take it that with this race, you could use a sling and a two-handed weapon in the same round? Like a spear and a sling?

I tend to agree, Foghammer. While I'm certainly no expert on the nuances of the rules, it seems to me the intent was simply to say- "Yes, these guys have four arms, but just like a two-armed human, they favor one over the other three."

Do the rules not stack attack penalties for wielding more than 1 weapon? ie If you have TWF and you're using light off hand(s) it doesn't become -2/-2 for one extra weapon, -4/-4/-4 for two extra weapons and -6/-6/-6/-6? Four attacks as a two(to four) weapon fighter/ranger/monk/rogue at level 1 sounds like a wet dream, pardon the language.

I appreciate the link, Jiggy, but the FAQ only seemed to reinforce what I thought about it before. Simply calling the kasatha's off-hands "off-hand" doesn't mean they take any penalties (if they take an off-hand attack at a BAB-iterative attack with it), as the terminology doesn't affect anything. And where it says they take TWF penalties as normal, I feel that the operative term there is "as normal."

Meaning, they don't start taking penalties until they try to use more attacks than they would get from BAB alone.

I'm really trying to see where this is messed up, but I can't. It seems to work just like any two-armed race to me.

In that case, you've got it right except for a terminology issue: you don't have an "off-hand" until you're using TWF for extra attacks. You have a "hand" and another "hand". This is important because attacking with your "off-hand" produces less damage (50% of STR bonus) than a normal attack. Many, many people reacted to the aforementioned FAQ by trying to claim that even if you weren't taking the -2 to hit, you still had an "off-hand" and therefore dealt reduced damage with one of your weapons, even when not TWFing.

Here's a post from that thread in which Sean K Reynolds clarifies that there's no such thing as an "off-hand" unless you employ TWF.

I deliberately wrote that FAQ entry so it wouldn't mention "off-hand" attacks until the section on using the two-weapon fighting option. That's because the concept of an "off-hand" only applies when you are using the two-weapon fighting option in the Combat chapter.

so unlike the alchemist with vestigal arms, this guy can get multiattack and attack with every hand? Seems kind of strong, doesn't?

Anyhow, with races, I prefer to stick to core. (edit: and bestiary 1)

Richard: This is a 20 RP race. In the playtest, the core races were put to 10 RP (given, this was a weak attempt at trying to display balance among them - I hope they did away with this, as it created an artificial sense of equality that made it so certain abilities were much cheaper than they ought to be). I am okay with some races being stronger than others, to be honest. Regardless, this race is very much GM-approved-only.

On a more fun note:

Kasatha with a two-handed reach weapon, a one-handed melee weapon, and a one-handed ranged weapon. Oh, the fun. Ohhh.. the fun.

Foghammer wrote:

I appreciate the link, Jiggy, but the FAQ only seemed to reinforce what I thought about it before. Simply calling the kasatha's off-hands "off-hand" doesn't mean they take any penalties (if they take an off-hand attack at a BAB-iterative attack with it), as the terminology doesn't affect anything. And where it says they take TWF penalties as normal, I feel that the operative term there is "as normal."

Meaning, they don't start taking penalties until they try to use more attacks than they would get from BAB alone.

I'm really trying to see where this is messed up, but I can't. It seems to work just like any two-armed race to me.

In that case, you've got it right except for a terminology issue: you don't have an "off-hand" until you're using TWF for extra attacks. You have a "hand" and another "hand". This is important because attacking with your "off-hand" produces less damage (50% of STR bonus) than a normal attack. Many, many people reacted to the aforementioned FAQ by trying to claim that even if you weren't taking the -2 to hit, you still had an "off-hand" and therefore dealt reduced damage with one of your weapons, even when not TWFing.

Here's a post from that thread in which Sean K Reynolds clarifies that there's no such thing as an "off-hand" unless you employ TWF.

Partial quote wrote:

I deliberately wrote that FAQ entry so it wouldn't mention "off-hand" attacks until the section on using the two-weapon fighting option. That's because the concept of an "off-hand" only applies when you are using the two-weapon fighting option in the Combat chapter.

