Lets put together all our lite-d20 rules projects here!

[Turanil]

Well, for one thing, the Castle & Crusade game is generating much enthusiasm as many people say that they are tired of D&D 3.5 complexity and welcome a simple and easy to run lite D&D game. Then, other people are looking for a simplified version of D&D when they don't want C&C, and I have seen several people in these forum trying to come up with their own versions of a lite d20-system.

I propose in this thread that all amateur-designers and game-houserulers, and others interested in a lite-d20-system to explain their ideas to the community. What they do find complicated (and why), and their suggestion to simplify it if any, as well as what they don't want to change.

The purpose of this thread is to gather many different methods and ideas, since working at several produces faster and better results than multiple gamers working alone on their own projects.

Thanks.


I will begin with my own concepts, excerpted from a recent thread on this forum:

My attempt at a lite-d20 sci-fi game concerns d20 Modern / d20 Future. These games are complex with endless customization possibilities which burden the game IMO. (And all of this to eventually end with a character who essentially has many skills ranks...) Hence, I wanted a lite d20-sci-fi game that still enable to use d20 Modern / Future books (essentially for equipment), but would resemble more d20 Star-Wars or Traveller 20 (traditional types of classes).

C&C gave me some ideas for a lite d20-sci-fi game, however it cannot resemble C&C for various reasons (the central 12/18 mechanic is not OGC, and a sci-fi game where no magic exist but where skills are central, must obviously be different from C&C).

Well, I prefer to see it simple:

1) A set of traditional core classes (profession type, 20 levels. No bonus feat or choice of talents. Each class has a few specific abilities appropriate to its theme ("Jury rig" for Engineer, "Medical Miracle" for Medi, etc.). These abilities are chosen among the d20 Modern SRD class abilities that make the most sense, are the most exciting.

2) Class skills at d20 + modifier + level. This is an Unearthed Arcana variant: the class has some class skill, you get 1 rank per level in each of these skills. Extremely easy to calculate, especially for GM who must invent NPCs on the fly.

3) Non-class skills at d20 + modifier. You can use non-class skills, but are not really good at it. Any character gets 2 bonus class skills at character's creation to anble a little of customization however.

4) There is an uber plethora of feats that add boring complexity to the game IMO, especially combat feats of all sorts. Most are removed, only remain a few streamlined simple feats for people who hope to customize their character a little (but no feat chains).

5) Armors and weapons: each class has access to a specific list (no groups such as "simple weapons" or whatnot), and when someone does want an additional weapon proficiency he can get a very simple feat: "proficiency in one additional weapon of character's choice".

6) Combat simplified. No attacks of opportunity except for rare cases (i.e.: one free attack granted in exteme circumstances such as when an opponent turns back and flees). Otherwise, there is a list of actions that incur some penalties in combat (typically to AC or to BAB), and a list of combat maneuvers that everybody can perform at the cost of penalty to attack rolls. It replaces combat feats.

7) I keep Action Points, critical hits, and Reputation bonus, because I find it a cool addition to the game. I also do keep MAS. Lastly, as far as d20 Modern + FX is concerned, I do use Grim Tales spellcasting.

My opinion about feats:

I got a look at a compilation of 200+ feats from d20 Modern, d20 Future, etc. I made a while ago. Gosh! What a mess of rules and options! I have decided to get rid of them but not completely. I will keep only a short list of simple stuff like Alertness, Lightning Reflexes, Skill focus, etc., but most combat feats disappear, and there won't be anymore feat chains. No class will give bonus feats. However, having the possibility for a feat every 3 levels or so (the only feats that will be in my system) is something that players usually love. It's a measure of customization, a sort of bonus, like a treasure you get but not from equipment or magic item, something that helps differentiate the character. The feats will also optional in that one learns or not learns them. The maximum number that can be learned is determined by level (2nd to 4th level: 1 feat; 5th to 7th level: 2 feats; 8th to 10th level: 3 feats; 11th to 13th level: 4 feats; 14th to 16th level: 5 feats; 17th to 19th level: 6 feats; 20 th level: 7 feats). Then, most common NPCs won't have feats (this will help differentiate heroes from comoners). The fact is, one won't get a feat by getting more levels, he will have to find a teacher for getting them, that wil involve gaming story and roleplay.

