Theres literally NO sound argument above as to why fantasy RPGs should ditch Race. Especially a quote from the Angry GM, "because I can’t speak for what happened in the Cinnabon or whatever that other book was called". Really? Thanks for your words of wisdom.
In my experience both 3.5 and Pathfinder have that issue, though Pathfinder less so (MINUTELY). I wasted a TON of money and time on both and that demanding specificity was what killed it for me.
Experienced "Tactical" players coming from Pathfinder might find it refreshing that classes other than WIZARD/CLERIC/BARBARIAN/PALADIN actually do well in combat by comparison, though it may seem "tactically" shallow.
I think subclasses are the way to go. If folks want 60,000 class options, well, there are two (arguably) awesome systems already out there for that (Pathfinder and 4th).
My only suggestion would be to revamp the EK into more of a Magus like subclass ala Pathfinder.
As a former orthodox jew educated in jewish mythology and kabbalah this makes my brain go ouchy. Also, expect the inevitable homophobe demographic to refer to them as Gay-Lems in short order. Bad idea.
My prediction: Paizo comes out with another 10,000 class options, none of which helps Fighters or Rogues. The paizo forumites continue to argue about it while simultaneously being condescending towards anyone who doesn't fit their play style or world view.
I backed the KS, so they got my initial money. What I got in return is a pile of hot mess with ZERO indication as to how to even play the damn thing. It's a lifeless, dead world with one or two players randomly running around and statue NPC's. When creating a character you cant even rotate the...
I have to say, playing a Ranger as my first 5E character, that my non combat abilities have been vastly more useful than my DPR. Keeping the party alive in the Faerunian wilderness during HotDQ as well as being able to detect dragons here and there have kept us from being a mobile tpk.