So even if your 2nd or 3rd iterative attack is made with your "off-hand" you deal full Str damage to your target until you make an additional attack with TWF rules?

I don't think I've ever seen it interpreted that way, and I find that making it such is the cause of this problem.

If your off-hand was always your off-hand, and not just when you were using it to get an additional attack, this issue would not exist, correct?

So even if your 2nd or 3rd iterative attack is made with your "off-hand" you deal full Str damage to your target until you make an additional attack with TWF rules?

I don't think I've ever seen it interpreted that way, and I find that making it such is the cause of this problem. ...

Iterative attacks are entirely separate from TWF.

You can have 2 weapons and attack with either one through iterative attacks with no penalty. TWF specifically grants extra attacks, imposing penalties to the attacks. It also creates an "off-hand," which receives greater penalties and less strength damage.

I believe that's how it works.

The fact that the race entry specifies three of the four arms being "off-hand" is the confusion.

I think. I could be wrong.

So even if your 2nd or 3rd iterative attack is made with your "off-hand" you deal full Str damage to your target until you make an additional attack with TWF rules?

Correct, as per the FAQ and clarification I linked.

I don't think I've ever seen it interpreted that way, and I find that making it such is the cause of this problem.

Would it help to know that I always interpreted it this way? ;)

If your off-hand was always your off-hand, and not just when you were using it to get an additional attack, this issue would not exist, correct?

If your off-hand was always your off-hand, then you'd have to choose which hand it was. Pathfinder did away with "handedness" from Day 1.

The way TWF and "off-hands" work in Pathfinder is as simple as it gets: binary. You either do nothing special at all, making your attacks with no modifications and no care regarding which weapon is which or any such thing; or you use the TWF mechanic and everything that goes with it. Either/or. It doesn't get any simpler, so I'm not sure how you can say that it's the cause of the problem.

Leo_Negri wrote:

As opposed to Athas's Halflings who ate EVERYONE who wasn't another halfling. Granted I think we need more races that eat elves. There are far too many of those anemic, daisy-eating tree-huggers as it is. ;-) (Or Anemic, self-absorbed Dune-runners, as the case maybe.)

That always bothered me, honestly, because halfings in Athas were described as being cannibals... but if they ate everything BUT other halflings, that just makes them, at best, anthrophages.

Remember, in darksun all other races (except possibly the Gith) are descendants of the halflings. However, in general I believe the term cannibal, in Athas, was meant to be "someone who eats other sentients" rather than someone who eats others of the same race.

Foghammer wrote:

So even if your 2nd or 3rd iterative attack is made with your "off-hand" you deal full Str damage to your target until you make an additional attack with TWF rules?

Correct, as per the FAQ and clarification I linked.

Quote:

I don't think I've ever seen it interpreted that way, and I find that making it such is the cause of this problem.

Would it help to know that I always interpreted it this way? ;)

Quote:

If your off-hand was always your off-hand, and not just when you were using it to get an additional attack, this issue would not exist, correct?

If your off-hand was always your off-hand, then you'd have to choose which hand it was. Pathfinder did away with "handedness" from Day 1.

The way TWF and "off-hands" work in Pathfinder is as simple as it gets: binary. You either do nothing special at all, making your attacks with no modifications and no care regarding which weapon is which or any such thing; or you use the TWF mechanic and everything that goes with it. Either/or. It doesn't get any simpler, so I'm not sure how you can say that it's the cause of the problem.

You didn't really answer my last question.

If you had to choose which hand was your off-hand, then that hand would always deal only half-Str damage with a melee weapon, yes? Under this assumption, using TWF would merely reference your "handedness" and could be used to the exact same effect, the only difference being that one hand always does a little less damage, even when not TWF.

That's what I'm gleaning from what I'm being told and why I feel like if PF went back to using "handedness" this problem wouldn't exist.

Also, I find that it is decidedly NOT "as simple as it gets" for the very fact that we are having this discussion.

Sellsword2587 wrote:

So with 3 arms being off-hand weapons, when Two-Weapon Fighting do they get one extra attack, or three? What about when using Flurry of Blows?

