[3.75] Project Phoenix

[Kerrick]

Hi all,

I just wanted to spread the word about a 3.5 revision I'm working on called Project Phoenix. It's a complete, self-contained revision of the 3.5 rules, all OGC. I've combined and streamlined the rules a bit - epic is now part of the core, and uses the same rules; a lot of the wonky/broken stuff like turning and grapple has been changed; and many of the overpowered spells have been fixed. I've gone over the classes to make them more balanced and fun to play at all levels. And, of course, I've added lots of brand new content. The above link leads to the Project Phoenix wiki - it's all online and constantly being updated. I'm always looking for comments and feedback so let me know what you think.

[Bozwevial]

I'm still looking through it, and will need some time to evaluate it, but several spells still make reference to Wish and Miracle, despite those spells no longer existing.

[Kerrick]

They still exist; they just got moved to the legendary section. They'll make a reappearance soon. I thought about removing those references when I was going over the spells (wish and miracle were moved early on) but decided not to bother.

[Orion]

Dude, why ya gotta be like that?
 |
 |
 |
 |
 V   (Kidding, really. It's not a big deal. None of us are big enough that we're making money off of this stuff.)

[Kerrick]

Heh, that's okay. Since you mentioned it, I decided to upload some of the legendary spells (including wish and miracle). You can find it here, under Files.

[crashy75]

K.  I've been wanting to discuss this for a while so let's get to it.  I will post your changes in quotes and give some feedback as time permits.  I don't want to go right for classes or races (I think the basics should be covered first) so I'll start with some of the general rules. 

Combat

The combat system received a large number of changes, many of them fairly subtle. Along with numerous feats designed to aid high-level fighters, the following changes were made:

Attacks: Full attacks were altered so that PCs could move and still get a limited number of attacks each round (the number depends on how far they move).

Combat Maneuvers: Combat maneuvers were overhauled (grapple in particular) to be much simpler to use; the size modifiers were reduced, and the Improved xxx feats combined into two - one for Strength-based maneuvers (bull rush, grapple, overrun) and one for Dex-based (disarm, trip). Sunder is a called shot against an item instead of a maneuver.

Called Shots: PCs (and NPCs) can make called shots against specific body parts or items, inflicting extra damage and penalties.

Turning: The turning system was overhauled. There are now several options for using negative/positive energy - turning (making undead flee); energy burst (harms/bolsters undead in a radius); or command/rebuke. All undead (or other creatures that can be turned) now have turn resistance, and turning requires a Will save. HD of undead affected was changed to number of undead, and the power of such undead is ECL-based, not HD-based.

Interesting... Lets take a closer look: (Note I may have overlooked something.  I am only addressing the changes that I catch.)

I like the death threshold.  I think level should come into play personally, if only because at later levels, creatures will (presumably) do more damage so it would seem that char's should have a (slightly) increased threshold.  What about +1/level? 

Action Types...

I would have added swift and immediate actions into the mix from the start.  This can add interesting abilities later when doing classes, feats, and special abilities.  One thing I do like about 4e is that they categorize well.  Adding these movement types in the language now can save description time later (such as with a quickened spell).  Also, things like a 5' step (or combat stride in phoenix language) could just be a swift action.

Full Attack

If a character gets more than one attack per round because his base attack bonus is high enough, because he fights with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, he can use any or all of his attacks in a round and still be able to move (but not use a move action to accomplish other things, unless he makes only a single attack). He does not need to specify the targets of his attacks ahead of time. He can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.

The table below illustrates how multiple attacks reduce the amount of movement available in a round....table...

While I like it in spirit, but one of the problems with 3.5 is all those tables...  Also, what about 'other' move actions?  What if you allowed additional attacks (up to full attack max) as a standard action but charged a flat -x per attack made? 

Man, I'm falling asleep.  More later.

[Kerrick]

K.  I've been wanting to discuss this for a while so let's get to it.

Hey! I also have a thread on this over at ENWorld, in the "Other RPGs" forum, but here's fine too.

I will post your changes in quotes and give some feedback as time permits.

Feedback is good. I like feedback.

I like the death threshold.  I think level should come into play personally, if only because at later levels, creatures will (presumably) do more damage so it would seem that char's should have a (slightly) increased threshold.  What about +1/level?