 

[Grayhawk]

I've been working on something like this for a while now. As such I'm interested in C&C as well, but not because I have any hopes that it'll do what I want, but because I hope I can mine it for ideas on how to handle specific issues.

My personal goal is a slimmed down version of 3x that mixes some of the d20 stuff I like - some feats and unified mechanics - with the flavor of earlier editions. While 3x is a very impresive system, I've found that I prefer the more visceral playstyle of 1e & 2e, where everything isn't codified but instead require on-the-fly rulings by the DM, and thus can play much faster (with a good DM!) than a system where there's a rule for everything but you have to remember it or know where to find it.

With the advent of 3e, I happily embraced the tactical nature of AoO's, movement and special combat feats. So I got about 70 miniatures and a nice big combat mat. While playing the game with these accessories can be very satisfying, my group felt that it takes away from the most powerful aspect of roleplaying: The imagining in your own head of everything that transpires. Much in the same way that a book-to-movie can make for a great film but rarely exceeds the reading experience. Therefore, one of the main points is getting rid of AoO's and the dependency on a battlemat.

Now, I'll spare you for all the details of my changes and instead just mention what I've changed:

Races
Human, Dwarf, Hafling, Elf, Halfelf. Simplified and hopefully better balanced. Example of simplification: Dwarves no longer get save bonuses to this and that but instead a plain +2 to fort saves. In the same vein, elves get a +2 bonus to will saves.

Multiclassing
No exp penalty. Fighter classes (fighter, ranger, paladin) can't multi with each other. Halfelves can have 3 classes, other races only 2.

Classes
Cleric, Fighter, Mage, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue (so far). Paladins and rangers are spell-less. Some class abilities are removed, some gained and some just shifted around.

Skills
A short consolidated skill list of about 15 skills. No skill points. A normal skill check is an ability check. Some classes have skills as class abilities, making the check = d20 +class level +3 +ability modifier. What Int does, is give you a number (equal to your Int modifier +1) of Craft and Knowledge skills as class abilities.

Feats
So far, a list of about 30, mostly combat feats. Some allow you to 'break' the rules and do things that you couldn't before, like Cleave. Some allows you to give up something for something else, like Power Attack. Most of these have been simplified to a +2/-2 mechanic. Power Attack, for instance is locked at -2/+2. Parry (my renamed Combat Expertise) is also locked at -2/+2. A specific goal of reworking feats and make up new ones, have been to make different combat styles equally appealing. As such, TWF have been made less of a feat-sink and there are feats for shield users as well as single weapon users.

Free Attacks
AoO's are gone, instead 2 specific situations makes you subject to a free attack: Turning your back on - and running away from - somebody with a melee weapon. Engaging somebody with reach.

Combat
You must end your move when entering a 'Melee Zone' (basically a threatened area). A Mobility type feat can possibly offset this. There are no Improved feats for Trip, Disarm, etc. Special combat moves like these (including Feint) are resolved by making opposed attack rolls. When it makes sense, bonus from the weapon wielded is applied. Most of these can only be tried against someone no more than 1 size larger that yourself. If not of equal size, the smaller gets a -4 penalty to his check. Some stuff you just cannot do in melee, like using a ranged weapon.

Spellcasting
New mechanic have the caster make a spellcasting check to see if his spell gets off on his own initiative or if it carries over to the next round, risking disruption.

Turn Undead
Is made a level check by the cleric, with the potential to affect a lot of undead but with a shorter range and fewer uses per day. The undead aren't 'turned' but are kept at bay like a summoned creature affected by a Magic Circle against Evil. Destruction is still possible.

Well, that's it so far. Let me know if you're interested in any details.

