Demandred69's page

If worse comes to worse, you can get into Pathfinder Play-by-Post games at dndonlinegames. I know- as I ran one there. There are a number of them going on. All free.
Are there games here, too? I may need to look at this site more closely...

In the Pathfinder PHB I couldn't find where it stated what starting hitpoints were. As a 3.5 player, I assumed ch. class max at lev. 1 plus Con mod. points (which it is, unless +1hp. for human). But people that haven't played 3.5 might have been confused.
I don't like the skill points per level for Fighters and such. 2+Int. mod. sucks. Most people don't take Int. based fighters, or even Clerics. I'd've done 4+ Int mod. for the lesser skilled classes. And kept 8+Int. mod for the highly skilled ones.
More feats for characters. Epic levels (atleast to 25). I was hoping (but new they were sticking with the 'core') more race options. I would've liked an animal-like race and maybe orcs or something. Or tieflings and Aasimars (or whatever they're now- not 4e Deva though) (not Dragonborn though).
There are alot of weapons that most players don't even concider buying. I've never had a player buy a heavey pick for example. The crit *4 is the only bonus. Otherwise, its a d6 damage weapon. The trident is d8 but no one seems to care for pole-arms. Atleast in the 12 or so groups of five to eight players I've played with. The cool feats are for swords (two-blade defence..exc.) And clerics will use maces because they don't wanna blow feats on prof. in a better weapon. Like with Monks. Who else would use a kama? Or why would a monk use one? His/her hands do as much if not more damage. Does the shuriken have a purpose? 1d2 or 1 damage. Seems like a waste of a turn to use one. I just think that weapons should have more potent properties (scewer or raking damage. Just so some other weapons have more purpose.) One of the few good things of 4e (add dex to damage)exc. Stuff like ballistas should do even more damage as they're purpose is to take down seige weapons and dragons.
The other good thing of 4e is wizards don't run totally out of spells. Wizards are awesome at high levels, but dopey at low levels.
I like the Pathfinder skill list. 4e's is too condenced. And its nice to put points where youwant them. Not get +1 every two levels.
Wow. I just read this. I must seem like a cranky old man. Well, kinda getting there. I miss 1st edition! Except the low hitpoints and lack of feats.

Ah...DanielSon! You've noticed we have quite a few new players in the game. Three adventure partys worth. It will be interesting. Anyhow, I'll have my work cut out for me. But should be otay since all those games will be in one game. Less searching for stuff. If I were you, Dan, I'd just worry about that psychotic little brownie, as I'm sure Dondero will be up to no good.
Did you use the catfolk or brownie (Pathfinder D-compatablized) races. Dan?

There are a few Pathfinder games being run at the PlaybyPost site I moderate on. I have just begun a game, though I'm in the process of adding players. So far, everyone of the five current players likes the creation rules for Pathfinder over that of 3.5. So we're giving it a go. If you don't have the opportunity to try the rules or simply want to try something differant, head over to dndonlinegames and apply for a game.
I know this probablly sounds like an ad. I apologise. I just thought that people should know of opportunities to play for free online. For the record, Pen/Papergames is also a nice free site to play. And there are many others.

If this message in anyway hinders this site's code of conduct- feel free to delete it. - Dave

I always take Iron Will or Grt. Fort. at some point. But I think they should be +3 instead of +2. I feel a bit robbed of a combat feat when I take them, but really want to be tough to mentally dominate or be paralyzed by ghouls.
I agree that +2 to skills isn't much. It really isn't. The +2, +2 to two skills seems good but doesn't separate you much from other characters in your ability with that skill. If I wanted a character that was a master at performing miming or something- I'd need that feat multiple times, and a high ability mod. for charisma.

In favor of more levels. 25? 30? But let's boost up that Tarrasque then! That's an epic fight monster. Not a before then type.

Do we need favored classes? With core races- do we need them?

I'm trying to remember if I ever took a race's fav. class... I usually made a point to avoid doing so to be differant.