Nah. The reason being is that the increased amount of damage dealt is already accounted for by the increased number of hit points. Increasing the death threshold is effectively giving PCs free hit points - a high-level fighter or barbarian with 20+ Con would be nigh unkillable, with a DT in the -30s or 40s.

I would have added swift and immediate actions into the mix from the start.  This can add interesting abilities later when doing classes, feats, and special abilities.  One thing I do like about 4e is that they categorize well.  Adding these movement types in the language now can save description time later (such as with a quickened spell).  Also, things like a 5' step (or combat stride in phoenix language) could just be a swift action.

I've never much cared for swift/immediate actions. Swift actions, from what I can see, are the same as free actions (I only own the core books, so I'm not up on the subtleties of swift actions), and immediates remind me too much of Magic:The Gathering.

While I like it in spirit, but one of the problems with 3.5 is all those tables...  Also, what about 'other' move actions?

Yeah, I'm trying to reduce dependency on tables, though I do like them. They have their place, but in the middle of combat is not it. "Other" move actions (i.e., anything that requires a move action), would be a "full" move action - if you take more than one attack, you can't perform them.

What if you allowed additional attacks (up to full attack max) as a standard action but charged a flat -x per attack made?

The Improved Combat Movement feat lets you move up to half your speed and make a full attack. I thought I had one that let you get a full attack as a standard action, but I can't find it. While simply having a -x for each attack seems like a good idea, the problem is that none of the attacks will hit - the problem with high level combats is that iterative attacks are next to useless, since the third/fourth (and sometimes even the second) attacks hit only on a 20. If you reduce them all even by 2, you're severely hampering the PCs' ability to be effective in combat. That's why I adopted and fleshed out the "move and attack" rule that someone suggested - you can be mobile while still retaining your most effective attacks (the first two iteratives).

[Kuroimaken]

Hey, nice to know Robbypants isn't alone in reworking 3.5! 

I'll be glad to help you with whatever I can. In the meantime, I'd suggest checking the rebalancing project. We're pretty much done with Core and are doing some play-testing right now.

[Kerrick]

There are a few of us around. I'm sure you've heard of Pathfinder. We've got a forum over on ENWorld for folks doing 3.5 revisions; we toss around ideas and hash out rules and such for our individual systems.

[Kuroimaken]

There are a few of us around. I'm sure you've heard of Pathfinder. We've got a forum over on ENWorld for folks doing 3.5 revisions; we toss around ideas and hash out rules and such for our individual systems.

I actually had some hopes for Pathfinder, but I find those hopes were dashed violently.

[Sinfire Titan]

There are a few of us around. I'm sure you've heard of Pathfinder. We've got a forum over on ENWorld for folks doing 3.5 revisions; we toss around ideas and hash out rules and such for our individual systems.

As Kuro said, Pathfinder has more problems going for it than basic 3.5 does. we've explained this numerous times to Paizo, but they ignore us, despite the fact that CO actually knows what is wrong with 3.5.

[Kerrick]

Oh, that's right... I was reading past threads and I noted that this forum is very anti-Pathfinder. Course, I'm pretty much in agreement - they didn't fix enough, and they stuff they DID fix is questionable. But, as James Jacobs has repeatedly explained, their goal was less to "fix" the system than to provide a new version of the 3.5 ruleset that they can keep updating. So in that regard, they succeeded. Still doesn't mean I want to buy it. 

[EjoThims]

a high-level fighter or barbarian with 20+ Con would be nigh unkillable, with a DT in the -30s or 40s.

I think that about sums up the power level you're trying to balance this for. To put it lightly, 30-40 damage is a very small amount, even for standard characters. Hell, a baseline Warlock 20 (a weak class for DD) does 35 a round average with it's basic, unmodified attack. A Fighter with no magic items or feats will be doing at least 11 (2d6+4) average damage, giving him over 40 damage before even using power attack or raising his Str even a single point.

I've never much cared for swift/immediate actions. Swift actions, from what I can see, are the same as free actions (I only own the core books, so I'm not up on the subtleties of swift actions), and immediates remind me too much of Magic:The Gathering.

