poodle's page

If PC's are dumb then they deserve to die.

In my game a low level human barbarian chased after mounted archers at night, with a light spell cast on his axe. He couldn't see them or catch them but they could see him. They just shot him until he died. Fair enough, he deserved to. I often hear 'but he was playing in character' so he died in character as well.

In a campaign I was in we were in a tower in another dimension with magical portals we had to go through to get out. We were a 7th level party with one paladin, a gnomish bard, a mystic theurge and a thief. We went through the portal and found ourselves on a 10x10 platform surrounded by negative energy. If you hit the negative energy you took the damage AND got teleported back into the middle of the platform. The way out was across a walkway with a large undead minotaur on it. Surrounding us were four large undead wyverns. Each of the undead had about 100 hit points and about +12 on the BAB and about +9 on damage. Of course they were all immune to charming, sneak attacks and critical hits. We had to take the amulet that was around the neck of the minotaur to get out of the other portal. Unsurprisingly 3 of the party members died and only the gnomish bard survived.

Fair? I don't think so. Did we have a choice about doing this encounter? no. As roleplayers we need a challenge but there is an upper limit. We want to earn our experience and feel that there is a risk but to always know we have a small chance if we do things right.

I will say though that it does sometimes seem to players as if there is no choice. Sometimes the choice is to fight another day (or level).

er does this mean that there is no turning any more, just channel energy? What hit dice can an evil cleric persuade to join him?

if you flurry of blows with a kama what minuses are you at if you don't have two weapon fighting?

I reread the rogue. It does say that you can only take one combat trick. I think that is cool. It stops them from becoming thunderously good. Just don't allow sneak attack on flanking and the whole problem is largely fixed. it doesn't completely nerf rogues. They still get more skills, neat abilities and can also get magic use (admittedly limited) and they can still get sneak attacks. They just need to set-up the opportunities to make it happen a little more cleverly. "You hold him down. I'll finish him off." "Surprise, dagger in the eye" "Look behind you ...SPLUUURRRKK" As has been said they are NOT fighters. They shouldn't be rushing into combat.

improved disarmis all very well but I think improved trip is more useful. A fighter always has another weapon but everyone loses attacks when knocked on their butt and give away a free AoO

that is a pretty cool idea... if I ever get to play a monk I might give it a try. So basically, a monk can fight unarmed almost as well as a fighter. As for keeping up with flurry of blows. If my character already has TWF and is using a staff aren't the minuses the same. The thief would just be relying on finding magic weapons instead of Ki.

The main problem with the monk is that as a front-line fighter (it is pretty hard to flurry of blows from the back) they don't have the hitpoints or the BAB unless using CMB which all cost a feat to do well. Also because they have to spread their stats between dex, wis, str and con they can't excel in any one stat. I know that they can get agile manouvers but that is ANOTHER feat they have to get if they are not going to have a high strength.

I find it really hard to believe that a fighter doesn't realise that hitting someone in the knee makes him fall over. The difference between humans and undead is that we are squishier.. sticking a knife in a nerve cluster ruins a human. Damaging the right vertebrae instantly paralyses us. Femoral artery and we bleed to death in 12 seconds. Not on undead. It is arguable whether undead even use muscles for animation at all (Hmmmm muscles on a skeleton) and are instead animated by whatever hideous spirit is inside them who are merely wearing a corpse like an unnatractive suit. Gee what kills a human, sticking a knife in it's eye. I'll try that on the zombie, apart from icky sound effects would it really bother the zombie? Also, when would rogues learn the vital areas of some creatures. "Oh look class, we have captured a dragon for you to practice sticking knives into."

Just don't seem right. "Ha ha you filthy zombie, now you are extra dead."!!!

hmmmm...maybe. I think SA makes up for less damage. i never denied the great saves and immunities. Isn't the difference between a rogue and a monk in CMB only 1. As for movement, I can also get dodge and mobility and crank my acrobatics to tumble past my opponents. I can also get more skills to enhance my manouverability, like climbing and some of the rogue tricks like fast crawl and full-speed stealth and getting back on my feet. and the rogue gets twice as many skill points. Although now that there are no cross-class skills as such there is no reason why a monk can't take use magic item as well as a thief. The only big difference is ki pool which I have to admit can be pretty cool depending on how many ki points you spend . The thief might make up for this by being able to take a combat feat instead of a rogue trick every 2 levels. Soon adds up..