 

[Turanil]

I much like most of your ideas:

Races
I agree with you! Adding a simple plain bonus to Fort or Will saves rather than various specific circumstances bonus should simplify things!

Multiclassing
I agree that tracking % penalties and seeing if players don't cheat is tedious. As a DM I never bothered taking care of it, and furthermore this part doesn't exist in d20 Modern.

Classes
I think that the class abilities could be streamlined. I don't know what's the advantage of spell-less rangers / paladins.

Skills
I like your idea, except that I probably wouldn't add a +3 to class skills; to keep it simple I would do d20 + class level + mod. In my system all classes have "class skills", plus all character get 2 free core skills (like class skills throughout their entire level progression). So Intelligence now provides a number of additional language a character can learn (both speak / read&write) beyond their native language + common (where common is more of an universal pidgin that cannot convey literacy, poetry, etc.).

Also, I would like to know about your simplified skill list. I guess it's one like the one quoted below?

Feats
Well, it's not how I see the things, but it may work if these feats are clear and simple to apply. I do like the idea of a few feats enabling to "bypass the rules" like cleave.

Free Attacks
Agree with you on getting rid of AoOs except in case one turns back or run away from melee. However, I add a few penalties to AC for doing something else than fight in melee combat. For example, taking a potion to drink it, and the opponent gets a +2 to hit / damage on his next attack. Most things that normally provoke AoOs are handled with such a +2 or even +4 bonus.

Combat
End one's move when entering melee sounds good. But what about ranged combat? When character fires, that could mean abstract end of move (even if continues running, this will be counted next round)?
I thought to handle special maneuvers (trip, disarm, etc.) in a simple "called shot" manner. I thought you would get a -4 to hit (with additional -2 per size difference), then if successful, the opponent gets a saving throw or maybe a Strength check to see if he resists the attempt.

Spellcasting
Well, I see what you suggest as adding complexity rather than removing it. Personally, I would have wizards have more lower level spells, and then cast all their spells like sorcerers. This clearly removes complexity, and doesn't add munchkinism in my experience. Then make a new class for sorcerer; something like a witch who gets special powers instead of more spells per day. I would suggest something like a very simplified Arcana Unearthed (Monte Cook) witch.

Turn Undead
Seems a good change.



About a shorter skill list:

The problem with the "all skills are d20+level+bonus" approach is that it doesn't
mesh well with the d20 modern basic classes. You don't want to have a Strong
character only good at Athletic skills, and so forth.

I would just let the characters pick a number of skills based on their starting class. If they add a new basic class, let them pick one additional skill. If they add an advanced class, let them pick two additional skills from that class' list.

Condensing the skill list wouldn't hurt either. There was a thread on this subject two or three weeks ago in this forum. The list we came up with was:

Acrobatics (balance, tumble)
Acting (bluff, disguise)
Athletics (climb,jump,swim)
Awareness (spot,listen,search)
Healing
Influence (diplomacy, intimidate)
Intuition (sense motive, sense magic/psi)
Mechanics (open locks, disable device)
Mystic (concentration, spellcraft)
Riding (handle animal, ride)
Scribe (decipher script, forgery)
Stealth (hide, move silently)
Streetwise (gather info, local knowledge)
Survival (survival, intuit direction, knowledge: nature)
Sleight of Hand
Trader (appraise, diplomacy to influence prices)

Knowledge, Craft, and Profession skills were not grouped like this,
but offered synergy bonuses to the other skills where appropriate.

--Ben

 

[Turanil]

A few things borrowed on other threads:

Combat is something I'd like to alter back to 1st Edition, not in terms of options but in terms of sequence. After initiative was determined each player would take one turn in which they could perform one action. The sequence would continue until no players had turns left and a new round begins.


<snip>the synergy bonuses can be annoying to keep track of though.<snip> I suggest to remove them altogether, despite they make sense.


I agree. Grappling is the most horrid atrocity of a subsystem I have seen in D&D, excluding the critical hit tables from Combat & Tactics. I prefer the old unwieldly table o' punches and wrestling from 2e over the insidious complexity of the 3e grappling rules.


