[D20 Legends Project] Ashiel's Crunchy but Approachable D20

[Ashiel]

Introduction
Hello everyone. Due to some interest from friends and neighbors, I'm starting this thread to post and discuss the development of an RPG system that was born as an attempt to create the d20 variant that I would use to run my home games henceforth. It has evolved, however, into more of a long term project that I intend to share with the world. This thread is for discussing or talking about D20 Legends and will serve as a sort of think-tank between those interested in its development and eventual release (including Alpha and Beta) versions.

If you want to discuss something not specifically concerning D20 Legends, pop over to my AMA thread where you can talk with me or ask questions about anything that you want.

Under Construction
It'll take me a bit of time to properly organize and link to all the files and stuff that will go here, but I will edit this post to include links to files and past discussions as I get to them. I'll also (very soon, like after I get some food) post the design goals and conceptual stuff about the system, and explain what I think sets it apart from other d20 variants.

[Ashiel]

This Post is Reserved for a FAQ
Thank you for your patience.

[Eldest]

I'll be watching this, but as a heads up, your link to the AMA thing is actually to the first post and not the thread.

[Ashiel]

I'll be watching this, but as a heads up, your link to the AMA thing is actually to the first post and not the thread.

Oops, thanks! I've been juggling a lot of links.

EDIT: Okay, I think I fixed the links. I'll try to clean this up a bit more as soon as I get the food out of the oven (cooking for the family).

[Chambers]

So, those who know things about this d20 Legends, tell me about it! How's it different than 3.5/Pathfinder?

[137beth]

So, those who know things about this d20 Legends, tell me about it! How's it different than 3.5/Pathfinder?

It's very heavily reworked, with an altered class system and reworked magic system. The emphasis is on customization during character creation, dynamic combats, and game balance.
I would post a bunch of links to prior posts on another website where the core elements are explained, but I'm on my phone now so I can't easily post links.

[Snow-blind]

It's very heavily reworked, with an altered class system and reworked magic system. The emphasis is on customization during character creation, dynamic combats, and game balance.
I would post a bunch of links to prior posts on another website where the core elements are explained, but I'm on my phone now so I can't easily post links.

As for some more concrete details, off the top of my head these are the big details that I remember...

• there are going to three ability scores (or whatever the terminology will be) - Strength, Dexterity and Mind.
• spellcasting types and class chassis are separated and modular so you don't get Bard, Mesmerist, Inquisitor and so on. There is just a spellcaster, martial and hybrid chassis with their own mechanical details, and you add in your choice of spellcasting (no, there is no arcane/divine divide), psionics, chakra or whatever.
• the divide between characters and monsters is somewhere between fairly small and zero - there isn't going to be HD vs class levels but just levels. Monsters will be built in a similar way to player characters (if not the same).
• Way more things scale with level.
• Characters will be able to trade accuracy for more damage. The specific example I remember was a dragon making piles of attacks vs piddly weak NPCs, but only claw/claw/bite against a tough PC.

[Ashiel]

So, those who know things about this d20 Legends, tell me about it! How's it different than 3.5/Pathfinder?

I'm going to try to get some content up over the next 24 hours (it's 8:12pm here atm and I have night shift at my dayjob soonish and I've been working on dinner for my family), but the really big differences that really take a step away from traditional d20 are...

• There are only three ability scores.
• Classes do not determine your stats (such as Hp, BAB, Spellcasting).
• There are no Hit Dice (only levels).
• Abilities scale with level (not class levels).
• Multiclassing is easy and doesn't gimp you.
• Martial combat is tons more mobile (there are no full-attacks).
• Martials and skills are getting an overhaul that makes them generally more powerful.
• Weapons are not divided into simple, martial, or exotic categories. Rather your level of proficiency is more important.
• The game is primarily aimed at being easier to learn and use while retaining much of the depth of traditional d20.

[Lemmy]

How would you make a low level creature with lots of hp/fort/whatever (say, an elephant) or a high level creature with low hp/fort/whatever (say, an old, crippled mage or something) if there are no HD?

[Tels]

So, those who know things about this d20 Legends, tell me about it! How's it different than 3.5/Pathfinder?