A kasatha without two-weapon fighting has attacks at the following modifiers:

-6/-10/-10/10

Or with a light weapon in the off hands:

-4/-8/-8/-8

The first attack is at full strength bonus on damage and this is halved for the remaining three.

A kasatha with two-weapon fighting has attacks at the following modifiers:

-4/-4/-4/-4

Or:

-2/-2/-2/-2

All of their other hands are their 'off hand'.

If you take improved two-weapon fighting, you get one more attack. Greater two-weapon fighting adds one more.

So, a kasatha with BAB +20 and all three two-weapon fighting feats has attacks at the following (using light weapons):

+18/+18/+18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8/+3

Let me see if I am calculating correctly; a kasatha with a +6/+1 BAB with multiweapon fighting with a longsword and three short swords in his three off-hands would have attacks at this rate:

Longsword +4/-1 and 3 shortswords +4 (for a total of 5 attacks)

This attack pattern extrapolated from the marilith's entry at d20pfsrd.com and Umbral Reaver's post.

You didn't really answer my last question.

If you had to choose which hand was your off-hand, then that hand would always deal only half-Str damage with a melee weapon, yes?

True. However, then every character ever would have to make that choice, and also keep track of which hand was carrying a weapon, a shield, an item, kept open for spellcasting, etc. That's a whole lot of extra bookkeeping that you don't have to do if you leave out the whole idea of an off-hand when you're not TWFing.

That's what I'm gleaning from what I'm being told and why I feel like if PF went back to using "handedness" this problem wouldn't exist.

That doesn't really mean anything; the problem is A and B not matching. So yes, changing A to match B would remove the problem. So would changing B to match A.

Also, I find that it is decidedly NOT "as simple as it gets" for the very fact that we are having this discussion.

See above. What I meant about being simple was that the current definition of "off-hand" and how TWF works makes the game as a whole simpler. The fact that you happened to be surprised by it doesn't make it less simple.

See Multiattack (Combat) and Multiweapon Fighting (Combat)

I didn't play 3.5. I just know the PF devs have stated repeatedly that they made everyone ambidextrous for simplicity's sake. The fact that being used to a different method makes that method simpler for you changes nothing.

EDIT: In any case, that's how it is in PF. Everyone's ambidextrous, there's no such thing as an off-hand until you TWF for an extra attack. House-rule if you like.

To answer the question about dragons and level advantage of high powered creatures, the playtest had the following guide:

Level
RP 1–5 6–10 11–15 16–20
20 +1 level +0 level +0 level +0 level
30 +2 level +1 level +0 level +0 level
40 +3 level +2 level +1 level +0 level

The range of abilities really didn't stretch anywhere close to being a dragon however. There were no racial HD as I recall and there was no Dragon Type for Racial Traits. I believe there was a lot of call for a Dragon Racial Trait, but that would be more for a humaniod type race. They did give stats for a Frost Giant Race that had 40 RP, but again with no racial HD.

I didn't play 3.5. I just know the PF devs have stated repeatedly that they made everyone ambidextrous for simplicity's sake. The fact that being used to a different method makes that method simpler for you changes nothing.

EDIT: In any case, that's how it is in PF. Everyone's ambidextrous, there's no such thing as an off-hand until you TWF for an extra attack. House-rule if you like.

I want to go back to the initial statement that a kasatha with a BAB of +6/+1 with a longsword and mace can't attack with both in the same round without penalty.

The racial trait specifically states that they take "normal" penalties when TWF. If your actions would not "normally" incur a penalty per TWF rules, then you take no penalty.

I think I just discovered the difference in our interpretations. Where it says all but one hand are off-hand... do you take that to mean that you have to choose one hand as the main hand and it's set, like I was saying it should be? Because seeing it in that light, I may retract that statement about it being simpler.

I think that Akitron - as the Barsoom-equivalent - just got its 4-armed green Tharks ...

I suppose it's worth noting that I said these guys had no real role or place on Golarion.

Akiton, and the other planets in the Golarion system, are certainly not Golarion.

