[D20] At what point should you just use another system?

[Kiero]

NB: For absolute and total clarity, I have played lots of different systems in my time (currently playing nWoD), this is not the musings of someone who's never seen anything but D20, nor someone who thinks it's the most amazing system ever made.

My group are burned out on D20/3.x, they've vowed never to touch it again. I have never played it in tabletop (NWN and NWN2 are the extent of my exposure, where I don't have to see much of the system). Yet it seems to still hold a certain appeal to me as a starting point from which to hack, hew and brew into something I could use. I am heartened by derivations from it like Rule of Cool's Legend, which has the neatest approach to multiclassing I've ever seen, and True 20 which embraces my preferred approach to classes more generally (though I don't like the damage save).

At the core I see a relatively simple, flexible system, which is hampered by some of the subsystems (ridiculously granular Feats, for example) and a lot of slavish devotion to sacred cows (ability scores, dumb fighters, etc). And maybe I have just a little nostalgia for the sorts of quickly done combats in AD&D2e (though I'm less sure this is actually true, and I don't have much time for a lot of the rest of the system).

I'd have to do some drastic things to it (a lot of which are inspired by 4th edition or Star Wars Saga Edition). Before I get to my specifics, my crazy idea is to use this hack for a historical game, which is why magic goes in the bin.

Some of my thoughts include:

Drop magic altogether; no casters, no magic items.
At most I might retain Divination magic (available through Incantation only), and nothing else. That would require both some levels and maybe an access Feat to get at all.
Cut everything that isn't human or animal from the monster list.
Use Generic Classes and the Commoner class (the latter to be used in a similar vein to Nonheroic levels in Saga Edition). Switch out the Adept for the Scholar, a non-magical (or perhaps having access to Divination magic at a higher level). I think I may even have seen something like that somewhere.
Apply an E6-style level cap to most facets of progression. Same goes the world; level 6+ characters are extremely rare, meaning PCs who reach that level are amongst some of the most individually powerful people around. Your average peasant levy would be a Commoner 1 or 2; your average trained soldier Warrior 1 or perhaps Commoner 1/Warrior 1 or Warrior 2.
Transplant in an augmented version of Saga Edition's skills (with Climb/Jump/Swim merged, for example), and use the Untrained/Trained/Focus approach instead of counting numbers. Warriors and Scholars would have two chosen and six of their choice of Trained skills, Experts a free choice of nine, and you might automatically get more with certain levels.
Feats need a major cull-and-overhaul, possibly making them into generic, name-your-own type deals, with no tiering to them. This would, of course, take a lot of work, unless there are some general principles already existing in how to create Feats.
Drop ability scores and just use modifiers, True20 style.
Use saving throws as target numbers (ie defense), Saga Edition/4th edition style, and drop Armour Class in favour of either Reflex or Fortitude, depending (just like Saga Edition).
Allow the better of two scores to apply to each defense, 4th edition style (ie either Str or Con for Fortitude, either Dex or Int for Reflex, either Wis or Con for Will).
I'm musing on simplifying armour into just three types: light, medium and heavy, rather than the proliferation of types we currently have.
Perhaps some sort of "massive damage" rule, though I'm not sure how that would work with defenses.
Perhaps a Bloodied state when you hit 50% of your hit point total.
Musing on healing surges and Second Wind, a la 4th edition. And "martial healing", ie people can inspire you to trigger your healing surges.
Natural healing equal to your level in hps per day, doubled with bed rest.


Now I realise some of these bork with the maths of D20 and others skew various balances, but I think the absense of rules-muddling magic would still make a lot of these simpler and more transparent to deal with. No doubt there's some other areas I've overlooked, or impacts I haven't considered with that list

Some people are probably wondering why I don't use 4th edition as a base, and that's because I don't like the plethora of classes or the complexity of the combat system in this instance. I like the game just fine as is, but not for this. I'm not sure it would work so well if you removed all attacks bar basic ones, and there's no way of bringing in fewer classes to be multiclassed at will.

But I guess the question remains, at what point would you be better off just starting from scratch, or finding another system that does this?

[Dark.Revenant]

For that style, you can't go wrong with GURPS.

[Yahzi]

For that style, you can't go wrong with GURPS.
That's what I was going to say. Get GURPS Low-Tech and go to town!

[Kiero]

For that style, you can't go wrong with GURPS.


That's what I was going to say. Get GURPS Low-Tech and go to town!