I think that the rogue is still going to come out ahead in damage stakes from their occasional SA as the monk is limited to doing extra damage in hand to hand and the rogue can SA within 30 ft. It would would be interesting to have a clash of the titans and play high level characters against each other.

I am happy to acknowledge that a monk (only thanks to Ki pool) is better than they used to be.

I think it is a little over the top but I like it anyway, especially the strength draining powers. 4 qi points and you would be draining 4d6 strength. Two hits and almost any character would be powerless. I like the principle though. I like the idea of the monk being able to attack stats with nerve strikes or channeling ki or however you imagine it. realistically they are never going to be the big damage dealers so lets give them something unique, movement and disabling opponents.
The reducing speed to 5' is cool but I would have the attack reduce the speed by 5' per succesful attack.

Overall great ideas. I would be interested in seeing enough variety to be a non-asian martial artist whether it is a greek style wrestler, a boxer or judoka. many countries have had traditions of unarmed combat in a variety of styles. I would hate it if these all devolved to naked fighter.

I was thinking about playing a thief pretending to be a monk. It seems to me that the thief would kick the monks butt (which is wrong).

I would take two weapon fighting as my feat (and improved initiative if I was human) and use a quarter staff. I am now doing the same damage at the same minuses but have the advantage that I can use the staff as a two handed weapon for one attack for extra damage. Also I can attack oozes and other things without worrying about touching them.

Instead of being able to use my wisdom to improve my AC I would just wear light armour under my robes giving me a better touch AC.

I would take as much bluff as I could so that I could feint in combat for extra damage "It is an ancient manouver taught in our temple called 'two soggy plums' really".

I know that in a bare knuckle fight the monk might thrash me but I would be a mug to do that when I could use a weapon instead. I know that monks get cool abilities later on but I would get rogue tricks. I know monks have great saving throws and movement but it never really seems to matter. As for spider fall, if you have tumble you should be able to survive a 20 ft fall anyway.

The rogue has the advantage that he doesn't need to spread his stats as badly. I know the monk gets faster and his armour class improves but by 5th level you would hope to have picked up an item that improves AC. Apart from charging distance there is no real advantage to being faster apart from jumping (another skill that isn't used very much).

One important advantage is that the rogue can use crossbows and shortbows instead of shuriken and javelins.

Heck if you class dip into sorceror or wizard what abilities does the monk really get that you couldn't copy. Mage armour, feather fall, expeditious retreat, ...

I was looking at class skills and thinking of characters. I thought about the idea of a thief that pretends to be a monk. It seems like the thief would whup the monks butt at everything but saving throws. I admit they don't get immunity to poison or disease but they make up for it with a better range of skills, rogue tricks, and the ever-popular sneak attack. They do less damage with their bare hands but so what? They can still use weapons and get the improved unarmed feat.

My first level pretend monk would use a quarter staff (1d6/1d6) and have the feats two weapon fighting, improved initiative. He is doing the same damage as a monk with his flurry of blows at the same minuses but can choose to make a single two handed attack for extra damage unlike the monk. Although I would lack the monk's wisdom bonus to AC I would make up for it by wearing armour under my robes. I would also have the advantage that I might not need to spread my stats as much as the monk. I would also crank my bluff skill as much as possibble so that I could feint in combat and add my SA damage. "No that wasn't a sneak attack, it was an ancient combat move taught in our temple called 'two soggy plums'" Also I can use a heavy crossbow :) as opposed to a shuriken. I think that although the monk later on gets lots of interesting abilities the rogue would kick his butt especially if I took a dip into an arcane class and picked up mage armour or something similar.

Any thoughts?

that doesn't seem right to me, that undead can be sneak attacked. Sure they have vulnerable points like legs but that is where basic damage comes in. They also lack nerves, a ciculatory system or internal organs that are used for anything. 'oh great you slit the zombies throat. All that does is give you a whiff of whatever is decompsing inside it.'

