Of course you follow me. I asked the reason behind the rules. What made you want to make all those changes. Some explanation for the changes, what you were trying to accomplish by changing things, might give people some better insight and allow them to offer more constructive criticism.
The background thing, is nice for the players...that want to write backgrounds. Advancing someone halfway through their level is a bit much for writing a background that may or may not matter to the game overall. Plus it penalizes the players that just want to make a character and get the game going. If you want to start the PCs halfway into their level, just do so without penalizing players that don't want to write an essay along with their character.
Stats: Why only point buy? Granted, you give a good amount of points compared to the DMG recommending 28, but point buy is designed to produce either mediocre stats or allows for 1-2 high stats while all the rest end up being average or lower to compensate. Why not offer an array or let the players roll for their stats?
Starting money: Why are the characters so poor? If you don't want them to be rich and carry around thousands of gold, then just simply require that they have to spend all their starting wealth or they lose it. The DMG estimates wealth by level based on the resources (magic items) a character will need at a given level to face their challenges and have a decent time of getting through them. If you lower this, you make what could be an average encounter for the players more dangerous because they didn't have the proper resources to face that encounter.
Alignment: What purpose does this ruling solve? Admittedly, alignment for PCs doesn't matter much, but when you make blanket rulings like this that, they make special abilities and spells (like some of those you listed) not even work or work if far fewer circumstances than they otherwise would.
Races: Why don't you want some races seeing in the dark? And why not just give them low light vision instead of coming up with that night vision stuff?
What are you doing to humans? Why should they spend their bonus feat just to get that night vision--which isn't even as good as low light vision? Yes, they get a stat boost, but they also get a stat penalty, so you are wanting them to basically spend a feat to maybe get a bonus to a stat they may want, definitely get a stat penalty they don't want and get second rate low light vision. That's not worth a feat.
Classes: If you are fixing HP for all classes, are you doing the same for monsters? Why are you fixing the HP? Do players in your games get too many hit points? If they are rolling too low, then just rule that they round up to those values. Otherwise, let them roll for it.
If you look at proportions, you are giving wizards 75% of their maximum possible HD, while all other classes are getting somewhere around 55-60% of their maximum HD. While no hero wants to be average (otherwise they're not so heroic), no one wants to be just a step above average either. This may speed things along for the DM, but I don't think too many players will be happy with it--being happy they didn't get a low roll is not the same as being happy they got a good roll.
Barbarian: Why are they literate now? Where do they get the education living the savage lifestyle? To better reflect this, you could give them a -2 penalty to Decipher Script, Forgery and all Knowledge skills to represent their lack of education--and keep the penalty regardless of whether they multiclass or not.
Why the changes to Rage? Just make it so they can Rage only 1 per encounter and after the rage ends, they are fatigued until they can rest for 5 minutes.
Bard: What do you mean "activate their songs"? Their bardic music, spells or what? How can those skills activate anything?
Spellcasters: Why is every spellcaster except wizard now able to cast spells spontaneously? Why aren't wizards allowed to do this now? The balance to the spontaneous casting is fewer known spells and a 1 level delay in the spell levels they access compared to those that prepare spells. Without those limitations to balance the classes, you're making them even more powerful.
Why are you removing companions and familiars and mounts?
Why is the cleric losing his heavy weapon proficiency?
What are you giving back to these classes to compensate for what you are taking away?
Why is the fighter unchanged when all other classes are getting some improvements? With every other class improving but the fighter, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to take more than 2 or 4 levels in fighter anymore.
Why are you changing the monk's unarmed damage? If I read this correctly, that means that unarmed damage basically goes down to 1-3, then they get varying amounts of bonus damage. How does this improve the game or make it simpler/faster? Its an unnecessary change. If you want them to hit the same as everyone else but get bonus damage, then treat it similar to sneak attack and do it in d6 increments so that they get +1d6 at, say, levels 1-7; +2d6 at levels 8-14, and +3d6 for levels 15-20. This is simpler to remember than trying to remember if they get 1d4 or 1d6 or 1d12 bonus damage.
Again though, I don't understand why you're intentionally weakening the monk class.
Paladin: Why the changes to their spellcasting? Why can they give spellcasting up to gain an extra 4 feats and 5 extra smites?