Combat - each round each combatant takes one turn in order of Initiative until no combatants have actions remaining. An normal action can be up to half your movement rate and an attack. For example if a fighter (move 30) is facing an orc 15-ft away the fighter can move and attack the orc as one action. If the orc was 25-ft away for example the fighter couldn't reach the orc on his first action and this would have to occur on his second action. Some combat actions such as Charge double the movement allowed in one action but would then not allow further actions for the round. Multiple attacks only occur for fighter type characters and are staggered at various levels with the overall effect of less iterative attacks at higher levels. To compensate this all attacks are at the maximum attack bonus (which nicely removes an element of working things out - I know its only -5 per extra attack). Not that I agree entirely, but something simple needs be determined to handle what one can do during a single round (turn of action).


Everyone gets 2 actions a round, which can be used for some combination of move, attack and parry. You don't get more attacks from high BAB or feats. The two action system works out great for me. Basically, the person can attack twice, move twice, combination, etc. I haven't found it to have too many effects on the rest of the game. I could rather suggest this: 2 actions per round. The first is the action you can do with your legs (obviously moving); the second is the action you can do with your arms (so one or more attacks, or other doings). Only monk-like classes can use move to attack instead (adding an additional attack) with their feet.

 

[Grayhawk]

I don't know what's the advantage of spell-less rangers / paladins.

To me, the advantage is greater customization. With 3e's multiclassing system it's easy to take a few levels of an appropriate spellcasting class to make a paladin or ranger with spells, especially as I've removed xp penalties. It seems that giving some classes limited spellcasting is an artifact from the older editions where multiclassing rules where more rigid.

And without getting into the whole 'what's a ranger?', I like the idea of having a base ranger class, which is a d10 HP warrior type with wilderness abilities and favored enemies. If you want your ranger to be more scout-like with a d8 HP as in 3.5, multi with rogue. If you want him to have spellcasting abilities, multi with cleric (or druid, if I get around to making one). In any case, I think it's fair that you give up a little of your BAB and core ranger abilities for the addede versatility. You'd still call your character a ranger, you would just have used the multiclasing rules to taylor him to your liking.

Skills
I like your idea, except that I probably wouldn't add a +3 to class skills; to keep it simple I would do d20 + class level + mod.

I too would prefer that formula. My reason for the +3, is that it seems wrong to me that those with high stats can be much better untrained than those with average stats, but for whom the skill in question is a class ability.

For instance, my rogue has Alertness (listen, search, spot) as a class ability. It's based on Wis. Had the party's cleric a 16 in wis and the rogue a 10 and not the +3 bonus for a class ability, the cleric would be better at spotting, etc for the first few levels. Also, the +3 makes it possible to keep the current DC's.

In my system all classes have "class skills", plus all character get 2 free core skills (like class skills throughout their entire level progression).

I've played around with this as well, but I settled against it. If every character gets 2 free core skills that progress like class skills, I would expect a lot of characters with what you call awareness (and which I call alertness). And to me, that would infringe too much on the ranger and rogue's domain.

Also, I would like to know about your simplified skill list. I guess it's one like the one quoted below?

Pretty much. Here's my list:

Sneak (Hide, Move Silently), dex
Alertness (Spot, Search, Listen), wis
Athletics (Climb, Swim, Jump), str
Influence (Intimidate, Diplomacy, Bluff, Gather Info, Perform), cha
Handle Animal (Ride), cha
Heal, wis
Survival, wis
Knowledge, int n/u
Open Locks, int n/u
Decipher Script (Forgery), int n/u
Pick Pockets, dex n/u
Spellcraft, int n/u
Track, wis n/u
Traps, int n/u
Scale Walls, dex n/u

'n/u' means 'Not Untrained', so you won't be able to make an ability check to try those unless you have them listed as a class ability (or, in the case of Knowledge, have chosen that particular form of knowledge at charcter creation with your Int modifier points).

Please note that it doesn't matter how 'powerful' some of these groupings my seem, as you can't pick any of them. You either have them as class abilities or you try them untrained.