There were elves and goblins way before LOTR. They were small fey. But, yeh, wouldn't make great rpging races. Tolkien did alot for gaming. I guess I'm angry about everything always undergoing changes. I hate change. When you're a kid and imagine crap a certain way then grow up and still think fondly of the way things are then they're suddenly changed because a group of people felt it'd be better changing it- it stings a little.
Oh, I read LOTR too. Liked it as a kid, but got sick of it with the films. They were good but still pissed me off. Excluded some of the best stuff.
Anyhow, I can live with the damn tall elves. I'm just relieved no one messed with my favorite monstrous race- gnolls.
Anyhow, I'm sorry if I seemed to throw a tantrum. I've gamed for 24+ years now. The things that brought me to embrace D&D were the elves, gnolls, classic monsters like that goofy Rustmonster, displacer beast, Umber hulk, and the like. Rose Estes choose your own adventure books and the like. Good stuff. It's difficult to see things like elves go from 5 feet tall to 6 + feet. Humans are too middle of the road already. Oh well. (I still think another core race or two would spice things up. Something NOT too human looking - or a dragon). Wouldn't mind a 12th core class but don't know what that would be. Shadowcaster? Psionic Striker? Necromancer? Anyhow, later.

Apparentlly Paizo & Wizards feel that elves aren't beuatiful if they're not tall. And they're catering to the present day generation, who's only vision of elves were the LOTRs movies. (note: they were tall but not taller than humans). Best way for middle of the road humans would be make new pc races! Don't change something that already works.
I was never a fan of DarkSun because the elves were so tall. May sound like a lame reason, but it's true.
Doesn't mean they need be only 5'. The 4e elves are a little taller than I'd like, but not too tall.
My question is - why only human looking core races? Why half-orcs and half-elves as full races? Why in 3.5 are ninjas a class and not a prestige class for assassin? They were said to be the best assassins. Why can't helmets grant a +1 or 2 AC? Almost no one wears them.
In reality, there is something worse than tall elves- renaming Aasimars Devas. Unless they're all females- bad move 4e!
Enough griping by me.

I thought 'huh' on the creation section for skills and the one rank deal. But my players-to-be seem to 'enjoy' it. So, we're going with it. I'd still would have liked no restriction there. Atleast at level One. If a character's background was sailor and his/her strength was 10. You'd have only a +4 for swim. You couldn't have a background where you really good at something unless you had a really high ability modifier, because you can only have one rank. The one rank per level seems fine, but at first- I ...dunno how I feel 'bout it.

There are a few things I don't like in either edition. 3.5 had too many optional rules. And some ,like Grapple, sucked. I did not have a problem with lots of skills. Though some, like use rope, were not very desirable. The worst thing about 3.5 may have been combat at very high levels. And the mini-maxing. Players wanted to pick cross-classes and special abilities to simply uberize their characters and not for 'character'.
4e really doesn't fix that 100%. But it does cut down your options and stridctly limit cross-classing. To where it sucks. And skills are quite condenced. This wouldn't bother me too much, but the class you take limits your skill choices and at every even level- everyone gets skill points in all the skills. I don't like being so restricted and having everyone get everything. And classes are Not even. Strikers like Rangers do mega damage without fear of getting to close to combat. While the Warlord's powers are for boosting others in combat. Oh wait- it's a 3.5 bard without bardic magic. I hated playing one. It's cool to boost people and give them extra attacks, but after awhile it'd be nice to kick butt too. And odd levels suck for progression. You get to pick from like three daily powers. I found this boring. And would have prefered rolling hitpoints or doing something. All the cooler stuff like gaining skill points, getting ability points, and feats are at even levels. Games too restrictive. And lacks true R-Play customization. There are some good things, but I was disapointed and had to quit my tabletop group.
Pathfinder may fix a few things. But I haven't played enough to get my online party up there yet. When they hit those higher levels, I expect to see the same problems with higher level encounters that I did with 3.5.

I don't care for the core race choices in either setting. The races are too human in 3.5. And I don't like dragons as core pcs. This move seems to be for all the half-dragon fans. Personnally, I'd rather of had lizardmen. Why? To me dragons are a creature of wonder, power, and awe. To have dragon people running all over kinda kills that. Plus that's what made Dragonlance unique. Draconians. And I love tieflings- 3.5 version. The 4e ones all look the same and I don't care how you see it- they're all ugly.
In both settings we don't need half-elves or half-orcs as races. They, too, should be rare. And not a race on their own. I think Tanis is great, but I don't like the idea of elves and orcs getting it on with humans to where there's thousands of them all over.
I did enjoy my game of 4e at Gen Con. But without minis and a map I'd feel lost with it. 3.5, you could still get away with playing without all the visuals. I think minis and maps are awesome, but DMs should also be able to run a game by making players imagine what's going on with words and gestures.
- D

I like rolling them at each level. Getting a set # per level makes leveling a little less exciting. A big problem I have with 4e. 5pts per level. Not gonna kill me, but when (on odd levels) I only get to pick a daily power then get 5pts. leveling is well...boring. Even levels get all the cool stuff.
3.5 was great for customizing. A bit of a pain, though, if you had to roll hitpoints for building a 12th level character though. But I kinda prefer rolling over set points. And Constitution mod. definatly needs to figure in. If hitpoints are set, one might as well make Con. their low stat. The only thing to worry about would be fort. saves.

