In short -- the rules are far too complex. You must all agree with me to some extent, because I consistantly see threads here for "simple combat" or "simple stats" etc.
If it already too "complex" why do you want to add even more complexity?
XP system - Arbitrary and needlessly complex. The DM should assign XP as he or she feels, not as the rules dictate. (In more rules-lawyer environments, such as Living Grayhawk, XP values are already planned in game write-ups so why have such a complex system??).
If what you don't like in the current system is that it is arbitrary, why do you advocate an even more arbitrary system?
Hit Points - Soldiers and adventurers in real life stop fighting after they're wounded --not after they keel over and die. It makes no sense that a fighter should have 300 HP and only feel hurt after getting down to zero.
WotC offers at least two variant rules that address this somewhat, one is the damage save from UA, with it's shaken result, but they also have the clobbering variant rule from the DMG. Once a fighter realizes he's only getting either a move or standard action (meaning no full attack) every round, and his opponent is making full attacks, he'll quickly see that he's on the losing end.
Hit Dice - Just because I'm a Barbarian, and you're a wizard, I have three times the amount of life as you. What?
AC - I'm wearing a ton of armor, therefore you can't hit me. Rediculous notion.
It's not so much more life, as it is that you are tougher, more experienced with rolling with the blows, and shrugging off the blows. Imagine taking a scientist or computer programmer who never leaves his office and putting him on a football field opposite a linebacker, who do you think is going to come out on top?
Initiative - I'm more flexible / faster than you, therefore I'm always the first one to react in situations. (It would make more sense if initiative was based on wisdom -- skills like listen and spot.)
Someone else already beat me to this one. Your senses are wissom based, only after you sense something can you react to it. Personally I prefer the system as is.
Strength Adds to HIT - I'm strong, therefore I aim well.
Dexterity Adds to HIT only if I take a special feat (or ranged) - I've got good hand eye coordination, but I don't have this ability, so I can't aim melee attacks.
It's alot harder to work around someones defenses than it is to smash through them. That's why it requires the extra feat.
Two Weapon Fighting - Historically speaking, two weapon fighting was another method of defense, just like using a shield. It was also employed as a method of disarming opponents and confusing enemies. But never was it used as blatantly attacking an opponent like one would do with two fists. Drittz did it, therefore I can too.
There are already feats out there that simulate this, like the two weapon defense chain.
I also allow the following (modified from the original that appeared in Sword and fist)
Off-Hand Parry [Combat]
Prerequisite: Dex 13+, Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Proficiency (any weapon), Base Attack Bonus +3
Benefit: When fighting with two weapons that you are proficient in and using the full attack action, on your action you can decide to attack normally or give up all of your offhand attacks for a +2 dodge bonus to AC per off-hand attack given up. When using this option, you still suffer penalties on your attacks as if you were fighting with two weapons. If also using a buckler it’s AC bonus stacks. Your off-hand weapon must be considered a light weapon to gain the benefits of this feat.
Skills - There are too many. Specifically, most of the skills in D&D rely on DC set checks, not opposed. Yet the ones used the most are the opposed checks (spot, listen, diplomacy, bluff, etc.) More skills means more skill checks the DM has to make (or skills the DM simply forgets about). More skill checks means slower play.
Just because you thnk there are too many doesn't make it fact. Personally I like the variation many different skills allow. Think of skill use as a form of combat, there is a typically a lot more checks and rolls in one round of combat than there are in even the most skill intensive non combat round.
Listen and Spot - Why isn't this one "sense" skill?
Because people can't always see as well as they hear, and vice versus.
Climb, Run, Swim, Jump, etc - Why isn't this one "athletics" skill?
Run isn't a skill, and the rest aren't really related. An olympic swimmer can't compete with an olympic long jumper, and the long jumper problably couldn't keep up with an experienced rock climber.
Move Silently, Hide - Why aren't these a "stealth" skill?
This one has mechanical differences as well. Creatures of differing sizes get a penalty or bonus to one but not the other.
Tumble, balance, etc - Why aren't these an "acrobatics" skill?
For one balance is untrained, tumble is trained only.
Craft - Why is this even a skill in D&D? Buying a masterwork weapon or armor isn't hard, and crafting one takes too long.
because some people like the detail it can add to the game, or they just want to do it themselves.
Knowledge (of) - Why aren't these skills associated with other classes or skills? I mean, if you're a wizard, you MUST know SOMETHING about arcane magic.
What about a sorcerer, or the rogue who flunked out of wizard school, it about having the choice.
Perform - We know the bard is useless anyway, so why is this even in D&D?
because some want to make this decision for themselves.
Spellcraft - Why isn't this associated with a class?
remember my example from earlier about the rogue who flunked out of wizard school. I wide and diverse skill system allows players the option of further defining their characters. Personally, the pruning of the skill list is one of my chief dislikes about true20 and other 3rd party books.