I've played GURPS 3rd edition before, and it's way, way too crunchy for my tastes. I'd have to do a major consolidation and simplification job on it (for example, far too many skills). I don't think my group would much like it, either.

[Ashtagon]

For the level of simplicity you are asking for, I'd drop d20 entirely and switch either to Classic D&D (or its clone Dark Dungeons), dropping magic as described, or to Fighting Fantasy.

[Krazzman]

You nearly scratch everything to get it closer to SWSE. Why not merge the two:
Skills and stuff from SWSE

Reworking Fighter and a few others from DnD?
Basically looking through feats and working out Talents for Fighter, Rogue and Ranger and some of the other classes.
Balancing NPC and PC HP and such stuff through similar things as in SWSE Defenses?

Races could be the ones from the PHB and a few from swse.

This could work quite good if you have the time.

[Kiero]

For the level of simplicity you are asking for, I'd drop d20 entirely and switch either to Classic D&D (or its clone Dark Dungeons), dropping magic as described, or to Fighting Fantasy.

I seem to remember the various editions of OD&D don't have any multiclassing in them; do the retroclones?

Furthermore, I don't have dungeon-crawling of any variation in mind, how are they with overland travel and such? Do they have rules for mass combat and naval combat?

Does anyone remember which version of OD&D allowed fighters to make as many attacks against 0HD creatures as their level?

And which one was "two weapon fighting means you get to use a dagger or hand-axe in your offhand"?

Wasn't there one in which you did as much damage as your own hit dice?

How do they handle mounted combat and retinues?

[Kiero]

You nearly scratch everything to get it closer to SWSE. Why not merge the two:
Skills and stuff from SWSE

Reworking Fighter and a few others from DnD?
Basically looking through feats and working out Talents for Fighter, Rogue and Ranger and some of the other classes.
Balancing NPC and PC HP and such stuff through similar things as in SWSE Defenses?

Races could be the ones from the PHB and a few from swse.

This could work quite good if you have the time.

Problem is I've played SWSE, and in play we spent a ridiculous amount of time page-flipping and looking things up, especially statblocks. I like it's intentionally-modular approach to multiclassing, and some innovations like defenses, but the whole is a bit too cumbersome for my tates.

I might have to look again at that fantasy version someone did, I'd basically use all the classes bar Jedi or its equivalent. Even though three is my preference, Noble, Scoundrel, Scout and Soldier could work.

I'd still need to find a way to cull Feats, though. That might even be to collapse two or even three Feats together (eg instead of Martial Arts I, II and III, they become one Feat - Pankration Training - or something). Talents were a little too granular for my tastes in places, too, which is another reason I'm hesitant to start there.

I don't need races, this is a human-only historical game I have in mind. I'm not about to treat different cultures as "races" in mechanical terms.

[JusticeZero]

D6 Fantasy works fairly well, too.

Honestly, if your group is breaking out the torches and pitchforks over D20, any attempt to houserule D20 this game will go over like a cast-iron balloon. The next game? No D20. Don't even try to clean it up. Nobody is buying what you're selling right now. The game after that maybe. But the things you are listing are in some cases inherent to the system.

Feats for instance are pretty much supposed to be that way, WAI. And P6/E6 relies totally on them! I'd leave them alone. "Cap at 6" and "Cut feats" are completely at odds with each other, and is basically just saying "After a few game sessions, there's really no point in adventuring because you will never get better at anything in any way again". It's a bit like saying "I'm going to make the game completely skills based. Oh, and i'm also going to remove the skills system and replace it with nothing."

Filtering the encounters is something you should have been doing already. No spellcasters is hard to pull off because the base assumption is a very high magic setting, with only a handful of people not having some sort of magical abilities to invoke. It's doable, but you have to change up the natural healing rate. And your proposed solution really hurts all the fighters.

You are listing a bunch of changes there that might work but i'm not seeing a warrant to them beyond "I want to put in so many house rules that I can trick my players into playing a game that they already said they don't want to play". Too many house rules tends to go haywire pretty fast. Game design is harder than people imagine it to be. Just bite the bullet and don't play D20 if nobody wants to play D20.