Why sorceror? Give them a wisdom bonus and make cleric one of their favoured classes. I can see that being more useful to a small tribe in the wilderness than a sorceror. Purifying water, healing wounds encouraging the troops. I suspect they are too nasty to have a druid. If it helps don't think of it as a cleric think of it as a witchdoctor or a shaman or whatever title you care to think of.

As for kobold weapons a jar full of rotgrubs...heh heh heh.

these are cool ideas but potentially too powerful. How long before an ordinary character would be left powerless, regardless of level.

How about hamstring instead of tendon ripper...Each successful hamstringing reduces speed by 5' per round and character is unable to run.

Sleep on the run... the creature is able to sleep and run at the same time. Used mainly by warpacks of gnolls to keep up pursuit.

I was just reading the grapple rules. It seems like you are no longer being penalised for being smaller than your opponent. Am I missing something?

i prefer an opposed roll...at least then it feels like you might have a chance even if it is a longshot. Woohoo the halfling bard successfully tripped the barbarian..talk about bragging rights. As it is the best thing is to be the defender which doesn't seem accurate to me (unless you are a master of aikido). As for someones concerns about the rogue being disarmed by the more skilled fighter. if the fighter is trying to disarm you, he is not hitting you and if you only have one weapon, more fool you.

not having the rules handy, what about if an opponent is pinned?

yup, me too. it is good to think about feat trees a little way ahead but you never know what is going to happen. If the healer in the party dies and someone has to fill the roll so long as it ties into my character concept and is interesting I don't mind dippin into something else. Also I find my characters and the interactions with other players sometimes shape my characters in ways I had never imagined when I originally created the character.

A long long time ago I played a goblin thief who's favourite attack was strangling his opponents from behind. I was curious how sneak attack worked with grappling in regards to extra damage.

Any ideas

Kevin Mack wrote:

Erm I should point out Druid and rangers already get a spell that allow them to detect none magical traps and anyone with detect magic can already detect magical ones so at the moment 6 of the core classes can detect magical traps and 3 of the core can detect none magical. Also anyone with ranks in UMD can just buy a wand of detect magic so every class can potentialy detect magical traps.

If you want Trapfinding that bad, take a level of rogue.

Well said. I like it the way it is. Anyone can find the simple traps like the pit trap in the floor but it takes someone with the master skills and training to find the really tricky ones. "No point in checking here this piece of floor looks perfectly normal."

As has been proven many times Rogues are good at checking traps but you can go a long way probing ahead with spears or using any one of the imaginative ways there are of setting traps off. Heck, just get the barbarian to open every door and heal him afterwards.

I think it is better if a rogue wants to have some magic to take a level as a spell user instead of wasting two feats for two spells.
Someone said a 1 level dip wasn't very powerful. I think a 1 level dip as an evoker would be pretty useful considering you get
1. a bonded item so you have an extra spell you can use every day.
2. You get energy ray so you have a d6 attack that you can choose the energy type of AND sneak attack with. Is the SA damage of the same type as the ray though. Potentialy a 9th level rogue/ 1 evoker could do a 5d6 attack that was bleeding damage as well.

Seems ok to me.

I love tripping monsters or NPC's. If they have a two handed weapon or bowhow the hell are they going to use it lying on their back? I also can't believe that it doesn't affect spellusers careful somatic components on their spells being knocked on their bottoms. It also neutralises one opponent for the short term. Most importantly it can make an opponent who is impossible to hit just hit-able.

we had goblins try to jump on a pc from a tent but ffailed and instead went very splat. I had a character throw a goblin at another character to knock him down. I like bullrush more than I used to especially with a spiked chain in hand. I still found that a 20 strength trip specialised fighter against goblins was failing far more than I would have expected him to.

that's true, fighters do seem less effective at higher levels in pure damage terms but they can devote time to other feats to be much better at their job...whirlwind attack is a classic example. They can afford to invest in feat trees. What about dazzling display etc... mages are awesome at high level. They deal out a lot of damage, that still doesn't mean they can take it and they will still be vulnerable to cmb from burly fighters.

I'm not sure a viable core PC race should be almost universally insane, given to eating human children, and with a penchant for lighting themselves on fire in combat situations.