My reason for seperating climb and scale walls, is that everybody should be able to make a str check to climb, but only the rogue knows how to scale a wall with dex (and improves at it as he goes up in levels).

My list isn't necessarily final, so feel free to point out anything you feel is missing or which doesn't make sense.

Combat
End one's move when entering melee sounds good. But what about ranged combat? When character fires, that could mean abstract end of move (even if continues running, this will be counted next round)?

Not sure what you mean. What I propose is that you have to end your move when you enter a 'Melee Zone' (basically a threatened area). So a ranged attacker staying out of melee range is not affected.

I thought to handle special maneuvers (trip, disarm, etc.) in a simple "called shot" manner. I thought you would get a -4 to hit (with additional -2 per size difference), then if successful, the opponent gets a saving throw or maybe a Strength check to see if he resists the attempt.)

I prefer opposed attack rolls myself, but if you read the attached document here, you can see someone else opting for an 'attack/save' mechanic.

Spellcasting
Well, I see what you suggest as adding complexity rather than removing it.

I can see how it may seen so. But I'm confident that it only seems that way because the mechanic is unfamiliar; in play it's bound to be very simple:

You make a Spellcasting check, which is the easiest check in the game, being a d20 +level. Your DC's are fixed and written down on your sheet next to your spells: DC 12 for 1st level spells, DC 14 for 2nd level spells, etc. These DC's never change. Make your check and your spell gets off right away (no risk of getting it disrupted), fail it and your spellcasting carries over to the next round (weaving the magical energies is not a hard science) and the spell takes effect just before your next action comes up in initiative, just like casting a spell with a CT of 1 round in the current rules.

And if this still feel likes it adds complexity, that's ok because I've yet to see a more elegant way of making spellcasting hazardous in combat in a way that mimics the very tense initiative rolls we had in 1e & 2e, where it was crucial to roll well on your initiative when trying to finish off the badly bleeding necromancer, who was about to teleport to safety. Or when you yourself just had to get off that Heal in time, to avoid being slain.

Even the full 3e rules with it's AoO's doesn't have anything to make spellcasting in combat the thrill it was. Betwen 5 foot steps and defensive casting, it has become a pretty sure thing to get your spells off unchallenged, and I just don't like it that way.

Personally, I would have wizards have more lower level spells, and then cast all their spells like sorcerers. This clearly removes complexity, and doesn't add munchkinism in my experience. Then make a new class for sorcerer; something like a witch who gets special powers instead of more spells per day. I would suggest something like a very simplified Arcana Unearthed (Monte Cook) witch.

Does 'I would have wizards have more lower level spells, and then cast all their spells like sorcerers' mean that they have more castings per day than sorcerers or that they know more spells? In any way, it seems more complicated to me to try and get that ratio right compared with just going with the plain wizard and his progression. (And I'm not planning on a sorcerer class - at least not at this time.)

Turn Undead
Seems a good change.

I hope so

Thanks for your comments!

 

[knifespeaks]

Some good ideas here guys

I have also made alterations to 3.5 to make it more rules lite, although I have never played modern, so references to skills from there are lost on me. But I will contribute what I can:

Combat
Still a 6 second round, each second = 1 segment.

Spells
Have casting times in segments

Initiative
rolled on a d6, lower roll is better and indicates upon what segment you are acting. So a 1 is acting first and a 6 is acting last. Otherwise, longer weapons always attack first, regardless of initiative - this alone makes using polearms superior to swords. This can remove the need for initiative rolls at all in some combats.


Spellcasting in combat
Movement = failed spell
getting hit = failed spell
The spellcaster doesn't roll initiative - they announce at the start of each combat round, prior to initiative being rolled, what spell they are casting. The casting time therefore indicates when in the round the spell takes effect. Get hit before the spell is finished and you lost the spell.

This naturally rewards fast casting spells in combat - magic missile is a great example. Exactly how it should be.