[JusticeZero]

I seem to remember the various editions of OD&D don't have any multiclassing in them; do the retroclones?
Does anyone remember which version of OD&D allowed fighters to make as many attacks against 0HD creatures as their level?
And which one was "two weapon fighting means you get to use a dagger or hand-axe in your offhand"?
Wasn't there one in which you did as much damage as your own hit dice?
1: Boxed set and ODND had no multiclassing, and the races were classes. ADND1-2 had multiclassing similar to gestalt for nonhumans, humans with high stats could start over in another class and train up to become dual-classed. 3 you've seen. I don't read retroclone rules.
2: None of them.
3: ADnD 2. (It was based on weapon size, not specific weapons.) Maybe 1 too, I don't recall. ODnD had no 2WF rules.
4: No.

[Ashtagon]

I seem to remember the various editions of OD&D don't have any multiclassing in them; do the retroclones?


First up, definition of terms:

(Original) OD&D was around from 1974, and first appeared in the "little brown books".

(Classic) CD&D (aka BECMI) rerfers to the Holmes/Mentzer Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, and Immortal boxed sets plus their supporting products.

(Advanced) AD&D came in two editions, the first penned by Gygax in 1978-9, the second shortly after office politics forced him out of TSR.

----

AD&D had multiclassing and dual classing; one was akin to 3e gestalts, and only open to demi-humans. The other was like an even more strict version of 3e multiclassing, and only available to humans.

Classic had no multiclassing at all. Elves were a partial exception, in that they were effectively gestalt fighter/wizards.

OD&D had a truly bizarre form of multiclassing for elves (only), which can't be explained in a single sentence.



Furthermore, I don't have dungeon-crawling of any variation in mind, how are they with overland travel and such? Do they have rules for mass combat and naval combat?


Classic D&D (including Dark Dungeons) has some of the most developed and fast-playing rules for mass combat you're ever likely to see. A naval war extension of that mass combat system also exists, but I'm not 100% sure that got ported into Dark Dungeons. They also have complete rules for overland adventure (which was the central conceit of the entire "Expert boxed set").



Does anyone remember which version of OD&D allowed fighters to make as many attacks against 0HD creatures as their level?


Original D&D.



And which one was "two weapon fighting means you get to use a dagger or hand-axe in your offhand"?


Not sure.



Wasn't there one in which you did as much damage as your own hit dice?


I'm not aware of any. Maybe Chainmail (OD&D's predecessor) had something like that.



How do they handle mounted combat and retinues?

In older editions, mounts are generally disposable. I'd strongly encourage a house rule to let PCs choose to take any hit that would hit their mount on the character instead.

Retinues are NOT a feat. At "name level" (typically 9th), most classes can naturally attract a set of followers, which are typically used to guard their castle (or equivalent) that they also get entitled to develop at that point. In addition, any character can recruit and pay "henchmen" and "hirelings", depending on their Charisma.

"WBL" is a 3e/4e concept that really doesn't exist in older editions.

[Cyan Wisp]

Does anyone remember which version of OD&D allowed fighters to make as many attacks against 0HD creatures as their level?

Don't know about OD&D, but fighters could do this in 1st edition AD&D. It was called sweeping or something. It may have appeared in Unearthed Arcana.


And which one was "two weapon fighting means you get to use a dagger or hand-axe in your offhand"?

1st Edition AD&D.


Wasn't there one in which you did as much damage as your own hit dice?

Well, in 1st edition AD&D, rangers added their level in damage, but only against "Giant Class" creatures such as goblins, giants and trolls.

[BWR]

Honestly, I'm in the camp that if your players are really burned out and want something new, give them something new. Trying a variant of something they've already said they don't want is probably not going to go down well. You may like d20, and there a numerous variants out there that can do a lot of stuff, but at the core it's the same system. If someone says they don't like ice cream, better to give them cake than to try many different types of ice cream to find one they like.

Give them something entirely new. If you are used to playing generic Tolkien-rip-offs, try a SF game. New system, new setting, new everything.

Or try a fantasy setting with a significantly different flavor from the basic D&D settings, like Legend of the 5 Rings, or Tekumel, Ars Magica, Call of Cthulhu, Tribe 8, Nobilis, Kult, Engel; the possibilities are many.

[Kiero]

D6 Fantasy works fairly well, too.

Depends on your tastes, I've played D6 in WEG Star Wars and it's not to my tastes. If I'm just going to use another system, my group loves nWoD.


Honestly, if your group is breaking out the torches and pitchforks over D20, any attempt to houserule D20 this game will go over like a cast-iron balloon. The next game? No D20. Don't even try to clean it up. Nobody is buying what you're selling right now. The game after that maybe. But the things you are listing are in some cases inherent to the system.