D20 Legends differs from 3.5/Pathfinder in that classes, in some ways, no longer exist. While they are still called classes at the current time, I like to think of them as chassis.

Currently, when you create a character or level up, you can select from one of three different paths that determine your BAB, Hp, Skills and Magic: Martial, Hybrid, Caster. Martial's have the best BAB, most Hp and Skills, and the least amount of magic (similar to a Ranger or Paladin). Hybrids have the second best BAB, HP, Skills and Magic (similar to a Bard). Caster has the lowest BAB, Hp, Skills and highest Magic (similar to Wizard or Sorcerer). Each time you level up, you can choose which path to take, and that determines what you gain that level as far as access to feats or spells.

Then, you have the class chassis. There are a number of chassis to choose from and they come with a host of abilities that you can select as talents at 1st, 2nd, and every even level after. Anytime you would gain a new talent, you can select a new class to add, gaining the basic talents of that class. Your 1st level talent is usually spent selecting a class.

So what this means, is each chassis can be used to create multiple different types of characters. For example, if you were to select Champion, you would gain access to things like Channel Energy and Smite. If you choose Champion and the Martial path, you will end up playing very much like a 3.5/Pathfinder Paladin. If you choose Champion and Hybrid, you will play very much like a Pathfinder Inquisitor/Cleric. If you choose caster, you will play more like a Divine Wizard.

One of the goals of D20 Legends is to cut out the need for class bloat. Instead of adding in a whole new class to do a new thing, you could simply add in new class talents. Every class added to D20 Legends, in affect, actually adds 3 new classes because of the 3 different Paths.

On a combat level, things are different because feats are getting a major overhaul to remove all of the mindless bonus numbers here and there, and focus more on changing up how you do things. On top of that, weapons are different, because what your weapon is capable of doing is partially based off how proficient you are with your weapon (simple, martial, military) and the technology level of the weapon. The more advanced your technology, the more things your weapon can do (cause a status like bleed, or dazed; trip, disarm, deadlier criticals etc) and your proficiency determines how effective those abilities are.

In addition, combat is no longer static. You can make all of your attacks as a single action, and can even move inbetween attacks. No longer forcing players to jump through major hoops for more mobility, or stand still and slug it out. However, each additional attack you make adds a small penalty. This is so you can unleash a large number of attacks to clear low level enemies, or deal lots of damage to easy to hit enemies, but against tougher enemies, you can limit your number of attacks to ensure you hit and deal damage. My favorite example Ashiel used was that a Dragon might use a claw/claw/bite/wing/wing/stomp/tail/kitchen sink against the King's army, but against the King's champions, the PCs, he uses only claw/claw/bite.

Spellcasting is getting changed too. There won't be a difference between an arcane or divine caster, they both just use magic. Some sacred cows are being removed, such as the removal of evocation magic and the reshuffling of spells into other schools. Some spells might also be associated with multiple schools, like a spell that conjures a shield would be a conjuration and an abjuration spell, and available to both specialists.

Further, saves are being changed into a sort of armor class. Instead of the player rolling saving throws, the caster makes a spell attack against a defense of Fortitude, Reflex, and Will. On top of that, the affect of the spell varies by how much you beat their defense. For example, instead of flesh to stone being a save-or-die spell, it doesn't have full affect just because you succeeded on the attack. If you succeed, the target is staggered, but if you exceed their defense by a certain amount, they may progressively turn to stone over time, or instantly turn to stone. This was done so you couldn't use low-level casters with wands or scrolls to focus-fire a single target with save-or-die/lose spells like flesh to stone or enervation. But it does mean that high level casters can nuke low level enemies pretty spectacularly. For example, fireball deals damage on a succesful attack, but for every 5 by which you beat their defense, the enemy gains a stack of burning, and takes an additional 1d6 points of damage on their turn. So if you beat a low level enemies reflex defense of 15 by rolling an attack of 30, not only do you deal full damage, but you give them a continuous 3d6 points of fire damage each round on their turn, if they even survived.

[Ashiel]

How would you make, a low level creature with lots of hp/fort/whatever (say, an elephant) or a high level creature with low hp/fort/whatever (say, an old, crippled mage or something) if there are no HD?