My idea I'm contemplating using for my upcoming beta Pathfinder game on dndonline pbp is 3+Class+or- Con. Mod. at 1st level. So a wizard would have 3+6+or minus Con. mod. at level one. Then just go with 3.5 hitpoints (roll by class) thereafter. Unless the players I have (will have) decide they want set hitpoints.(I'm assuming all pc characters are tough).

There are some interesting ideas in this thread though. I'm sure the Pathfinder team will figure things out. I think I read there was a want for more starting hitpoints. I just thought giving toughness to the pcs for free would fit. It could be more like 5 or 10 +class+Mod. Or less. Don't know whats in the plans, but excited none the less.

It seems to me that there are a lot of folks on both sides of this issue. I am currently leaning toward keeping the +2/+2/-2 dynamic. It helps to encourage certain race roles that many find valuable and it will also allow us to open up a number of other "monster" races that were undesirable before due to their +1 level adjustment.

- I have to agree. But...

I think some races such as Minotaur can't use this. A +2 Str. Minotaur is like an orc with horns. It just isn't the real deal. Should Minotaur be a pc race. That, too, is debatable.

I like all core races having the +2,+2,-2. Humans could stay the exception. It's odd that half-elves get +2 to anyone and half-orcs +2St,+2W,-2 Int. They're both just as human as the other, right?

For a race like Minotaur we could still use it as a +0 pc if the rule of two feats at lev. 1 and extra skillpoints and such go through. We could deduce from these to allow +4Str, +2Con,-2 Int. Or we could give a race like them +4 Str -2 Int and leave it at that. I'm just useing Minotaurs as an example. There are a number of races where one skill demands a big +. But, again, there are some races that shouldn't be playable.
I'd still like to see an 8th core race. Something that doesn't look so human, but more animalistic or monstrous. Catpeople, Lupin, Phanatons, Orcs, Gnolls, Saurians, or some such....
The core 11 classes cover just about all spectrums. I can't complain there.

I think with Dinosaurs- the most well-known and popular will get write-ups first. I'm sure more obscure dinos and monsters would be added later. T-Rex, Raptors, Tricerotops, brontosaurus, allosaurus, pteranodon, plesiosaur are most well-known. Maybe Ankyolosaurus and Dimetrodon. But there are so many great dinosaurs. But to include them all would take up alot of pages. Dragons, alone, would probablly be 8 or 10 pages.
I'm sure the Paizo team has some ideas as to what they'll do with monsters... and we can always use the 3.5 writeups as well.

Stephen Klauk: I would purchase your bestiary if in book form. I always like to see what other gamers have. And you can NEVER have to many monsters!

Everyone likes something differant.

My favorites are mostly 1st edition classics from the old rulebooks and choose your own adventures. Yes, the Rustmonster. Displacerbeast, Rakasha, Gnolls, Umberhulks, Carrion Crawlers (old look), Minotaurs and such. I think the inclusion of alot of the classics would be good. I've also missed some favorites that haven't made it to 4e yet; Luecrotta, Peryton, Phanaton, Catfolk (or Tabaxi), and Blink dogs.
I think the inclusion of 'good' monsters like the Blink Dogs and Ki'Rin are important as all encounters shouldn't be predictablly evil. As well, there ARE evil adventure partys.
I'd like to see more Fey. Red Caps, Kelpie (murderous waterhorse), Spriggans, Phooka, Brownies (pc race or atleast dagerous tricksters), Marrows, Sylphs, and such.
I agree with the person who posted support for a purple dragon. Yeah, the color seems wussy to some of you, but it's a good chromatic color. And I've had an interest in them since reading a series from Richard Knaak. There's a powerful one in there.
Some other monsters are really cool, too: Steel Predator, Marrash, Lupin, Ankheg, Slimes, Oozes, and Cubes, driders, Draegloths, Nezumi, Oni, Kenku, Tengu, Tigerflys

It'll depend on what Golarion supports. Can you have Driders without Lloth? Can you have Lloth on Golarion? And what are Drow without her anyhow? There are Drow, or atleast Dark elves.
I'm sure that Paizo will eventually come out with a Pathfinder perfect Monster Manual or Creature Compendium. And it will have most of our favorites (better not leave Frost Giants out of the Giants section).-heh. Anyhow, just give them some time.

