Hya Greywulf. Fantastic work you have done here with M20! It looks to be pretty much what I was looking for when I dropped out of my weekly 3.5 session. I was simply tired of fighting with rules (and the rules-lawyers that came with them) instead of fighting in-game challenges.
I like your core rules very much but since you seem to be open to suggestions and questions, here are some of mine:
~~~~~~~~~~
1) Redundant base Stats: You have the opportunity here to do away with a pet peeve lots of people have with D&D. Your system would be perfection if it did away with the needless double stats for each ability score. Why keep track of DEX 18 (+4), when all you really want is that +4 on your sheet? I think the base scores should be dropped once they are generated. All bonuses to the abilities in the rules should then be divided in half. Dwarves get a +1 to STR for instance. Simple and clean. (Note: keep the 4d6 method for generation though for the strong bell curve it creates)
2) MIND stat: This stat should continue to be called INT I think. If not for maintaining the original D&D flavor alone, then because the 4 letter "MIND" irks me next to "STR" and "DEX".
3) Missing CHA score: I thought about it and thought about it, and I think there really is this big hole without a Charisma score. It really is a huge stat in most campaigns (esp. heroic fantasy games) and their would be a void without it. CHA would also serve to round out all the classes, each having their own prime stat. Skills would also be rounded out, each having it's own prime stat as well. Character classes can then be viewed as training in each of the areas of natural talent that a person can be born with. Those who match their natural talents with their chosen professional will do best. An intelligent mage or a dexterous rogue for instance. Clerics are always trying to convince people to join their religion anyway, what better cleric would their be then than a charismatic one? So having the full four stats (Str, Dex, Int, Cha) would make the four core classes, and the skill system, make more sense I think and seem more universal.
4) No negative bonuses: To make things even more simple, why not lose negative stats bonuses? The negative bonuses are based on a arbitrary human average anyway. Who says humans are always the average? How about having starting stats range from 1 to 10 (with racial bonuses), by not subtract that initial 10? To keep things balanced all DC's can then be bumped up by +5. The players would then only have to add the revelent stats straight from their PC sheets to each roll. No chance of plus this, minus that.
5) Magic Saves: I am not sure if it feels right that all magic saves are MIND +level. I think one of the skills should come into play based on the spell affect itself. The GM can decide which skill is most relevent if its not written in the spell description. In this respect dodging a fireball is not all that different than dodging a fallen rock for instance. Each spell will then be more unique, and attack spell selection can be chosen based on it's intended target's perceived weaknesses.
6) Class based HP dice: This is regarding the HP level bonus is +1d6 rule. What was the reasoning for not making the dice type based on class? Surely its not that complicated an addition to the rules. I have seen enough people mention that fighters are somewhat nuked with the M20 rules. Giving them a d10 again might make lots of fighters happy. And another "subpar" class, the rogue, can then get a D8 for instance. I have always viewed fighters as the brute force warriors and rogues as swashbuckling finese types anyway. Bumpin up a rogue's HD makes will make them more viable in combat. So: Fighter=d10, Rogue=d8, Cleric=d6, Mage=d6. The later two being spell casters mostly anyway.
7) Size based HP dice: This one is just a thought. How about the bonus dice type being based on the creatures size? 1d4 for small, 1d6 for med, 1d8 for large, etc. Since most PC's are medium, the 1d6 already fits. Halfings might complain however.
8) Level advancement: How does the EL rules as they stand take into consideration the party's size? 8 PCs taking on 8 NPCs should get less experience than 2 PCs in the same situation I think. Does the EL the GM assigns to each encounter already take party size into account then?
Sorry if any of this has been talked to death already in this rather lengthy thread. I have not read all of it yet. Thanks again for the cool system and keep up the great work.