It's a lot easier for me to see an angst-ridden, tormented half-orc joining and adventuring party than Stripe from _Gremlins_.

Angst-ridden tormented half-orcs!!! Most of the half-orcs I have encountered are anything but angst-ridden. Please explain to me how a half-orc barbarian is described as anything but insane? I think sociopathic tendencies exaccerbated by poor impulse control is a mild description.

Anyway, I agree with you generally goblins would be no good as a core race. I think it is slightly hypocritical that half-orcs are.

As for some of the arguments about why halflings are not nomads.
Come on...
1. Kalahari bushmen are not small because of cramped conditions, they are small because of available resources and small wiry people do better in those conditions.
2. Who says all halflings are nomads? Not all humans are nomads either.
3. Halflings not having the skills to be nomads!!!!!! Good at hiding, sneaking (for getting prey), climbing (bird's eggs and setting up traps) need less resources... they sound just about perfect to me.
4. If you are encountering new people all the time then increased charisma would be very useful.

Sorry I didn't make myself clear. I was talking about halflings as a race of warriors. As for goblins, I love but I can understand why we don't have 'em but your reasons for not having goblins don't really explain why we have half-orcs as player characters?

I'm just curious why if we have gnomes (small tricksy dwarves), halflings (small tricksy elves), why is it that we don't have goblins (small tricksy orcs) as player characters. People talk about their small size and how they are not a nation of warriors. I can accept that they aren't warriors by inclination but they can still have 16 strength as a starting strength. Thye alos have a +1 to AC, +1 to hit vs medium sized targets and bonuses to dexterity making them phenomenal missile troops. They have the same hp's as any other class. The only area that they fall down on is CMB checks due to their small size but there is nothing stopping them from taking agile manouvers.

I don't want to see any races added to the core book because it is the CORE book. Also excuse my ignorance but how can a half-anything be a race. It won't be noticeably anything in 3 or 4 generations. In a supplement I would like to see rules for playing humanoids as characters. Just once in a while it is nice to play the bad guys trying to whup the good guys (besides I have always loved goblins and using them to teach arrogant parties a lesson) "Waddya mean they are using ballistas!!!" or "Why are all these tunnels so damm low and dark, ow, ow, ow" "Look they have a shaman...who fireballed us!" There are certainly some races that I could concieve as having a civilisation.
In the humanoids book they were some cool races to use but some stupid abilities although some of the classes made sense.

the cmb does seem like too much of a lottery. Improved trip was a much too powerful ability in the old books because you could just keep doing it until the enemy squished but I think the new version is almost too weak. I had a20 strength fighter trying to do manouvers on goblins to see how well it worked and even then he didn't get as many successes as he probably should have. I think it should be a resisted roll.

see the title?
I don't know enough about necromancers but how would a first level necromancer get 8hd of undead to control. It seems to me at lower levels this is a pretty useful bonus.

In defence of the other side of the argument. I havebeen in parties where most people hid behind the fighter with all the extra damage feats and most of the time our job was to clap when he killed more than one thing at once or did exceptional damage. It WAS boring at lower levels because most monsters at that level didn't have the unusual skills that negate fighters. I am a little bored with strong, stupid, unlikable two-handed weapon wielding fighters. I do think though that the feats are available to take fighters in different ways, it is just that due to some of the feat trees a lot of these builds are sub-optimal.

hit the guy take a 5 ft step back. When he moves forward because you have reach you get to attack him don't you?

Has anyone thought about giving a monk a feat in a reach weapon? Attack, move back, take attack of opportunity, move back, repeat until the barbarian is dead.

i always thought of the paladin as someone trying to be the best person he can be. That means honourable in the context of the paladin, as well as just, compassionate to those he can be and unforgiving to those who merit punishment. It is not about judeo-christian morality at all. It is simply about being the best person you can be. If your paladin is attempting that then that is all you can ask for.

The most notable of knights were those who followed an internal set of codes not an extrinsic one.

Poison may stop the war but it is not the most honorable way. Challenging the enemy general to a duel is the most honorable. It is not about your success against the enemy but about overcoming your own weaknesses to be the best person you can be. A paladin will sacrifice themselves to do this.