Weapons
Again, from first edition I use speed factors, but only in this situation:
where there's a tied initiative roll, the faster weapon goes first.
Proficiencies are with specific weapons, exactly as has been suggested in earlier posts.

Actions in combat
Essentially tied to characters # of attacks BY LEVEL (not BAB) from 3.x. Until your class gains multiple attacks/round, you can only do one thing per round - either attack, move, whatever. Attacking allows movement within 10' of where you started the combat round. So you can advance 10' every round and attack with no penalties.

This allows higher level characters to 'do more stuff' commensurate with their level without having them made into super-heroes.

Skills and feats (this isn't technically rules lite, but I ahve included it anyway)
Everything is learnt. There are no restrictions on what you can and cannot learn, except time and ability. That's the killer, right there. If you wish to master every skill and every feat (theoretically possible I guess), then you had best be long-lived and not interested in being an adventurer.

Consequently, skills and feats aren't tied to level. They still have minimum stat pre-reqs though.

The balancing act of finding and learning these abilities whilst still having time to save the world is enough of a mechanic limiting feat chains. The DM controls what is available. The only 2 changes to the 3.x lists are listen (it cannot get better, it merely is assigned from first edition) and improved initiative (gets a -1, not a +4). I don't own any expansions for 3.x btw.

Mutliclassing
Much the same as for skills and feats. No restrictions (except alignment), but learning is a function of time and opportunity. You don't just 'learn a level of rogue/thief' in a few weeks. It takes years. Never mind learning to cast spells! Some classes, by definition, are lifestyles - clericism, druidism, paladinhood all spring to mind. They aren't 'jobs' in the way a fighter is - they are dedications to an ideal, and hence aren't usually available to just anyone to 'learn'. You ARE a cleric, but you can LEARN TO BE a fighter. There is a difference.

At the higher levels though, when a character has the time and the money to indulge, go for it - but what makes it difficult is the old ruling from first edition about a character with two classes, namely: any use of the other classes' (ie, the higher level one) skills to achieve an objective results in no experience.

This rewards characters who concentrate on their specialities, as to do anything else simply takes too much time - time in learning the skill, but also time in finding someone to teach you the skill. This is rules lite by application of 'real world' principles.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I thought to handle special maneuvers (trip, disarm, etc.) in a simple "called shot" manner. I thought you would get a -4 to hit (with additional -2 per size difference), then if successful, the opponent gets a saving throw or maybe a Strength check to see if he resists the attempt.

Why bother with the -4? I mean if you make a trip attempt you don't do any damage. Why is [save or prone] better than [damage]?

 

[Turanil]

Why bother with the -4? I mean if you make a trip attempt you don't do any damage. Why is [save or prone] better than [damage]?

You are right. I told that just for the example, but now that you point it out, I will be careful with "combat maneuvers", so things like that don't show up.

Thanks.

 

[Modin Godstalker]

I was thinking about a different skill mechanic.

Different levels of skill would have different die types. A really skilled person would have a d4 while an unskilled person would have a d20. There would be different skill levels inbetween, so it would be ranked d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, d20.

The character would roll the die based on their skill level, and subtract the result from the appropriate ability score. This resulting number would determine whether or not success occured or not.

The logic behind this, is that the more skilled you are the more consistant you are with your results. It still allows for an uskilled person to get a lucky roll, but they will not succeed on a regular basis, unless they have an extremely high ability score.

 

[Afrodyte]

Modin,

I've seen an idea similar to this in a game called The Window. With your dice, do you keep the goal of matching or exceeding the DC, or do you flat-out change how DCs work?

D20 Lite ideas:

My ideas for streamlining D20 revolve around streamlining the process rather than getting rid of options. I'd keep the central die mechanic, but likely change how the different parts work alone or in conjunction with others. The parts I see needing the most tweaking are combat and magic. I think a lot of the combat rules in those chapters are better served as options, and I think magic needs to be reworked to make more sense and to seem more...magical.