Bear in mind this is the same group who swore off D&D4e after their first foray. Yet at my insistence, having not played it before, and with a switch of GMs, it's become something we love for short 8-12 session runs.

Now they have played a lot of 3.x in the past, but at least one player is still favourable, even while others are opposed. This isn't trying to sneak D20 past them, but kicking it around into something I might like to run, then seeing if they want to give it a whirl.


Feats for instance are pretty much supposed to be that way, WAI. And P6/E6 relies totally on them! I'd leave them alone. "Cap at 6" and "Cut feats" are completely at odds with each other, and is basically just saying "After a few game sessions, there's really no point in adventuring because you will never get better at anything in any way again". It's a bit like saying "I'm going to make the game completely skills based. Oh, and i'm also going to remove the skills system and replace it with nothing."

Filtering the encounters is something you should have been doing already. No spellcasters is hard to pull off because the base assumption is a very high magic setting, with only a handful of people not having some sort of magical abilities to invoke. It's doable, but you have to change up the natural healing rate. And your proposed solution really hurts all the fighters.

As I said above with regards to SWSE, I'm not talking about removing Feats, but collapsing several together and simplifying them. That benefits Warriors, not hinders them, given they get more Feat in each choice.

The only issue with the base assumption is the encounter maths (CR), but frankly it's completely borked in 3.x anyway.

I've already suggested changing the natural healing rate in the OP.


You are listing a bunch of changes there that might work but i'm not seeing a warrant to them beyond "I want to put in so many house rules that I can trick my players into playing a game that they already said they don't want to play". Too many house rules tends to go haywire pretty fast. Game design is harder than people imagine it to be. Just bite the bullet and don't play D20 if nobody wants to play D20.

No, the warrant is actually "I want to bash this around until I have something more to my own liking".


1: Boxed set and ODND had no multiclassing, and the races were classes. ADND1-2 had multiclassing similar to gestalt for nonhumans, humans with high stats could start over in another class and train up to become dual-classed. 3 you've seen. I don't read retroclone rules.
2: None of them.
3: ADnD 2. (It was based on weapon size, not specific weapons.) Maybe 1 too, I don't recall. ODnD had no 2WF rules.
4: No.

1: I'm not talking about AD&D here, just the stuff that came before it. I'm aware of dual-classing and multi-classing in AD&D2e.
2: Yes it was, as evidenced below, Original D&D.
3: Actually, I think this was AD&D1e dual-wielding, I vaguely remember AD&D2e dual wielding.
4: Might have been a houserule someone mentioned, or as below from Chainmail.


First up, definition of terms:

(Original) OD&D was around from 1974, and first appeared in the "little brown books".

(Classic) CD&D (aka BECMI) rerfers to the Holmes/Mentzer Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, and Immortal boxed sets plus their supporting products.

(Advanced) AD&D came in two editions, the first penned by Gygax in 1978-9, the second shortly after office politics forced him out of TSR.

I'm using a different definition-set here; OD&D meaning "old" D&D, ie everything prior to AD&D1e (which would be lumping Original and Classic together). I'm well aware of the distinctions between your first two categories and third. I've played Red Box, Rules Cyclopedia and AD&D2e in my time.


AD&D had multiclassing and dual classing; one was akin to 3e gestalts, and only open to demi-humans. The other was like an even more strict version of 3e multiclassing, and only available to humans.

Classic had no multiclassing at all. Elves were a partial exception, in that they were effectively gestalt fighter/wizards.

OD&D had a truly bizarre form of multiclassing for elves (only), which can't be explained in a single sentence.

So that's not a good fit at all. I like multiclassing, but just with fewer classes (thus why I want to use the Generic ones). Without magic I'd basically only have two classes (Fighter and Thief), and no means to combine them.


Classic D&D (including Dark Dungeons) has some of the most developed and fast-playing rules for mass combat you're ever likely to see. A naval war extension of that mass combat system also exists, but I'm not 100% sure that got ported into Dark Dungeons. They also have complete rules for overland adventure (which was the central conceit of the entire "Expert boxed set").

What are these rules? What sort of scale do they go up to; can they handle a battle involving thousands on both sides? Is it easy to rip out and port to another system if you do the work of translating units yourself? How does it handle PCs within this context, either as leaders or combatants?

Do you know anything more about the naval combat system? What I'm looking for is something covering shipboard archery, ramming, artillery, shearing of oars and boarding actions.