I think I just discovered the difference in our interpretations. Where it says all but one hand are off-hand... do you take that to mean that you have to choose one hand as the main hand and it's set, like I was saying it should be? Because seeing it in that light, I may retract that statement about it being simpler.

Yes, that's how the race's ability reads to me: you have to start applying TWF rules (picking a main hand, applying penalties, etc) even when you're not TWFing.

Jiggy: clearly the text doesn't quite mesh with the rules and is almost certainty wrong. By a strict reading you are absolutely correct.

While it seems that most people don't understand your argument it's not really an important one. It's a corner case involving frequently misunderstood rules where the text isn't quite right. It will almost never matter and it seems obvious to me the intended way to play it.

Foghammer wrote:

I think I just discovered the difference in our interpretations. Where it says all but one hand are off-hand... do you take that to mean that you have to choose one hand as the main hand and it's set, like I was saying it should be? Because seeing it in that light, I may retract that statement about it being simpler.

Yes, that's how the race's ability reads to me: you have to start applying TWF rules (picking a main hand, applying penalties, etc) even when you're not TWFing.

I see what you are talking about now. Based on what you were telling me earlier, though, I still don't get why you would think that you have to choose one hand to be the 'permanent main hand.'

Seems to me that you could choose by the round which hand you were treating as the main hand, since as you say, every character is effectively ambidextrous. "All but one hand are off hand." It doesn't say that you can never change the order.

So a kasatha with a longsword, a mace, a sickle, and a dagger and a +6/+1 BAB could attack with any of the four at +6 and any of the four at +1... (non-multiweapon fighting method)

OR!

One weapon at +4, another at -1, another at +4, and the last at +4 while using multi-weapon fighting, since his two extra hands grant him additional attacks at his highest BAB -2.

Bellona wrote:

I think that Akitron - as the Barsoom-equivalent - just got its 4-armed green Tharks ...

I suppose it's worth noting that I said these guys had no real role or place on Golarion.

Akiton, and the other planets in the Golarion system, are certainly not Golarion.

I was wondering when you said Golarion if that simply meant that these guys were running around on Akiton...

So, at some point, if we get a Akiton specific book, or a Distant Worlds Campaign guide, we might see this race again?

Distant Worlds already has the four-armed, rifle-wielding Shobhad giants of Akiton. Maybe the Kasatha are somehow related, like an offshoot or mixed race (like the half-giant race of 3.x)? Or maybe the Kasatha are just an example of convergent evolution?

I know the Witchwyrd of Bestiary 2 are offshoots of the shobhad of Akiton.

James Jacobs wrote:

Bellona wrote:

I think that Akitron - as the Barsoom-equivalent - just got its 4-armed green Tharks ...

I suppose it's worth noting that I said these guys had no real role or place on Golarion.

Akiton, and the other planets in the Golarion system, are certainly not Golarion.

I was wondering when you said Golarion if that simply meant that these guys were running around on Akiton...

So, at some point, if we get a Akiton specific book, or a Distant Worlds Campaign guide, we might see this race again?

Akiton's already got a four armed race, as mentioned above.

Whether or not we'd put these guys and the other new sample races ANYwhere in the Golarion solar system or great beyond is not something that I've decided on yet, and probably won't for a long time.

The sample races were not created with an idea that they'd ever be put into anything more than just the race guide as examples, as far as I know, and that means it's kind of awkward shoehorning them in to a lot of places—building a race flavor first and rules second is my preference, and that's not how these races were built.

You should have a desert planet and use these guys as Fremen.

The spice must flow.

So I was unaware that the multi-weapon fighting feat even existed until this thread. However, now that I've read it, I find it incredibly odd that it requires a dex of 13 where TWF requires a dex of 15. Just me? Besides that it seems like attacks with four arms in a single round would incur more of a penalty than -2/-2/-2/-2. Am I the only one that sees that as kindof a crazy massive bonus to a character at potentially level 1?

Dr. Mario, I completely agree how strange those requirements are. The only thing I can say about it is TWF was meant for PC use, while Multiweapon, while useable by PCs who manage to get to it, was primarily designed for monsters, so prereqs are a bit different in structure.

I could be wrong.