Swift Actions are Quicken Spell that you don't have to reprint each and every time you want something else to work the same way. They're essentially free actions, but you have a limit of 1/round of everythign that shares the swift category. Note that, in standard 3.5 (unless changed in RC - non OGL that changes OGL information ftl), by RaW you can cast a Quickened Spell and still take a swift action. If swift actions (with the same thematic limitations) had existed from the start, this double dipping would be eliminated. Note too that simply limiting free actions to 1/round destroys the purpose of having the free action anyway, for though reasonable limits can (and should - no commoner railguns) be applied by DMs, you'd then be in the realm of simple speech or shouts taking up actual combat actions.

Immediate Actions are very nice to have as well, so you have a basis for combat maneuvers like parrying, dodging, and counterspelling without wasting more expansive actions (the reason these tactics are currently clunky at best and at worst wastes of space in the action economy).

the problem with high level combats is that iterative attacks are next to useless

Actually, the problem with high level attack based combat is that either all of them always hit or only the first hits on anything but a 20. There really is next to no middle ground between the two. Part of this is a problem with AC (especially in the area of monsters vs PCs), but mostly it's a problem with attack bonus and the need to accumulate at least enough to guarantee that first hit even when rolling a 2.

Ways to solve this are to reduce the penalties to iterative attacks while still giving them at similar times, overhaul AC, overhaul hit bonuses, or overhaul the way multiple attacks are done. The first is the simplest, but the least effective. The last 3 together are the best route, but obviously the most intensive.

I like the class based languages change, though why it's in the Races section instead of under Classes or under Speak Language, I cannot fathom. As an aside, the changes to Speak Language are interesting, but needlessly complicated, especially the "additional skill points equal to Int mod solely for languages" thing. Just stick with the bonus languages equal to Int mod. Clarifying notes on small characters is a nice addition to races section, but left off of the page of the individual small race.

Overall my first big problem with it is organization, I have to navigate away from what I'm currently reading to get details on the subject I'm reading about, but the basics of the subject I'm reading about aren't included with the details. Very annoying. Would be better to reformat it into either a long list with bookmark links or link activated drop downs. And while, for example, seeing races' age and weight in comparison is nice, if you're re-organizing anyway, why not at least also include them in the individual race's page? Redundancy is not a bad thing, and it's rather easy when you can copy + paste.

Second thing I notice is the changes to typing/stacking of bonuses. You leave all the current types in place, but then add an additional tier of bonus types that they belong to and restrict stacking based on that. This is not only a huge outright nerf to bonuses and stacking in general, it also needlessly complicates current stacking arrangements without answering many of the current stacking dilemmas, especially when you then turn around and introduce exceptions to the new, more limited rules you put into play. What is the point of adding this whole new categories when your point is to actually just eliminate certain stackings? Just rule either that "All X bonuses are now Y" or that "X and Y bonuses don't stack. No need to make new groupings and categories and new exceptions. And the modifiers section break down is good, but you didn't even put in that section which type of modifier each is (even usually - Armor, for example, .

Gods I wish I had time for a full review of this, at least from what little I've glanced at so far, this seems like a much better attempt that the last one I reviewed.

[Kerrick]

I think that about sums up the power level you're trying to balance this for. To put it lightly, 30-40 damage is a very small amount, even for standard characters. Hell, a baseline Warlock 20 (a weak class for DD) does 35 a round average with it's basic, unmodified attack. A Fighter with no magic items or feats will be doing at least 11 (2d6+4) average damage, giving him over 40 damage before even using power attack or raising his Str even a single point.

That's assuming every attack hits.

Swift Actions are Quicken Spell that you don't have to reprint each and every time you want something else to work the same way. They're essentially free actions, but you have a limit of 1/round of everythign that shares the swift category. Note that, in standard 3.5 (unless changed in RC - non OGL that changes OGL information ftl), by RaW you can cast a Quickened Spell and still take a swift action. If swift actions (with the same thematic limitations) had existed from the start, this double dipping would be eliminated. Note too that simply limiting free actions to 1/round destroys the purpose of having the free action anyway, for though reasonable limits can (and should - no commoner railguns) be applied by DMs, you'd then be in the realm of simple speech or shouts taking up actual combat actions.