In real life it's impossible to master every skill. And it should be in the game, too. Your character shouldn't be able to do *everything*. Now, if your DM is constantly requiring you to make basketweaving chacks or suffer damage, then you have a crappy DM. On the other hand, if I want to make a character that happens to specialize in some skill that you deem useless, I don't see why I should be denied that choice.
-Purinadragonchow.

I agree with you.

Part of the fun of leveling is putting ranks in skills. Not having it done for you, having your skill options limited, or over condenced to fit with a video game-like atmostere.

I agree about Dungeoneering, too. A person that knows about dungeons may know about caverns a bit, but they won't necessarily know about The Underdark. That should be a Geography check.

4e isn't a bad game, but I hate leveling in it. Any creativity for my character is cut down with all the auto-selecting. What if I want to play a character that's clueless when it comes to spotting stuff? What if someone wants to play a blind cleric? Oooh, so clerics get ranks in Thievery?! They do in 4e. Again, one thing 3.5 had going for it was customization.
Again, I play both versions. I try to support the game which is Dungeons& Dragons. There's gonna be things I like and hate about each system.
Going back to races- I read the thread where everyone was posting new race concepts. i'd be surprised to see anything added in the Core PHB, but if they do add one, I hope it's not another half race. Those could easily be templates. We have half-elves (pretty humans) and half-orcs (ugly mean looking humans) already. No more please. No half-giant, ogre, illithad (heck no), or goblin. It's just too much. And it should be either drow (do to mass apeal) or a race that doesn't look human, but animal or monstrous. And not Dragonborn. The 4E team picked them already. There's plenty of other options. Oh, I think if Tieflings were core, then Aasimars (whatever they may be called) should too. But, again, while reading the Beta, I got the idea that they wanted to stick with the 3.5 options.

Maybe Dex bonuses should add 2 to the AC instead of 1 for each increment. I just think that after a couple levels, we get too dependant on magic items to boost our ACs and abilities. Less dependance on Magic items and min-maxing and more on natural ability.
Then we can go out at 7th level and feel safe enough to risk a good fight in regular armor. Magic armor and items should be a little rarer.- just me

Don't merge too many skills. Picking pockets and opening locks are totally differant. And bluffing isn't gonna get you a wallet. My highest praise for 3.5 is the skills list. And the fact that you can add your own for role-play potential. Cooking is a good example. Filleting fish or stringing a bow, or seduction. These are just odd things that characters with backgrounds may have. Though, one could simplify string a bow in a repair skill or craft.
Don't give out roles. Roles are for militairy-style campaigns- not adventuring. Make character creating and growth customizable.
It may simplify things but takes away too much realism. Don't let players shoot through other players without a chance of nailing your allie. It's all part of strategy. A 1 on a 20 should spell "O Ooh!"
Please add new races and classes in PHBs. It doesn't feel the same to play a drpw without the full PHB writeup. (or other races).
Don't deny the players some exciting pc options. I for one, was relieved to see 4e add some new options. It's just that they made those options restricted and got rid of two others. I like Gnomes. My big gripe here is that 3.5 didn't have any core races in the PHB that didn't look human. I'd love an animal-like race or monstrous race added to the Core. I'm human and see them everywhere. So, I'd like to play something 'differant'- though I do love Drow. Sorry, gamers that think they should just be villians. But almost every group i've gamed with has had one (and not me). For animal and monstrous; catpeople (tabaxi), Lupin, Hobgoblins, Orcs, and Lizardpeople (I'm trying to avoid useing folk- I think oldpeople when I hear folks), Brownies, and Nezumi would make good pc races.
One problem with 3.5 was that we depended so much on Magic Items to raise our AC. Thereshould be a way to get an AC in the twenties with training and feats. And maybe add more armor types. What if your Dex. bonus added 2 to your AC per increment instead of 1?
Give half-plate a dex bonus if full-plate gets one. No one I game with past level 2 every buys half-plate. And most players tend to have some sort of Dex bonus.
The following isn't necessary, but I want to chuck it out there: get some new popular class ideas out there as quickly as convienant. Popular classes like Pirates, Ninjas, Samarai, Necromancer, Illusionist, and Knight are all popular.
Brand new classes along with oldones. Keep 'em coming or updated. Hexblades, beguilers, favored souls, and beastmasters wee all good. I wouldn't mind some Shadoweavers, Reavers, Mindmages, or Pirates (Swashbuckler was kinda a goodly pirate I guess). Whatever. New stuff!!!
Don't bring back mini-max classes like Crusader until they're modified. We had one in our last 3.5 party and he could do everything. It was offsetting.
I think if there's a worry about not starting with enough hitpoints that could be easily solved: 10+Class+or- Con. Mod. There's plenty! But then some monsters should have more. A 1st level character would not hesitate to dismantle a Gnoll or bugbear if he/she had 22 hitpoints. Or the monsters will need more. (I remember 1st level Wizards with 1 hp. 1st ed.) Ouch! Killed by a bee sting.
Anyhow, that's all I got for now. Except- please don't have too many alternate rules. It's difficult enough to look up some of the core rules. And everyone likes to pull out this or that book and state a rule variant or read the same rule a differant way and give the DM grief. Keep rules well defined!