What sorts of things were in the overland adventure rules? Again, could they be easily ripped out and used elsewhere?


Original D&D.



Not sure.



I'm not aware of any. Maybe Chainmail (OD&D's predecessor) had something like that.

Right.


In older editions, mounts are generally disposable. I'd strongly encourage a house rule to let PCs choose to take any hit that would hit their mount on the character instead.

Retinues are NOT a feat. At "name level" (typically 9th), most classes can naturally attract a set of followers, which are typically used to guard their castle (or equivalent) that they also get entitled to develop at that point. In addition, any character can recruit and pay "henchmen" and "hirelings", depending on their Charisma.

"WBL" is a 3e/4e concept that really doesn't exist in older editions.

What about rules for fighting in the saddle? Do they distinguish at all between pack, riding and war-trained mounts (I remember AD&D2e did)?

I'm thinking more henchmen and hirelings than the named level stuff, PCs travelling with all the logistical support that tends to get ignored; remounts, slaves/servants, shield/spear-carriers, other camp followers, pack animals and so on.

We tend to abstract and gloss over wealth anyway.

[Kiero]

Honestly, I'm in the camp that if your players are really burned out and want something new, give them something new. Trying a variant of something they've already said they don't want is probably not going to go down well. You may like d20, and there a numerous variants out there that can do a lot of stuff, but at the core it's the same system. If someone says they don't like ice cream, better to give them cake than to try many different types of ice cream to find one they like.

Give them something entirely new. If you are used to playing generic Tolkien-rip-offs, try a SF game. New system, new setting, new everything.

Or try a fantasy setting with a significantly different flavor from the basic D&D settings, like Legend of the 5 Rings, or Tekumel, Ars Magica, Call of Cthulhu, Tribe 8, Nobilis, Kult, Engel; the possibilities are many.

Let's get some things clear, here. They last played D20/3.x before I even joined the group, in 2008. So this is not a recent thing by any means (and as I said, one player still likes D20 and talks about running something for us, another is neutral). We've played all sorts of things since then, WFRP2e, FATE in various guises, SWSE, D&D4e, nWoD. We categorically have not been playing generic Tolkein rip-offs to exhaustion.

I have played GURPS, L5R, WEG Star Wars, Shadowrun, Wushu, oWoD and many others in my time, they've also played Savage Worlds (hated it) and various other things prior to my time with them. We are not a collection of people who have only played D20 and thus are afraid of change.

I don't particularly like D20, but I keep thinking there's something lurking there that might just work. Furthermore, they did actually like SWSE (see this thread (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?431136-SWSE-D20-Saga-ized-Fantasy) from our main GM at the time), until it became so unwieldy and cumbersome in play with the repeated look-ups. Which prompts me again to wonder whether I should actually start there.

Otherwise it's just use nWoD, or maybe try out REIGN. But for the purposes of this thread, it's D20 options.

[ericp65]

Maybe RuneQuest has some game mechanics you might like.

[Ashtagon]

...



1: I'm not talking about AD&D here, just the stuff that came before it. I'm aware of dual-classing and multi-classing in AD&D2e.
2: Yes it was, as evidenced below, Original D&D.
3: Actually, I think this was AD&D1e dual-wielding, I vaguely remember AD&D2e dual wielding.
4: Might have been a houserule someone mentioned, or as below from Chainmail.

I'm using a different definition-set here; OD&D meaning "old" D&D, ie everything prior to AD&D1e (which would be lumping Original and Classic together). I'm well aware of the distinctions between your first two categories and third. I've played Red Box, Rules Cyclopedia and AD&D2e in my time.


Going by the dates of the earliest and final published product for each version, Classic really is a different beast from Original. OD&D ran from 1974-76. AD&D 1e went from 1977-1989. AD&D 2e went from 1989-1998.

Classic went from 1977-1999. Yep, it actually carried on past AD&D 2e :smallbiggrin:




So that's not a good fit at all. I like multiclassing, but just with fewer classes (thus why I want to use the Generic ones). Without magic I'd basically only have two classes (Fighter and Thief), and no means to combine them.


Classic also had the mystic class (basically the AD&D monk, but much better balanced against other classes). But yeah, there aren't a lot of ways to build a character without magic. Classic also had a rather interesting system of weapon mastery allowing you to get special effects from mundane weapons. That allows quite a lot of customisation even within the general concept of "fighters".