So... is it better to use swift actions at 1/round each, or free actions, or both? You can only cast 1 quickened spell per round anyway, so I don't see any special advantage in including a new action type that's limited to a specific circumstance.

Immediate Actions are very nice to have as well, so you have a basis for combat maneuvers like parrying, dodging, and counterspelling without wasting more expansive actions (the reason these tactics are currently clunky at best and at worst wastes of space in the action economy).

Counterspelling could definitely use some new rules.

Actually, the problem with high level attack based combat is that either all of them always hit or only the first hits on anything but a 20. There really is next to no middle ground between the two. Part of this is a problem with AC (especially in the area of monsters vs PCs), but mostly it's a problem with attack bonus and the need to accumulate at least enough to guarantee that first hit even when rolling a 2.

IME, playing a rogue in a 30th-level campaign, it was the 3rd and 4th attacks that suffered. The first usually hit (75%ish), and the second had about 50%; after that, it was a crapshoot. Problem was, since there was no allowance for taking fewer attacks and still being able to do stuff, I had to either stand around, make all four attacks (or 8, in my case, with TWF) and hope I rolled a crit, or move and make a single attack.

Ways to solve this are to reduce the penalties to iterative attacks while still giving them at similar times, overhaul AC, overhaul hit bonuses, or overhaul the way multiple attacks are done. The first is the simplest, but the least effective. The last 3 together are the best route, but obviously the most intensive.

I've already done some work on multiple attacks; you can sacrifice additional iteratives (which would usually miss anyway) for extra movement. This would mostly benefits the mid-BABs like monks and rogues, who are mobile anyway; a fighter or barbarian would likely stand and make a full attack. I also fixed the EAB problem - it doesn't kick in until your BAB hits +20, no matter how many levels or what combination of classes you have. At L40, the gap between high and mid BAB is only 3 points, instead of 5.

I like the class based languages change, though why it's in the Races section instead of under Classes or under Speak Language, I cannot fathom.

Because that's where it is in the PHB (and thus the SRD). You do have a point, though - I'll move it.

As an aside, the changes to Speak Language are interesting, but needlessly complicated, especially the "additional skill points equal to Int mod solely for languages" thing. Just stick with the bonus languages equal to Int mod.

Clarifying notes on small characters is a nice addition to races section, but left off of the page of the individual small race.

I didn't see the need to repeat it for every single entry.

Overall my first big problem with it is organization, I have to navigate away from what I'm currently reading to get details on the subject I'm reading about, but the basics of the subject I'm reading about aren't included with the details. Very annoying. Would be better to reformat it into either a long list with bookmark links or link activated drop downs.

I assume you're still talking about the races section here?

And while, for example, seeing races' age and weight in comparison is nice, if you're re-organizing anyway, why not at least also include them in the individual race's page? Redundancy is not a bad thing, and it's rather easy when you can copy + paste.

That's not a bad idea.

Second thing I notice is the changes to typing/stacking of bonuses. You leave all the current types in place, but then add an additional tier of bonus types that they belong to and restrict stacking based on that. This is not only a huge outright nerf to bonuses and stacking in general...

That was the point - there's far too much stacking of bonuses in D&D. Let's say you want to boost your AC. In 3.5, you can have armor, circumstance, deflection, dodge, enhancement, insight, luck, natural, sacred/profane, shield, and size. That's a lot of bonuses, no? In PP, you can have armor*, natural, shield, and size, and one of: dodge, enhancement, insight, and one of: circumstance, deflection, and luck. That's a lot fewer bonuses, which leads to a tighter power spread and better balance. Instead of players trying to squeeze every drop out of every spell and power they have through absurd stacking of umpteen different bonus types, this forces them to be a little more strategic, and it enables DMs to make better guesses about their abilities (AC, saves, attack bonus) at any given level.

*I should've noted that enhancement bonuses to armor stack with the existing armor bonus, so you can still have magic armor and a dodge/insight bonus.

... it also needlessly complicates current stacking arrangements without answering many of the current stacking dilemmas, especially when you then turn around and introduce exceptions to the new, more limited rules you put into play.

I didn't introduce any new exceptions; everything there is pretty much straight out of the SRD.