Thanks. I think it's great that team Paizo cares enough to listen to our groaning!!!

Too much muticlassing just adds to players uberizing their characters for benefits and not role-playing. While options shouldn't be as hindered or limited as 4e, their should be some kind of limit. Maybe twice. Though it could just be another dm ruling. If a player doesn't spend time training for an aditional class, they shouldn't just suddenly have it. And, again, classes like Paladin shouldn't be multiclassing with Rogue. It counters the Paladin's beliefs.

...or Sprites.

Record of Lodoss War had a Meadow Sprite Bard. Very cool.
As for Pixies (Pixys in oldenglish, I think), I had an interesting Pixie NPC in a party. She was also a Bard- and annoying.

Yes, endless possibilities. I'd like to see some in PHBs, though. Not Savage Worlds or Races of.. books. Just isn't the same thing.

Another offshoot idea. This combines the 6+2d6 and the 3d or 4d6. To cut down on uber characters but still give players usable stats for their chosen classes; Pick 2 stats for the 6+3d6 (drop low), and go straight 4d6 with the others. On ave. you'll get about 17,17,13,13,11,11. But with fair chances for low and even real low stats. My friend Carolyne got 16,12,11,7,7,5 on that. Though that would be rare for most, but she's Very unlucky.
But the whole 4d6 is simple and efficiant. My friend, Steve, uses the 5d6, 5d6,4d6,4d6,3d6,3d6 system.

I have a few Deities made up. But I, unfortunatlly, don't work for Paizo. I am gonna run a Pathfinder (my first- with the Beta) game online. I'll use the core Pathfinder deities and integrate a few others. Mostly non-human worshiped dieties: Denevyn The Traitor (elf), Vladruf (ninjas,assassins,fausts), Blackpaw the Everhunting (catpeople, rangers,wanderers)exc.
I like some of their deity ideas. But...Drow without Lloth just don't feel right. Orcs without Gruumsh (lesser extendt then Lloth) doesn't seem right either.
I also like Pelor and Bane. But they won't be in Pathfinder either. Too bad they can't use Eilistraee since 4e had her killed in the Realms. She was cool. I'd have her as Goddess of Song and Dance. Bards.
As a DM, I guess we can have whomever we want. But, yeah, it's not really the same. Not the 'official deities' . Just like with core races from PHBs. You could have a Savage Races thing, but it's not the same.

Orcs can be female too. They're only male in the Lord of The Rings movies. I, personally, don't like half-races. They shouldn't be so darn commen either. How many elves and humans get it on? They should be rare. Half-orcs are human. Half-elves are human. That's kinda my opinion. I don't think TSR nor Wizards ever wanted Orcs as PCs. They're great villians. I'd rather have Orcs over Half-orcs. I think alot of folks would like Drow too. A beuatiful yet utterly sinister race. Almost every game I play or dm has a drow pc. And two of us have had cool Orc pcs. I just don't like the whole 'every pc race has to resemble humans thing'. Give me Orcs or Hobgoblins! Gnolls or Lupin! Drow! Tieflings and Aasimars, or whatever they're called now! Catpeople or Nezumi (ratpeople), lizardmen or Saurians (no dragonborn- because dragons should be rare and awesome. And dragonmen are for Dragonlance (draconians)!