Classic also had a predecessor of prestige classes for fighters, in the knight/avenger/paladin concepts high level specialisations. But that calls for a little bit of divine magic, so maybe not your thing.



What are these rules? What sort of scale do they go up to; can they handle a battle involving thousands on both sides? Is it easy to rip out and port to another system if you do the work of translating units yourself? How does it handle PCs within this context, either as leaders or combatants?


Classic's War Machine mass combat system could easily scale up to thousands (or millions, really) of troops on a side. Basically, each battalion of homogeneous troops is converted into a war machine compatible statblock, and the overall battle decided by a single dice roll. PCs could be involved in three main ways:

Special Forces: Before the main battle, they might be called on to raid the enemy camp to take down key elements. Destroying siege weapons might remove a key part of their attack; making a hole in the castle walls or other fortifications would deny them some or all of the fortification bonus. Killing a key general might reduce their leadership bonuses. Feeding false intelligence might cause their tactics to go completely awry.

Generals: The PCs' own Charisma and level bonus would be used instead of whichever NPC general might have been present. They could also get to dictate tactics, which interact with the enemy tactics to determine whether they get a bonus or penalty. Earlier intelligence reports might reveal the enemy's intended tactic.

Rank & File: The PCs probably can't influence the battle here. They'd play a series of personal combats against enemy rank & file soldiers, hoping to survive.

The Sea Machine works by converting each ship (or squadron of ships) into a single battalion. The castle module for mass combat, Siege Machine, offers a menu of bonuses based on what kind of castle is actually built.

Conversion to 3.x for this mass combat system is reasonably easy, although note should be made of any special abilities the forces may have, which tends to be more complex in later editions. There was a primary assumption that most armies will be made up of low level (level 1-3) fighters, with elite regiments going up to level 6 at most. It should scale well if that assumption is changed though.




Do you know anything more about the naval combat system? What I'm looking for is something covering shipboard archery, ramming, artillery, shearing of oars and boarding actions.


See above.



What sorts of things were in the overland adventure rules? Again, could they be easily ripped out and used elsewhere?


Overland rules covered everything you might expect: travel times, terrain, getting lost, encumbrance, costs of mounts and vehicles. It's mostly generic and most editions of D&D have equivalents.




What about rules for fighting in the saddle? Do they distinguish at all between pack, riding and war-trained mounts (I remember AD&D2e did)?


There are several different statblocks for different breeds of horse. Pick your horse in the market, and if you're in melee and your horse has an attack, your horse gets to make a melee attack as well as you.



I'm thinking more henchmen and hirelings than the named level stuff, PCs travelling with all the logistical support that tends to get ignored; remounts, slaves/servants, shield/spear-carriers, other camp followers, pack animals and so on.

We tend to abstract and gloss over wealth anyway.

One other thing that 3e and later dropped was the entire morale subsystem. Hirelings, henchmen, and monsters all had morale scores (PCs were supposed to have common sense instead). Any time they suffered certain losses, a check was called for to see if they would break and run. Hirelings would typically have lower morale than henchmen, but henchmen were limited by your Charisma, and burning through henchmen would rapidly get you a reputation (not to mention morale penalties). It was quite possible for a monster attack to cause your pack animals to panic if they weren't attended to by a trusted person, as pack horses tended to have horribly low morale scores.

[Kiero]

Taking the Saga Edition discussion elsewhere (http://http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=281368).

[JusticeZero]

you should also ask what it is, exactly, that they disliked.

[ericgrau]

Drop magic altogether; no casters, no magic items.
That's the point when you switch systems. The system depends on it. In general whenever you want to make sweeping changes it's time for a new system or to start from scratch, but this is the hallmark of 3.5 games gone wrong.

Addressing your remaining bullets in order, any one of them by itself would have this effect:
2. Ok.
3. Time for a new system.
4. Ok.
5. Ok.
6. Ok.
7. (feats) Time for a new system.
8. Ok.
9. Ok.
10. (two ability scores to defense) Minor system damage, probably ok.
11. Ok maybe, as long as that means chain shirt, breastplate, fullplate.
12. (bloodied) Debilitation every time => time for a new system. Minor status that only affects some abilities => Ok.
13. Ok.
14. Ok.

Remember folks, friends don't let friends play with massive sweeping house rules. The results are... not fun. Dramatic changes without days if not weeks of careful thought and rebalancing is a wonderful formula for catastrophic campaign failure.