What is the point of adding this whole new categories when your point is to actually just eliminate certain stackings? Just rule either that "All X bonuses are now Y" or that "X and Y bonuses don't stack. No need to make new groupings and categories and new exceptions. And the modifiers section break down is good, but you didn't even put in that section which type of modifier each is (even usually - Armor, for example, .

Huh what? I followed you up until that last sentence. Looks like you forgot to finish it?

Gods I wish I had time for a full review of this, at least from what little I've glanced at so far, this seems like a much better attempt that the last one I reviewed.

That's not saying much, but thanks anyway. If you have time for more comments, toss them my way - very little of this has been playtested, and it could use a good going-over by a second set of eyes.

[crashy75]

I think that about sums up the power level you're trying to balance this for. To put it lightly, 30-40 damage is a very small amount, even for standard characters. Hell, a baseline Warlock 20 (a weak class for DD) does 35 a round average with it's basic, unmodified attack. A Fighter with no magic items or feats will be doing at least 11 (2d6+4) average damage, giving him over 40 damage before even using power attack or raising his Str even a single point.

That's assuming every attack hits.

Swift Actions are Quicken Spell that you don't have to reprint each and every time you want something else to work the same way. They're essentially free actions, but you have a limit of 1/round of everythign that shares the swift category. Note that, in standard 3.5 (unless changed in RC - non OGL that changes OGL information ftl), by RaW you can cast a Quickened Spell and still take a swift action. If swift actions (with the same thematic limitations) had existed from the start, this double dipping would be eliminated. Note too that simply limiting free actions to 1/round destroys the purpose of having the free action anyway, for though reasonable limits can (and should - no commoner railguns) be applied by DMs, you'd then be in the realm of simple speech or shouts taking up actual combat actions.

So... is it better to use swift actions at 1/round each, or free actions, or both? You can only cast 1 quickened spell per round anyway, so I don't see any special advantage in including a new action type that's limited to a specific circumstance.

Immediate Actions are very nice to have as well, so you have a basis for combat maneuvers like parrying, dodging, and counterspelling without wasting more expansive actions (the reason these tactics are currently clunky at best and at worst wastes of space in the action economy).

Counterspelling could definitely use some new rules.

Actually, the problem with high level attack based combat is that either all of them always hit or only the first hits on anything but a 20. There really is next to no middle ground between the two. Part of this is a problem with AC (especially in the area of monsters vs PCs), but mostly it's a problem with attack bonus and the need to accumulate at least enough to guarantee that first hit even when rolling a 2.

IME, playing a rogue in a 30th-level campaign, it was the 3rd and 4th attacks that suffered. The first usually hit (75%ish), and the second had about 50%; after that, it was a crapshoot. Problem was, since there was no allowance for taking fewer attacks and still being able to do stuff, I had to either stand around, make all four attacks (or 8, in my case, with TWF) and hope I rolled a crit, or move and make a single attack.

Ways to solve this are to reduce the penalties to iterative attacks while still giving them at similar times, overhaul AC, overhaul hit bonuses, or overhaul the way multiple attacks are done. The first is the simplest, but the least effective. The last 3 together are the best route, but obviously the most intensive.

I've already done some work on multiple attacks; you can sacrifice additional iteratives (which would usually miss anyway) for extra movement. This would mostly benefits the mid-BABs like monks and rogues, who are mobile anyway; a fighter or barbarian would likely stand and make a full attack. I also fixed the EAB problem - it doesn't kick in until your BAB hits +20, no matter how many levels or what combination of classes you have. At L40, the gap between high and mid BAB is only 3 points, instead of 5.

[crashy75]

I guess I'm going to move around a little bit.  I want to check out equipment and weapons.  For now, I'll just stick with the mundane stuff.  The changelog:

Equipment

Armor: The armor system got overhauled. Max Dex is now a straight Dex penalty (so having a high Dex is actually meaningful again); arcane spell failure changed to a Concentration penalty (which applies to all Conc. checks; additionally, wearing armor with which you're not proficient always incurs a Concentration check when casting a spell, no matter what class you are). Also, armor doesn't limit base speed - it limits max speed. Someone can walk normally in heavy armor, for instance, but he can't move faster than a jog (x3).