Just my nickels worth.

I, ofcourse, meant 4d6 (take highest 3 dice) or 5d6 (take highest 3).

I HATE standard pointbuy. Really.

I feel too restricted. Let dice decide my fate. Or do a straight up pointbuy. No 'costs 16pts. to get an 18' garbage. No one stat starts at 8 and the others at 10 either. The 4e pointbuy is congested and makes everyone's characters the same.
4d6 would work great. Maybe pick 2 stats that you need for your character's class and assign one die as an auto 6. Giving you a very good shot at high stats for those needed stats.
I used to do a 5d6- put em where you want em. Tried a pointbuy at dndog (online) where my players started at 6 for each stat, but got (was either 40 or 35) points to put where they wanted. Characters averaged 18, 16,14,10,10,8. Straight up pointbuy. Easy to keep track of. With poss. stats left low. 18,18,16,10,8,6 exc.

I despise ECLs too. But then you'll limit what races are playable. Some races may need them. But I think most of the usual pc races won't.
Drow could be +0. Gnolls. Githyanki, exc. Some races may need them; half-dragons, Rakasha, giants- if your dm allows these.
I'd like ecls gone for Player Races. The tough ones are like Minotaurs. It's not a Minotaur with just a +2 Str. The 4e minotaur is a joke. I know what they wanted to do, but you really needed a negative stat there so the minotaur can get atleast a +4 Str.
+4 Str, +2 Con, -2 Int, -2 Cha would work. And you could have no ecl.
Gnoll: +2 Str(or +4), +2 Con, -2 Int(-2Cha). No EcL (4e Gnoll pcs get no Str. bonus, but the ones in the MM have Strengths of 19 or 22). PCs should ALWAYS have a shot at the highest racial stats. They're the heroes- the exception.

Some races like Kobolds and Goblins didn't get enough positives in their stats. Look at the adjustments for Kobold pcs. They get robbed. A -1 ecl they should get (Yoda talk there).

I have the beta. Must have read that wrong.
Sorry there.
I do love skills. More than feats, actually. Skills are the best thing for customizing characters, beyond a written background and role-playing.

It doesn't make you a heretic. It just means you love D&D. Nothing wrong with loving the game.

Is there a reason half-plate has no Dex. bonus and Full-plate has a Dex. bonus? I don't think anyone I game with buys half-plate. Atleast after initial character creation.
And about ACs. The problem with 3.5 there is that you have to have all kinds of AC bonus giving magic items to get your AC respectable to take on mid to high level monsters. I'd like to see characters more difficult to hit without a billion magic items or without having to be monks.
4e does this by adding +1 to AC every even level. But they totally contradict this with giving monsters incrediblly high stats and attack bonuses.

Multi-classing adds to the customization of your characters. I like it, but think you shouldn't multiclass more than once or twice. And conflicting classes like Paladin and Rogue probablly shouldn't be allowed.

I've never played an epic game because there are too many rules and you need to uberize your armer, spells, exc. I've never run a game above 8th because the writeups for the more powerful spellcasters and monsters with special abilities require you to contantlly look stuff up. Often in other books.
I tried playing a 10th level game online and it took forever to build a 10th level character. Don't get me wrong. I don't wanna see things as condenced as 4e. 4e has some good ideas, but cutting the skill lists in half and with feats so limited. I'm sure they'll add more options, but they cut so much out of their 1st core books to get to that set page count. I hope Pathfinder doesn't go that far. But 3.5 has so many rules and alternate rules that our tabletop group constantlly bickered over what rule was right for the present situation. ~ ok. That goes a little past the present Epic discussion. 3.5s billion rules just frustrated me to where I was afraid to try running an Epic game.

I'd do away with leadership all together. At 6th or 7th level, what's the point of having 1st level followers? There is none. If you're in a battle, they're dead.
In a militairy setup they may be useful as fodder, or ranged attackers. But we're talking rpg. What are mid and high level adventurers gonna do with 1st level underlings? The feat Leadership is pointless for someone in an adventure party.
If I had Leadership, I'd want a cool npc of equal or near level value to my character to have do things for me. Low level characters I'd feel I'd need to 'babysit' or they'd die. Also, what if someone with no leadership or wisdom (in real life) wants Leadership. They get henchmen to boss around and the other players get annoyed. They then turn on the moron with Leadership that is having their henchmen do dumb things.
Anyhow, it's ineffective to be 10th level and boss a handful of npcs that can only take one hit against high level monsters.