The problem I always had with paladins was deciding whether they are trying to embody goodness or their deity's ideals. I also think we are a little constrained by theideals of the societies we are raised in.
Arguably it could be the right thing to do to slaughter orphans, lepers or the elderly as they would only suffer otherwise and it means that there is more food for everyone else.
Alternatively it might be the right thing to be homosexual unless in a relationship for the purpose of producing children. Historically Sparta and Japan endorsed this.
I personally don't like the slaughter of innocents for the greater good I can see how it could be justified by a 'good' person.

In Australia for prisoners they used to have these big heavy flat leather gloves to stop players er um self-gratifying themselves. It would hamper most mages and even monks would struggle with their hands chained to their feet behind their backs.
How about a item of feeblemind? Personally I am partial to the gloves and a metal bucket on their head. Every time they start to mutter something just whack it with a stick. Although ball-gag and gimp-suit might work.
Alternatively, have all the guards be golems or zombies. That should take care of those annoying charm spells. It is really only a problem with those unlawful types.
If you have the spell-user handy how about a geas, a charm person spell or something similar?
Alternatively, make a section of town only for adventurers and those who support them. If they want to vvisit the rest of town it is their choice about what they do with their weapons and things.

All of these are great suggestions. The only slight flaw is the inherently paranoid nature of adventurers.
"You want me to put my +3 sword of funkiness in a box so you can look after it!!!! AND all my other weapons!!!! You can kiss my...."
"You say this elixir will temporarily negate my ability to cast magic. Why would you want me to do that?What are you up to? It's a TRAAAAP"
"You want to take my spellbook! Do you know how much that is worth? How many times I've risked death for to get components? Never"
"No one touches my holy symbol but me, got it."

Most parties, unless they have a bag of holding, will say screw this. We're going to look for a wilderness adventure.

I think it is probably just as easier to rely on harsh penalties than actual removal of items. Blatant spell-use unless by a licenced practitioner punishable by (insert horrible fate here).

I think Bards are actually a bigger problem because people want them to perform and they can make perform part of their act. They are probably even encouraged to do this.

Realistically though, almost any group of adventurers are going to be a match for most town militias and should be. Putting drunks in a cell is a lot easier than fighting for your life against monsters.

I think that arguably a party doesn't need a fighter if there is a barbarian or paladin around but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be one. A high level barbarian is pretty bland. Fighters can at least be fine-tuned.

Monks should always lose a toe to toe full attack against a barbarian.

The monk would fare better in a hit and run scenario. With their improved movement, he should run up stun/hit and run off, though this may only be an option for a couple levels higher (given that spring attack is a 3 feat chain, otherwise you eat an AOO for moving in and out)

-S

In principle the idea is good except that barbarians also get faster running. Stunning fist is opposed by fortitude which is hardly the bararians weakest stat and you still have to hit the barbarian in the first place. Also if you don't win initiative he will just beat on you and make you go splut. With his improved strength(especially if he is raging) the chances are that he can do combat manouvers on you far better than you can on him. He probably does more unarmed damage as well.

Your best bet is to take a feat like deadly aim and make him eat missile weapons until he is dead hoping that he doesn't have a strength adjusted bow. Of course if he has any friends then you are screwed because they will be doing the same things to you. As for taking his weapon, what fighter only ever has one weapon?

I think unless the monk gets revamped (like flurry of blows is a standard action) then the monk is always gonna get a whupping. Try giving the monk a proficiency in spiked chain and giving it another go.

Oh crap...just what we need.. a ranged touch attack that does sneak attack damage as well. That could be pretty unpleasant. Why not do a true strike as well. I know lets make it acid or something that does damage over several rounds AND make it a sneak attack that does bleeding damage as well. I know, how about burning ray. Sneak attack, set them on fire(ranged touch I think) and while they are burning they are also bleeding to death. Oh yeah, if they stop to try and put themselves out you get another sneak attack or attack of opportunity.

Am I the only one who sees potential problems with this?

lol

I just looked at the fighting styles. I like the idea but I don't think they are done very well. Just make a better range of monk specific feats and feat trees and a few extra ki-effects. Maybe just make flurry-of-blows a standard action, not a full action and that would solve a lot of the monks woes. These all seem like easy fixes to me.