Mastercrafting: The masterwork item rule was expanded to have 10 levels of craftsmanship, along with better rules for Craft modifiers and requirements.

Materials: The material list has been expanded with over a dozen new materials, and tied into the mastercrafting system.

Wealth by Level: This system was overhauled. Basically, the progression was flattened out, so that PCs end up with much less wealth at higher levels.

I'm particularly interested in this 10 levels of masterwork thing you have going on.  I'm a big fan of low magic games.  (looking it over)  That is interesting.  I like that you've standardized pricing, DC, craft time, etc.  You even have some flavor with names for each level of crafting. 

Personally, I like the idea of 'weapon templates', I think they were in Arcana Evolved.  It's just like it sounds, basically a template for a weapon that works similarly to creature templates.  I could easily see a combination using this system as a guide for pricing and crafting, with each template having a 'level equivalent'.  Looking it over.  Yeah, something like that but the version in UE is limited.  There's a 'Dire' template that adds +2 to damage but makes the weapon exotic.  I think that's a little harsh, but it does have an interesting flourish to it.  Man, I can't believe I'm up.  I started posting this at 5:40isham!  Time for bed.

[Kerrick]

Eh. I still don't see the point in giving them MORE hit points.

I can see the merit in having counterspell as an immediate action, but I'm leery of adding more actions - it's like adding more bonus types. I'll try to think of a way to do counterspells without having to ready an action.

I already have a lot of that stuff - check out my version of the fighter.

I'm particularly interested in this 10 levels of masterwork thing you have going on.  I'm a big fan of low magic games.  (looking it over)  That is interesting.  I like that you've standardized pricing, DC, craft time, etc.  You even have some flavor with names for each level of crafting.

As the discussion says, I got the idea for this from an online game I used to play a few years ago. I found it amusing that Will Upchurch came out with a different version of mastercrafting (with 10 levels) shortly after I posted mine on my old site.

Personally, I like the idea of 'weapon templates', I think they were in Arcana Evolved.

Might've been. I came up with the idea years ago, but I couldn't get very far and let it go; ClayMore (from ENWorld) posted the same idea, but much expanded, so I went back to it, borrowed a couple ideas from him and adapted my old work, and now we have this. I wanted to do something besides "My weapon has a +1 craft bonus!" and I think this works out pretty well.

It's just like it sounds, basically a template for a weapon that works similarly to creature templates.  I could easily see a combination using this system as a guide for pricing and crafting, with each template having a 'level equivalent'.

There's a version of that in the Magic Item Compendium or DMG 2, too. They had  -crafted templates (fey, fiendish, celestial, etc.) that gave abilities, and some other stuff I don't recall. I kinda glanced over it, but wasn't interested.

Looking it over.  Yeah, something like that but the version in UE is limited.  There's a 'Dire' template that adds +2 to damage but makes the weapon exotic.  I think that's a little harsh, but it does have an interesting flourish to it.

I'd have to agree. A dire weapon is simply a larger weapon with a little extra "something" to it (spikes, weighted, whatever) that could easily be covered with a mastercraft enhancement.

[Ashtagon]

A crafter cannot work on an item three or more sizes smaller than he is.

Who makes the cups?

[Kerrick]

A crafter cannot work on an item three or more sizes smaller than he is.

Who makes the cups?

Um... uh... Fairies! Yeah, that's it!

Seriously... yeah, I kinda missed that one, didn't I? Rings are supposed to be Fine, which means a human (or dwarven) jeweler would never be able to make one. I'll fix that.

[EjoThims]

That's assuming every attack hits.

It's also assuming no feats or magic. Adding either increases both chance to hit and the total damage done. 40 damage is a very small amount for any damage centric character or monster after level 10 or so.

So... is it better to use swift actions at 1/round each, or free actions, or both?

I can see the merit in having counterspell as an immediate action, but I'm leery of adding more actions - it's like adding more bonus types. I'll try to think of a way to do counterspells without having to ready an action.

Best to have both. That way you can create a distinguishable difference between free actions and actions that are quick enough to be done in addition to move/attack actions but still take a time investment.

And the only new action added to the economy is swift. One swift per round on top of your move, attack, and free actions. Immediate actions are a special type of swift action that can be used out of turn, but they still consume your swift action for the round.