Things like elephants would be very large and have lots of Strength as a result (which incidentally translates to lots of Hp and a very high Fortitude defense). Similarly, old decrepit wizards would be less beefy as well. Monsters will also have archetypal progressions like PCs do (so monsters like trolls and ogres would be big and beefy, while a succubus would be primarily magical, and things like Rakshasa would be a mixture of the two) which will contribute to things like that.

There is a sort of natural limit as well. Having creatures of specific levels with varying stats is totally fine. However, there would be a bottom low end for creatures of a particular level (and upper top end). You wouldn't ever see a level 20 creature that only has 20 Hp for example. Such wildly uneven statistics wouldn't make a very well designed creature.

EDIT: Hey thanks Tels!

[comrade ostag]

How would gish concepts work? Like, in Pathfinder, you can have some really gnarly builds but actually work it fairly decently (according to the Monsters Stats by CR table, I mean). I'm not talking about polymorphs, but the caster with a sword type deal. How is that going to stay relevant?

The same goes for skilly types, or does that designation not matter so much?

[Zilrax]

How would gish concepts work? Like, in Pathfinder, you can have some really gnarly builds but actually work it fairly decently (according to the Monsters Stats by CR table, I mean). I'm not talking about polymorphs, but the caster with a sword type deal. How is that going to stay relevant?

The same goes for skilly types, or does that designation not matter so much?

Gish concepts, as in chars who use magic and martial are sorta assumed in the system. Until he figures out a method to make pure mundane work, everyone operates either on high magic, half magic or low magic, but everyone get's magic of some sort. So the Warrior would get casting like paladin/ranger in a sense, while the hybrid has bard type and the full casters are, well, full casters. But nothing stops you from being a full caster and taking barbarian moves, it just might not be a good idea compared to being a hybrid.

As for skills, skills will be able to go beyond mortal limits properly. The less spells you get, more skills you get, as skill points will allow martial inclined ones to keep up with casters in problem solving to some degrees.

Ashiel can explain it better though.

[Tels]

One thing that is an important, but huge, difference between D20 Legends and other d20 systems, is that abilities scale with your level regardless of what that level is. For example, a 20th level Martial/Champion would have access to, I believe, 5th level spells (spell levels in D20 Legends has 1 - 11), and would have a caster level of 20th. But things other than Caster level scale as well, because classes don't exist as normally used in RPGs. As an example, Bardic Music scales in effect off your level, and will continue to scale regardless of how much you focus on bard abilities. You can make it scale higher and faster with further investment, but Bardic Music will always be relevant even if you "multiclass" into other classes and play, like, a Bard/Champion and play some sort of Paladin Bard.

So gish characters aren't going to be difficult, they'll be the norm. Until Ashiel can figure out how he wants to balance Super Muggles.

[comrade ostag]

It sounds kind of like the Divinity games. You can put ranks in any kind of "ability" regardless of prior choices when you level up. Abilities are the things that let you cast air magic, use "rogue" type skills, etc. The core chassis is just "you," and then, how you level up from there is what defines you. Is that an accurate comparison?

[Klara Meison]

Goals of the system could be found here, neatly explained by Ashiel herself.

Information regarding d20Legends from the ex-previous thread could be found here in a concentrated form.

[Ashiel]

It sounds kind of like the Divinity games. You can put ranks in any kind of "ability" regardless of prior choices when you level up. Abilities are the things that let you cast air magic, use "rogue" type skills, etc. The core chassis is just "you," and then, how you level up from there is what defines you. Is that an accurate comparison?

That's a pretty accurate description. Also, if you like the Divinity games, you might find it amusing to know that I'm including status conditions such as wet, chilled, frozen, burning, corrosion, and so forth. These conditions interact with other conditions and abilities. For example, if you're soaking wet and are hit with cold elemental effects it can cause you to freeze and be unable to move effectively. Alternatively, being wet can prevent you from being set on fire (or dousing an ongoing fire). Junk like that.

How would gish concepts work? Like, in Pathfinder, you can have some really gnarly builds but actually work it fairly decently (according to the Monsters Stats by CR table, I mean). I'm not talking about polymorphs, but the caster with a sword type deal. How is that going to stay relevant?