I thought of a few but I can't be bothered with all the pre-requisites. I'll leave them to whoever likes that sort of minor detail. Feel free to tweak any ideas you like.

here's a few ideas.
for small humanoids:
'safety in numbers' the humanoids will save goes up by +1 for every four similar humanoids within perception. I was thinking of kobolds and goblins for this one.
'mob rule'. Due to the humanoids experience at working as a group the bonus for having allies aiding you is doubled for special attacks e.g. trip and grapple.
'scuttle'. The creature runs on all fours and is counted as one size smaller when charging or running. They can also travel through a tiny tunnel at full speed. They cannot use a two handed weapon and use this feat.
'long arms'. The creature can use a medium sized crossbow or shortbow without penalties.
'fungus lore'. The creature has a +2 to alchemy rolls to make fungus based poisons and a +2 to herbalism or survival check to find edible fungi.
'Lizard affinity'. When dealing with reptilian creatures the humanoid gets a +2 bonus on handle animal or ride checks. Rangers also get this bonus when trying to change an animals atitude.
'lizard rider'. The character gets an additional +2 for any ride rolls while mounted on a reptilian mount. If they make a succesful ride roll at whatever DC you think is appropriate they can also charge vertically up or down a wall.
'death from above'. The character is skilled at shooting a missile weapon from the back of the lizard they are riding. They can shoot without penalty even if they are on a ceiling or wall.
'cold-blooded'. The humanoids get dr 1/fire and +2 to save vs heat damage.
'bug breeder' The creature has +2 to all rolls to train or breed insects.
'the weasel's nose'. The creature can track by smell.Add +2 to perception to track this way.
'the dragon's eye'. The creature can track in complete darkness using only the heat signature left by the creature.
'not worth killing'. By making a performance check the creature appears as the embodiment of craven uselessness. It's assailant must make a will save do lethal damage.
'play dead'. The creature can slow it's metabolism down low enough to appear dead. The party members must make a heal check to determine otherwise.
'mimicry'. The creature can sound like a member of another race on a successful perform check. This ability is most commonly used to lure opponents into traps. By making a succesful mimicry roll the creature can mimic a specific person if it has heard their voice before. Add whatever DC you think is appropriate to how much information the creature has regarding the creature it is imitating.

I have more ideas but I'll wait for feedback.

These are just some ideas

I just feel that monks now lack all the flavour of a master martial artist. I love the whole over-the-top theatricality of asian movies. In theory any class can become that class instantly but I just don't buy that. It is why I liked the old skill system because it seemed to support the idea that you were apprenticed in the class you start with which is why you have so many more skill points.

Anyway, I also really like the idea of more abilities using ki powers (and more ki points would help). I would like them to be unique abilities that you can't get just by class dipping into a wizard or sorceror. I have seen so many good ideas.

Has anyone experimented with making a monk using a fighter build or a thief build and comparing it to a monk build. What I mean is making an unarmed fighter variant using different classes and seeing what really works and then putting them up against each other or against monsters.

If the monk doesn't outdo the others in his or her area of expertise (supposedly)of unarmed combat then I think the monk class needs to be revamped or at least buffed so it can fulfill it's role and not just be around for fluff reasons.

As for elemental effects, although cool, I think they are a litle bit too video game for me.

Bards are actually pretty common historically. I think the problem is the whole rock-star thing. bards were deliverers of knowledge, entertainers mainly but frequently of noble birth with the training that went with it. Why not have them as they fulfill a role that no-one else does?
I mean why are there chinese style monks in what is essentially a medieval setting? Someone thought it would be a cool idea and it is (although very badly realised).

I love monsters as NPC's but find that PC's overpower them because monsters don't have very good feats. I would love to see all you clever people come up with some really excellent monster feats. I don't care if these are racial, class based or background based.

C'mon show me what you can do.

I think myth about dark voodoo also twists our idea of necromancer. Instead picture this.

As the raiders rode towards the village, grisly trophies hanging from their saddles they could see one old man standing before the gates of a simple wooden pallisade. Behind it old men, women and beardless boys cowered armed only with rusty tools and broken weapons.

The leader smirked to his men, 'this will be easier to break open than a drunk virgin.'