Counterspelling could definitely use some new rules.

All reaction based tactics could use new rules, and immediate actions are the key to making them viable.

IME, playing a rogue in a 30th-level campaign, it was the 3rd and 4th attacks that suffered. The first usually hit (75%ish), and the second had about 50%; after that, it was a crapshoot. Problem was, since there was no allowance for taking fewer attacks and still being able to do stuff, I had to either stand around, make all four attacks (or 8, in my case, with TWF) and hope I rolled a crit, or move and make a single attack.

If you're basing yourself on physical damage and you only have a 3/4 chance of hitting with your first attack, before any kind of miss chance or other defenses are applied, then your character is a poor point of balance. That's a character that can't do it's job. And if your character isn't based on physical damage (primarily skill role, ambush tactics, BFC) then it's still a poor point of balance for physical combat.

Secondly, if you are in a situation where you have X number of attacks that only hit on a crit, it's not that hard to roll multiple d20s, with some distinguishing feature for any changes (such as having different weapons in each hand represented by different dice colors).

I also fixed the EAB problem - it doesn't kick in until your BAB hits +20, no matter how many levels or what combination of classes you have. At L40, the gap between high and mid BAB is only 3 points, instead of 5.

This actually doesn't fix anything. It just makes full BAB and that fourth iterative less special. One less reason to take Fighter and it's ilk in epic games.

Clarifying notes on small characters is a nice addition to races section, but left off of the page of the individual small race.

I didn't see the need to repeat it for every single entry.

There's only two core Small races, and with being moved away from the base races page to see their details, it'd be nice to have all relevant information for any race represented directly on their stats page. It's just a copy/paste job, not like you have to actually retype it each time.

Overall my first big problem with it is organization, I have to navigate away from what I'm currently reading to get details on the subject I'm reading about, but the basics of the subject I'm reading about aren't included with the details. Very annoying. Would be better to reformat it into either a long list with bookmark links or link activated drop downs.

I assume you're still talking about the races section here?

All sections. Especially in digital media (where it's so easy) I'm a big fan of user friendly redundancy of information. The less places I have to look for information to get the information I need to do a specific thing, the better.

That was the point - there's far too much stacking of bonuses in D&D.

While I disagree, even if that's the balance point you want for your game, why not just convert all bonuses into Intrinsic, External, and Internal? It's essentially the end goal of what you're doing anyway, and gets rid of the whole two tier system for bonuses.

I didn't introduce any new exceptions; everything there is pretty much straight out of the SRD.

"Intrinsic modifiers stack with each other (as long as they're different types)" is an example of what I was referring to.

You have three new tiers of bonus types. Two of the three restrict stacking of everything within the category on lower tiers (except that dodge and circumstance bonuses still stack with themselves, but not others on the same tier), but the third does not restrict stacking of items in the category.

This is a complication to an already diverse mechanic; it just bogs things down.

Huh what? I followed you up until that last sentence. Looks like you forgot to finish it?

To clarify:

"What is the point of adding these whole new categories when your point is to actually just eliminate certain stackings? Just rule either that "All X bonuses are now Y" (All Luck bonuses are Morale bonuses for example) or that "X and Y bonuses" don't stack(Luck and Morale don't stack for example). No need to make new groupings and categories and new exceptions. And the modifiers section break down is good, but you didn't even put in that section which of the three of your new types of modifier each is (even usually - Armor, for example, is listed as intrinsic under intrinsic, but the Armor Bonus section makes no mention of this)."

That's not saying much, but thanks anyway. If you have time for more comments, toss them my way - very little of this has been playtested, and it could use a good going-over by a second set of eyes.

As I get time I'll go over more and more.

And the difference in tone alone between this review and that one should say at least a little something to you.

One new thing I will add now is that I'd really love to see fractional BAB/saves (you've got them up as variants currently) worked into the system to begin with. They make the most sense the way the rest is presented, and doing it from the start would allow for massive simplification and standardization. They really should have just been presented as the standard in the first place when it switched from 3.0 to 3.5, but old schoolers still couldn't bear to see multiclassing so encouraged, even though it's the core of flexibility and beauty in the 3.5 system.