Well as noted before, you choose your base statistics separately from your class. Higher BAB values add bonus damage to attacks made by your character (which applies to spells using attack rolls vs AC/Touch-AC). So an example of a weird but remarkably effective gish character would be my friend Arcane Knowledge's "Librarian".

What little is written for the classes themselves right now was done more or less on demand because my brother wanted me to run a sort of tech-demo at our house for him and our friends to see some of the changes being made. I was happy because it turned out that creating their characters (even with the dirty scratch-notes explaining the process) was easy enough that each of them was able to do it themselves. Arcane Knowledge decided he wanted to make a sort of arcane librarian that used some divine abilities and acted as a team cheerleader. What he ended up doing was a mostly martial with a little magic on the side Bard/Champion. Spells he selected for her included things like produce flame, flame blade, and a number of other low-level spells that used attack rolls. So she zipped around carving things up with her flame blade spell and chucking produce flames at people (which received bonus damage from her higher BAB). She was able to use Bardic Performances to buff herself and the party, and actually ended up going toe to toe with a really beefy Ogre by declaring it her smite target, absorbing some damage via temporary HP (an effect of her inspirations), recovering wounds via lay on hands, and chopping it up with her lightsaber flameblade.

The same goes for skilly types, or does that designation not matter so much?

The less magical you are the more skills you have. So martial characters are skill types pretty much by default. The reason for this is because thieves messed up D&D. A strange claim, I know, but before the Thief class (the quintessential skill guy), all classes could attempt to do skill-y things (it used to just be an ability check). When the thief came along and codified certain skills and then claimed them as his own, he became a must have niche and stole everyone else's cookies. With this in mind "the skill guy" isn't good enough as a role. Everyone will have some skills but magic sorts are expected to have to devote some of their spells to doing skill stuff, and martial characters have more skills to compensate for their lack of magic.

Skill ranks are going to be far more important than before as well. At certain ranks in a skill, a new feature or option for the skill will unlock. You cannot do that thing no matter your modifier unless you've met the rank prerequisite. So hypothetically, having 8 ranks in Acrobatics might let you balance and walk on liquid surfaces with a successful check. A mage casting a spell that gives +10 to acrobatics would be really good at normal acrobatics things but still couldn't walk on water unless they had invested 8 ranks into the skill.

[Klara Meison]

I have been thinking about spellcasting advancement in d20legends lately. How will it work? I know that fully-Martial person should end up with 5lv spell progression, while a fully Caster one would end up with 10lv(or was it 11lv after you include the cantrips?), but how would progression actually work? Will there be a single big table for spells/day or spells known depending on your MaB(kinda like there is a table relating bonus damage to your BaB now) that everyone would use? If yes, is it already availible somewhere to look at?

EDIT: actually, turns out it is right there in the "Classes-Introduction" file. I really should start checking to see if my question has already been answered before I post...

Relating to magical traditions:could someone select two different traditions? For example, two levels of Mage selecting arcane tradition and two levels of Mage selecting psionics tradition, to make what is analogous to Wizard 2/Psion 2 in Pathfinder. If yes, how would that work? What, if any, are gameplay effects of traditions?

[khadgar567]

small question of intrigue how you gonna create summoner class on your system

[ace rooster]

Are you sticking with the concealment mechanic? It always feels bolted on and badly handled. The complete lack of interaction with BAB (which is the only thing available to represent tactical awareness) always irked me. If not, do you have thoughts about stealth in combat?

How are spells targeted? One major difference between 3.x magic and Potterverse magic is the auto hit in 3.x. In contrast, the duels in Harry Potter were all about getting your spells to stick, with it not really mattering what spell you hit with (a stun is as good as a kill).

Are you sticking with the 'better spells are better' ethos? In 3.5, a 5th level spell that does something similar to a 4th level spell is strictly better. It will have a higher save DC, do more damage, and be harder to counter. There is no trade off between using a higher level spell and a lower level spell, other than the spell slot. I like the idea of using higher level slots to fuel more uses of lower level spells, but it suggests that you think playing casters should revolve even more around planned resource management*, rather than less. Am I correct in this?