Attributes
No changes to the attributes themselves, but I would change what saves some of them influence, particularly Reflex and Will. To me, Charisma is more fitting for Will saves since Charisma measures "actual strength of personality," and this seems more fitting to resist mental influence or domination than "common sense, perception, and intuition." To go out on a limb, linking willpower to Wisdom seems out-of-place, especially given that willpower has more in common with "force of personality" (Charisma) than "being in tune with and aware of one's surroundings."

However, Wisdom seems more fitting for Reflex saves than Dexterity, but only slightly. The key to avoiding traps, a dragon's breath weapon, or falling off a ledge seems to be having a sixth sense or an instinct that allows you to react much more quickly than you would in normal circumstances. Hence, Wisdom. There are plenty of examples in real life of this. There were several times in my life when something fell or I thought something was going to fall, and my hands were already ready to catch it. However, sit me in front of a video game, and I only embarrass myself.

Races
The PHB races are just sort of...there. They need something to place them within some kind of thematic context, and the mechanics should follow suit.

Classes
These would get the most revision. I'd include generic classes and maybe branch out to adventuring classes. Instead of level determining what specific class abilities you get, I'd have talent trees like D20 Modern, but they'd mirror PHB class abilities. In addition, the class skills would be a lot more open, giving a chance to truly reflect a character's background and interests. The goals is to have the players determine which options work best for them. Here is a preliminary set-up. I've since revised, but this is the general idea.

To help out with character creation, I'd have backgrounds or lifepaths that includes a package that determines class skills and feats while leaving enough open to customize further. For instance, a character with a background as a goatherd would include Athletics, Handle Animal, Knowledge (nature), and Profession (goatherd) as class skills, and Animal Affinity, Great Fortitude, Iron Will, or Lightning Reflexes as one of her feats.

I think the multiclassing rules need a bit of refinement. The current system seems far too arbitrary. As it stands, a FTR 8/ROG 2 gets an xp penalty, whereas a CLC 3/FTR 4/ROG 3 does not. I'd favor ditching multiclassing XP penalties altogether, but if I were to keep them, I'd base them more on the number of additional adventuring classes are taken.

Skills
I like this part of the game best, but there are still some aspects of it that can be trimmed. Mostly this would be by consolidating skills that are similar in nature. For instance:

Observe: Listen + Spot + Search +Blindsense +Tremorsense +Scent
Sneak: Hide + Move Silently
Craft: add Craft (document) for Forgery
Disable Device: Disable Device + Open Lock
Persuade: Bluff + Diplomacy
Athletics: Climb + Jump + Swim + Run
Acrobatics: Balance + Tumble

I would add Navigate (Int), mostly for sailors and other people who travel often but not necessarily in the wilderness. I'd replace Decipher Script, Escape Artist, and Use Rope with the appropriate attribute check and possibly make feats that give a bonus for these types of things. I'd also consider replacing Concentration with an attribute check, or basing it on a Will save.

That makes the skill list: Acrobatics (Dex), Appraise (Int), Athletics (Str), Craft (Int), Disable Device (Int), Disguise (Cha), Gather Information (Cha), Handle Animal (Cha), Heal (Int; I think it fits better than Wisdom), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (Int), Navigate (Int), Observe (Wis), Perform (Cha), Persuade (Cha), Profession (Wis), Ride (Dex), Sense Motive (Wis), Sleight of Hand (Dex), Sneak (Dex), Speak Language (Int), Spellcraft (Int), Survival (Wis).

With this revised skill list, PCs have a chance to diversify and not simply take the skills that have the most immediate use during adventures. It can help define background and reflect non-adventuring interests as well.

I like skill synergy although I'd restructure how they worked (based on actual ranks rather than a flat bonus), and apply them to feats as well. Instead of a flat +2 bonus, I'd perhaps make it a +1 bonus for every 4 full skill ranks in the skill providing the synergy bonus (maximum +5). For instance, a character with 10 ranks in Craft would get a +2 bonus to the appropriate Appraise checks.

I've toyed with the idea of absolute skill rank maximums (say, 25) in lieu of the level-based maximums of the PHB, but I'm not sure if that would be a good idea. However, since the skill points are limited, it might not be that bad.