The greybeard in front of the gate hadn't moved as the raiders came closer.'GO BACK,' he shouted in a powerful voice.'We have no wish to harm you'.
The leader rode forward laughing. 'Who is this 'we' that you speak of? I only see cripples, boys and women who shall soon be ours anyway?'
'I beg you one last time, please turn from this course. Our guardians are unforgiving.'
The leader looked around nervously fearing an ambush but could see nothing. With a casual ease he stuck his knife into the old man.'Your guardians have failed you.'
As the blood gushed into the dirt the horses began to whinny nervously and try to back away. The stink of rot and death filled the air as the ground opened to let the bodies of dead villagers shamble forth. The leader hacked savagely but although he cut an arm free his attacker ignored it and reached out to him with fingers like skeletal daggers. A dozen hands pulled him from his saddle. The last thing he saw was an undead child staring into his before sinking her teeth into his throat...

From behind the pallisade the survivng townspeople watched on as the last of the raiders was pulled screaming beneath the soil.
'our ancestors have saved us once again. Bless them.' Quick run to the good father and get abandage on that wound.'

I think a necromancer could be a force for good as shown. It always depends on what you do with it.

henchmen who are immune to charming, fear (unless turned) mind-affecting spells, disease and poison with improved iniative(for skeletons) and half damage from edged weapons, piercing weapons and critical hits seems potentially useful to me or am I missing something here?

Also there seems to be no reason why zombies or skeletons can't try to dogpile the enemy. 4 skeletons vs a human fighter have to be in with a chance especially with the way cmb works. Give them 2 handed reach weapons for some entertainment especially if you have a couple of ranks of them. Give some tower shields and the rest of the party can just hide behind them.

Failing this, have them use acid or flaming oil as a melee weapon. What do you care if your skeleton gets sizzled?

As previously mentioned tireless minions that don't need feeding or paying to carry your loot or just keep guard. How can that ever be bad?

jeez louise.

Just make it so that the rogue can't sneak attack whenever he flanks and most of the problem is solved. If only the first attack counted as a sneak attack that would also make sense. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice...

To me the sneak attack was for the rogue who was scouting ahead to take out one guard if he had to if he could get close enough to do it. It wasn't so that rogues could go toe-to-toe with a companion and carve open any creature they met either immediately or by watching them gush blood for three rounds from bleeding.

Hmmm...I really don't like the bonus to charisma. Being an egomaniac should make you more unlikable not less. I am all for giving them a bonus to wisdom as they would need to be observant survivors. I like the scrawny ability although making small tunnels is as effective generally speaking. I also like the scaly skin giving them a natural armour bonus. I think they have a few skills already like a natural bite or claw attack.
This is just an idea but what about a feat called "scuttle" or something. Kobolds can run on all fours like a baboon or chimp meaning they can go through tiny tunnels at full speed (not needing to stand upright) and are considered one size smaller when charging or running as they are bent over. If you want to put limits on then say that they need at least three limbs to be able to do this. If they have to run using only their legs drop their speed down to 20or less.

Another idea I had was an ability called "safety in nuumbers". Kobolds (or any small intelligent monsterous humanoid) get +1 to will saves for every four kobolds present. This seems powerful but remember they are only kobolds. It means that an entire kobold tribe can't be wiped out instantly by a sleep spell or colour spray. They would be brave until you whittled their numbers down (not entirely unrealistic).

If you really like them how about a bonus to their mass combat. "dogpile" with this ability/feat kobolds are used to fighting co-operatively in large numbers. Double the number of kobolds allowed per opponent or double the bonus that they get for outnumbering their opposition.

In a book I was writing my goblins had long gangly arms which meant that theycould use medium sized crossbows and bows (not longbows) but couldn't use medium sized melee-weapons due to leverage problems. No matter how long your arms you can't swing a two handed sword because you only weigh 40lbs and are 3ft tall.

It would make them pretty nasty. Give them some heavy crossbows to soften the opposition up with and then try to overpower the opponents using sheer numbers after the PC's have clawed their way through the traps.

If you want more ideas just ask.

As for sorcerers I would limit Kobolds to only being allowed draconic bloodlines. I would make their favoured classes rogue or ranger.