Item creation feats - Why should I waste a feat and XP when I can just buy the item for the same price?
Two Weapon Fighting - Too complex. Trying to fix a mechanic that is broken with rules = even more complex.
Two Weapon Defense - Only +1 to AC?
Any +2 to 2 skills feat - Worthless. Most of these skills aren't used much anyway.
These are all your opinion, some people like to make their own items (and can do so at a 1/4 of the price with the appropriate feats, some people don't have any problems with the TWF rules, you don't like only +1 to ac, then bump it up, in 3.0 it was +2 (it was a different name to though I think. I personally still use the +2)
Full Plate - -6 Armor check penalty? And Full Plate is one size fits all? +1 max dex bonus? Last time I checked, all full plate must be custom made to fit a specific body type, and because the plates work so well together, people can do acrobatics while in full plate.
They can still balance and jump, they just get a minus -6 to their checks (fyi doing cart wheels isn't quite the same as a tuck and roll, which would be much harder in full plate).
Shields - Wow, if I didn't know better, shields are worthless. Wonder why the Romans sent full armies into battle with full tower shields and did just fine with little or no armor?
Then bump them up, personally I bumped up all armors medium and higher, as well as a few of the larger shields (+1 for bucklers, +2 for light shields, +3 for Heavy shields, +4 default for tower shields). In my games at least, I've noticed that when I allow for alternative means of boosting AC (ie feats, and better mundane armor bonuses) sometimes attacks actually miss at higher levels.
Arcane Failure - If I can swing a greataxe at an enemy in full plate, why does it prevent me from casting spells in it? If someone of superhuman dexterity (+5) can run around in studded leather without penalty, why does a spellcaster fail spells in it?
If you don't like just remove it, or instead take the feat that allows you to cast in one type of armor.
Attacks of Opportunity - My enemy is suddenly able to attack (again) because I did something. (???)
AoO have been in D&D since at least 2nd edition, they just weren't called that. Personally I enjoy AoO, but there is nothing from preventing you from removing them.
Multiple attacks - I move, therefore I attack only once per round.
Think of it more as a compromise, when you move you are more worried about getting to where you want to go then you are about harming your opponent. You are splitting your attention between your opponent and what you are trying to do.
Cover - I have a giant tower shield, which only grants me +4 to AC, but now I'm behind a wall. You can't attack me because I'm behind this wall. Guess archers are too dumb to arc their arrows.
hmm, wow, just wow. You do realize that when you are directly behind a wall, it is impossible for an archer to Arc their shots unless they are pratically on the other side of the wall, and then basically they are just firing straight up into the air.
Multiple attackers - two hundred bears attempt to jump on an adventurer. None of them are able to hit him, because his AC is obviously, too high.
Okay first, natural 20 always hits. 2nd, by the rules, 8 bears should be able to surround him, one bear can attack while the seven other bears aid another. This adds +16 to the attack roll (+14 aid bonus, +2 flanking. plus the bears can make a touch attack to trip, that can add an additional +2.
Plus there are the mob rules from the DMG II. 200 bears make 4 mobs with a +22 attack bonus, not including any other modifiers.
If none of these options are what you want, you could even change the flanking rules, mabe something like for every additional pair of flankers all flankers gain an additional +2 on the attack rolls. This would mean a medium sized opponent could be ganged up on by 4 pairs of flankers all with a +8 to the attack roll (reach would make this even higher).
Grappling - Oh good lord almighty.
What exactly don't you like with them. Most of the gamers I know who actually understand them, like them or are at least okay with them. I have noticed though, that a lot of my players who really like them were melee junkies in our old Shadowrun game.
Personally, I like the majority of the system. I would rather see them do a modular system were you can add and remove pieces you like or don't like the to see them change the game to a different system then the the one they are using now. Why should the people who like the current game have to lose their game because it isn't what you want. You want something different, then either play something different or do the work and make the game fit what you want. There are many things I find fault with in the current system, but there is alot more that I really like, or that I like so much that I choose to build upon. Is my game for everybody, no. Just like D&D isn't for everybody either.
I've been posting alot lately. I think it might be a subconscious thing, after having been a an almost daily visitor of this site since it's earliest incarnation (way back when, when it was Eric Noah's 3rd edition news that I stumbled upon trying to get info on never winter nights) I had finally gotten to my 99th post before the crash (having been an earlier victim of the various board problems over the years, I've lost track over hom many different times I've registered for this site, although I suspect it is higher than my post count).
If the first set of responses didn't contain such a degree of snarkiness and sheer error (OP did offer solutions to several problems, OP did not suggest that others must agree due to superior intellect but rather extrapolated that from what he had read on other threads/posts on EnWorld, etc.) I would have kept out of it.