Feats
I like feats. I like how customizable they are. While some hate the fact that feats allow characters to "break the rules," I see them as expansion possibilities. In fact, a lot of the things found in the Combat chapter are better used as feats. Fighting defensively? Combat Expertise. Attacks of opportunity? Combat Reflexes. Charging? Power Attack. Bobbing and weaving? Dodge. To reflect competence, I'd base the bonuses more on combat ability (read: BAB) than just providing flat bonuses. However, in some cases the flat bonus is best.

With the new skills, a lot of the +2/+2 skill bonus feats have to be omitted and lumped under Skill Focus, or the mechanic has to change. I'd say that the skill-bonus feats would add +3 to a single skill or +2/+2 to two related skills. Skill Focus could increase the skill rank maximum from level +3 to level +5 for class skills, and make the chosen cross-class skill into a class skill.

Weapon Finesse should be a part of the main rules. Martial Weapon Proficiency and Exotic Weapon Proficiency should be differentiated or combined into a single Weapon Proficiency feat. If the former, I'd be inclined to use Unearthed Arcana's weapon groups for martial weapons and single weapons for exotic weapons.

Metamagic feats should be spontaneous. Of course, they still alter the effective level of the spell, but taking feats to use them is a bit awkward. Spell Mastery is an exception. Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus should be able to be used with domains. Magic item creation should be based more upon the nature of the item rather than its form. Single-use, limited use, and continual use magic items would require increasing caster levels. Items not crafted by the caster would require permanency to be imbued with magical powers.

Description
Completely ditch this chapter, or rewrite it so it can be more useful.

Equipment
Not much to change about the structure here, but I'd shift things just a tad and try to recycle as much as possible. The weapons list is fine, but I'd reduce some overlap. Honestly, aside from shape, how are darts and shuriken functionally different? Kama and sickle? Sai and dagger? Siangham and club? Aren't the falchion and greatsword both big, heavy swords? Don't crossbows and their repeating variety operate basically the same way?

Combat
The main problem with combat is that so many of the rules are based on exceptions. "Roll 1d20 + BAB + modifiers except when you are trying to do anything besides swing, and even then, you still have to consider factors X. Y, and Z." It's just too much.

Instead of having separate rules for every little thing, I'd just have the basics for melee and ranged attacks, defense, and damage. The modifiers would be based upon how much things help or hinder a character rather than making rules for everything that could happen. I'd base all the extras on feats rather than make them core elements of the game.

For actions you attempt beyond what you can do in a single round, you get a significant cumulative penalty (about -5) to those things. This includes not only attacks, but physical skill checks and possibly saves as well.

Also, I'd base initiative on a reflex save since in a way it's based upon reaction time. As a passing thought, it could be modified by how difficult a weapon is to wield based upon weight and balance. So, you'd have light/heavy and balanced/awkward to go by. That way, the quality of the weapon makes a difference as well as the type of weapon it is. But that's just a passing thought.

Magic
Magic should be toned down a lot so that it could be more portable. If roleplaying is anything like cooking, it's easier to add ingredients than to take them out. In addition, I'd like spells designed more like jump-- things that enhance rather than outright replace a character's natural abilities. The really outrageous, obviously magical stuff shouldn't go on until at least high level.

Also, I'd get rid of the Vancian spells per day slot system and go on a level check based on the casting attribute. The DC would start at 10 for 1st-level spells and increase to about 30 for 9th-level spells. The result of this roll determines the DC to resist the spell (if it can be resisted).

Spells known would be more based upon the relevant casting attribute than on a chart. The maximum level of the spell you'd be able to cast is half your level, rounded down (minimum 1, maximum 9). I'd include requisite spells, though. They could go in the spell description, or perhaps in parentheses following the basic description of the spell.

I'd get rid of different spell lists for each class and the arcane/divine magic divide. The write-ups go alphabetically and by level and include the descriptors you need to figure out if your character has access to the spell or not.