MORE MORE MORE skill points.

Maybe get rid of cross-class skills. Keep all skills at a point each. Skill points are the best way to customze your character- besides how you you play them. Spending skill points in near useless things like cooking, pottery making, taxidermy, and scrubbing barnacles off ships is what defines your character Pre-adventurer. i'm not saying add these to the skill list. No way! Just give more skill points at creation or dump the cross-class thing.
I'm tired as I type this. So, I may read this a day or two from now and wonder what the heck I typed. But in half-sleep mode this, for some reason, makes sence.

Interesting. I was thinking about Brownies, too. They're not very popular as d&d baddies, but do to the mischif factor may be fun pcs.

I agree with Drow. Due to their popularity (there's one in almost every campaign I run or play in) I'd like to see them as a core race. Though I understand the whole 'villian' deal.
I said the same thing for Orcs when I saw Half-Orcs added in back in the day. I think the designers didn't want to add a core Evil race to the fold, so they compromised with a half-version. Many people like them. I just don't see half-orcs or half-elves as actual races. They should be rare. If they're commen, then elves and orcs may as well just be pretty and ugly humans.
Which brings me to my next thought; I'm human. I see humans everywhere, as there are only humans wandering about in real life. I'm playing a fantasy game to excape real life. It would be nice to have some core races that are not human looking. I think the best mix was created for the game Morrowind. They had catpeople, lizardpeople, and orcs. As well, they had dark elves. I guess Evercrack had some good race options too.
What I didn't like about 4e's new Core races were that they took something cool, the Teifling, and made them all look the same with big horns, thick tails, and red skin. Then they added dragonborn. This addition takes away from the exotic and awesomness that is the dragon. Lets put them everywhere, cause they'r cool. Yeah! Now we rip off one of the things making Dragonlance unique and we limit (like the new Tiefling) the customization options. They gotta be bronze, gold, or a like color. exc.
Wow, I'm just ripping everything. Maybe we should go back to the 1st Edition days when you could just be human, elf, dwarf, or Halfling?! Ok. I didn't mean that.
But I do vote for a new Core race. Round up. Make it 8. New class? Go for 12? That would be more difficult. The elevin we have cover most things, unless we add a psion or necromancer. Though, Pirates make Everything better, right?!
Races that may make good Core Races: Drow
Catfolk (get rid of the folk part, reminds me of old people. 'My folks...'
Lupin
Tieflings & Aasimar
Phanatons (Raccoon Monkeys from Isle of Dread would be fun pcs)
Nezumi (ratfolk)

I'd add Orcs, but the problem is Warcraft, Warhammer, I think ShadowRun, and other games have them core, too. I'm a big Gnoll fan, but they're great just as badguys, too. Same with Hobgoblins, though Kalimar (sp.) made them good pcs. Hobgoblins are close to humans in temperment.

I agree to a point, but alas, also dissagree. I think stats should be allowed lower than 8. What if someone is playing a crippled character? Or difformed? Or a character that's meant to be sick alot (like Raistlin)? I wouldn't want stats like 4 or 5. But I can see a negative 2 stat- say 6 or 7. But thats just me.
The suggestion you have works with the 6 + 2d6 for stats. It's not bad. I'd like a straight-up pointbuy ; that's 1pt. per point. Stats start at 6. You'd get about 40 pts. to work with. To get all 10s that's 24 points. Four 14s and two 12s would be if evenly placed.
I still think rolling either 4d6 or 5d6 is best and most fun. I let my players roll like that then if they get say four 6s, they get a 19. 18+ 1 pt. for another 6. Almost never happens.

For abilities I like: Str, Con, Manual Dexterity, Agility, Int, Wis, Cha. But that wouldn't translte to 3.5 compatable. A big thing with Pathfinder seems to be " Don't let all those 3.5 books go to waste". A solid concept. In my d&d group alone, we've got, perhaps, a hundred 3.5 books.

Going back to the subject, I think Wizard's choice of a pointbuy for their official characters stinks. The nothing lower than an 8 and only one 8, doesn't allow me to put points somewhere else. And when I made a 4e character, I felt I was just cloning another person's character but giving him a differant name. But that's for a dif. topic...