4 arms is definitely a huge deal. You're talking a two-handed, shielded, casting character. Or any of the aforementioned crazy concepts.

Me, I like the idea, but I know it is just brokenness wrapped up with a bow. Doesn't really mean I wouldn't allow it in my games, though. One of my players already has a first draft of his next character using this race (with a few things taken out).

I agree "monster feats" are not designed with the same rigor as feats intended for PC's. Just about every one of them has a weak prerequisite. Fly-by Attack, for instance, just requires the ability to fly, while its ground-bound counterpart Spring Attack requires a decent Dexterity and two other feats. Fly-by is a LOT more powerful than Spring Attack!

Since the Alchemist class and the "Vestigial" Arm discovery exist, it is easily possible for a normal character to have 3 or 4 arms. Or in the case of this race, 5 or 6 arms!

Leo_Negri wrote:

As opposed to Athas's Halflings who ate EVERYONE who wasn't another halfling. Granted I think we need more races that eat elves. There are far too many of those anemic, daisy-eating tree-huggers as it is. ;-) (Or Anemic, self-absorbed Dune-runners, as the case maybe.)

That always bothered me, honestly, because halfings in Athas were described as being cannibals... but if they ate everything BUT other halflings, that just makes them, at best, anthrophages.

As opposed to autophagic? :)

not really. fly by attack, requires you to be able to fly.

which most pcs can not do unless you are a half fiend, half celestial, half dragon, dragon disciple, sorcerer with blood type that allows for wings, wasting feats to on the eldritch heritage feat line to get the ones with wings( and only then its temporary), or play as a paladin with the great and not so great empyreal knight archtype( hate the loss of divine grace ).

which means you can only use it while you can fly anda re airborn.

spring attack requires those feats yes, but they can always be used unless yoru char is held, dead, manacles, this and that. and in the case of the bloodtypes, they can only be used in limited durations.
more powerful sure.... but spring attack is more versital...

I'm impressed so far at how much effort that Paizo has made to keep Pathfinder balanced, actively trying to avoid the cheese that so destroyed 3.5.

The Race and Prestige Class books worry me a bit though, as these were among the worst offenders in 3.5.

I prefer a small selection of races anyway. I like my adventuring parties to look like Elmore's 'Companions of the Lance' rather than chucking-out time at the Tatooine Cantina...

4E felt like such a monster mash with your bull-people, plant-people, gem-people, etc.

I agree with you Anlerran. Sometimes I feel like the board game "Small World" is a satirical commentary on what would happen if you actually had all these advanced humanoid races (spoiler: extinction).

But I do get a little tired of all the core races looking more or less like a human with some plastic surgery done.

I think Paizo did a pretty good job of distinguishing the different core races as much as possible, but they are all still very similar. But that's also why I'm kindof a fan of the orcs/trolls in Warcraft, or half the races of the Final Fantasy franchise, even if they can be a little over the top. Makes the world feel a little less homogeneous or black and white or whatever.

I'm impressed so far at how much effort that Paizo has made to keep Pathfinder balanced, actively trying to avoid the cheese that so destroyed 3.5.

The Race and Prestige Class books worry me a bit though, as these were among the worst offenders in 3.5.

I prefer a small selection of races anyway. I like my adventuring parties to look like Elmore's 'Companions of the Lance' rather than chucking-out time at the Tatooine Cantina...

4E felt like such a monster mash with your bull-people, plant-people, gem-people, etc.

I sympathize whole-heartedly with these concerns, or rather I would except the difference with Pathfinder is that Paizo is only going to add to Golarion what they feel is appropriate.

This resource is not part of the Pathfinder setting, so we don't have to worry about Paizo shoehorning non-player races into the game via modules and APs. The world is human-centric and however other people may feel about that, I like it, because it means we don't have to worry about the Cantina effect you described. At least not often. :)

As far as cheese goes, it doesn't have to be available for player use. If anything, I see this as a world-building tool. No DM should have to create a purpose, place, and/or reason for an entire race and culture to exist in their world at the whim of a player.

So if one of these guys was a Magus, he could dual wield, use a shield an still have an offhand free for casting?