Ranger: Same as paladin basically. Why are they getting more feats and why not just give them the Skirmish ability of Scouts instead of what you put?
The rogue change was nice without really changing the power of the class.
Sorcerer: Why do they have to have a power source? And why is Fey so weak in relation to the others? Why can't they be a sorcerer without a power source and get some other advantage instead?
Wizard: Why are they now spontaneous casters like everyone else? Why the changes to their spellbook--that does nothing more than take MORE money out of their pockets. They already have to spend money on acquiring more spells, building magic items and even casting certain spells. No other class has these kinds of expenses, so why take more out of their pocket when it doesn't really do anything to improve or streamline the class? Why are they getting only 1 bonus feat when they are losing one feat (Scribe Scroll) and one class ability (Summon Familiar)?
Prestige Classes: That's a DM's call, sure. But what are you going to do when the players want a specialized ability that their classes do not provide? Make that class even more powerful by providing it? Or just telling them tough luck?
Multiclassing: I get the fractional BAB, its a good idea. But the saves? So, no more good/poor saves? They all advance at the same rate with the only difference between them being the +2 bonus that Good saves get?
Also, I don't really see how a character can improve in a class by taking another unrelated class? How does a fighter become a better fighter by taking levels in bard or rogue? How does a wizard become a better wizard by taking levels in paladin? You should probably toss this rule out the window.
Skills: Why remove the synergy? If you don't want people taking advantage of it (+6 synergy bonus to Diplomacy for having 5 ranks in Bluff, Know-Nobility, and Sense Motive), then just rule that any skill can only receive a maximum +2 synergy bonus.
Why not compensate classes for "lost" skills? Concentration and Profession are two of only a few of the skills wizards get. So, not only are you increasing the out of pocket expenses of the wizard, stripping them of two class abilities (in exchange for one mediocre feat), but you're also taking away two of their class skills? What do you have against wizards anyway?
Why are you having Sense Motive checks now a Will save? That's one of the broken things about the skill system is opposing a skill check with either a save or a level check. They don't scale at the same rate or have the same opportunities for improvement, so anything compared to a skill check that isn't a skill check is going to be at a great disadvantage.
Why your change to rope use? Why not just include it in one of your combined skills?
Feats: Why are item creation feats no longer available? Who is going to create magic items now? Why is PA maxed out at a +/- 5 increment? Why are the "pets" now feats? How does changing them from a class ability to a feat improve the game? If the player doesn't want the pet, then offer them a feat instead, but your way is just making the class weaker and then forcing the PC to spend a feat to get what was once a given.
Magic: Why the Eschew Materials? It would be easier to just rule that spells don't need material components unless they have a 1gp or greater value. Why do casters get 0 levels spells at will now? How exactly do summoning or polymorph spells slow down play enough that you forbid their use?
Combat: Why do characters take Con damage instead of negative HP? How exactly does that speed up play, aside from killing them quicker? If it takes a Fort 20 save to stabilize, you are making it progressively harder for a character to stabilize by draining their Con. Plus with ability score recovery requiring a day of rest per point recovered, this can set back adventures by possibly every single combat unless the cleric in the group has a buttload of restoration spells.
Energy Drain: Same as above? Why? Are you trying to kill your players faster?
Crit/SA: How exactly can you inflict extra damage on something that feels no pain, has no vital organs and can continue to function until it is destroyed? A treant or stone golem doesn't have kidneys for a rogue to stab and slicing a throat open (if the enemy even has one) isn't going to do anymore damage than a hit to any other body part.
This change alone is probably your most powerful increase to a class (rogues) than what you have listed above for any other class. This change just doesn't make any sense and it considerably weakens creatures that are particularly low on hit points anyway since most things immune to critical hits do not have a Con score.
SR: You're not really explaining this one clearly at all. Also, how exactly does this improve the game, speed it up, or whatever you're looking to do?
) that really doesn't apply to what I stated. The change you have made to the Druid far outweighs the change you have made to the Cleric (in favour of the Cleric, by a freakin' huge margin). . . and, having Animal Companion as a feat is, frankly, totally broken.
). The power of a Druid does not lie with having an animal companion, it's in shape changing and summoning spells. Taking away animal companion is a fairly small change, IMO.