What is the targeted power curve? Lets use mooks vs level curve for reference, even if nobody would ever actually play a level 10 vs the appropriate number of level 1s due to it taking 4 days to play out.

Is mass combat planned? I find that mass combat tends to work best if you build the system with it in mind from very early on, and that if you don't you either end up with huge discontinuities or a trivial game.

Is christmas tree avoidance a design goal?


* For example, a final boss will almost always call upon a caster's most powerful spells, and the rest of the adventure will be about keeping your most powerful spells for the final boss. The decision will always be about using the least expensive spell for the job, rather than the most appropriate (which would almost always be the most powerful).

[Mashallah]

small question of intrigue how you gonna create summoner class on your system

I don't think this system even needs anything as narrowly-focused as a summoner class.

Instead of that, I'd imagine one taking the magic path, the mage class, mostly summoning spells and a talent similar in function to eidolon to replicate that.

[khadgar567]

I don't think this system even needs anything as narrowly-focused as a summoner class.

Instead of that, I'd imagine one taking the magic path, the mage class, mostly summoning spells and a talent similar in function to eidolon to replicate that.

good for me

[Bruno Carvalho]

This really reminds me of an old thread of this forums.

Are you someway related or aware of that homebrew? How do you plan to address the discussed problems that arose from the same ideas you have (main problems were feature bloat, excess of options, and noob traps)?

[Klara Meison]

This really reminds me of an old thread of this forums.

Are you someway related or aware of that homebrew? How do you plan to address the discussed problems that arose from the same ideas you have (main problems were feature bloat, excess of options, and noob traps)?

None of those seem like pressing issues, honestly. System generally is heavily based around the idea of cutting out feature bloat. Excess of options, while certainly being there(it's an issue with all dnd games I have seen so far), is really more of an issue of system mastery than anything else, and could be managed by some simple suggestions to the players, such as "Don't multiclass/multipath on your first character", which would significantly cut their options, thus making it easier to slowly learn the system. Plus, again, feature bloat is being cut-for example, days of enormous weapon choice tables are in the past.

As for noob traps, it's mostly an issue of balance(which is a concideration already), proper tutorials and manuals. For example, including pre-made builds(a thing which would just tell you what features you gain at what levels, giving you no choice in the matter. Choice is a bad thing when you don't know what to choose) would probably help new players greatly while they are learning the system. Ashiel actually taking notes during one of her campaigns and, perhaps, publishing an introductory adventure would be another superb tutorial.

[Lemmy]

I have a question about combat rules...

Taking a -2 for every additional attack seems like a good idea, IMHO. However...

How will TWF work? Taking a -6 to all attacks as soon as you get your first iterative seems a bit much.
What about abilities such as Haste and Flurry of Blows, whose whole purpose is getting an extra attack... Will they inflict the -2 penalty as well? Will they work differently? Will they even exist?

[Ashiel]

Relating to magical traditions:could someone select two different traditions? For example, two levels of Mage selecting arcane tradition and two levels of Mage selecting psionics tradition, to make what is analogous to Wizard 2/Psion 2 in Pathfinder. If yes, how would that work? What, if any, are gameplay effects of traditions?

This is something that I've considered and at the moment my projected solution is to create an option (most likely a feat) that gives you an additional tradition at the cost of stunting your growth in your traditions. Essentially you'd end up looking kind of like a mystic theurge as a result. While theurgic casting was traditionally a generally bad idea in 3.x/PF, it would be naturally more approachable in d20 legends because...

• Spell level is not used to determine your chance to hit with spells.
• The caster-level type effects of spells is based on your character level.

Which means if I created an option that allowed you to select an additional tradition at the cost of being stunted in both, you'd still be able to respectably land magic attacks on enemies and your magical abilities wouldn't be trivially easy to dispel, etc.

[Ashiel]

Are you sticking with the concealment mechanic? It always feels bolted on and badly handled. The complete lack of interaction with BAB (which is the only thing available to represent tactical awareness) always irked me.

I've actually always liked d20's concealment because it's pretty easy to resolve, which is important for keeping the game running smoothly at the table. BAB is still a pretty big factor in actually landing hits since it means getting more chances to land a successful attack (as in, while 1/5 would be successful attacks may miss, you're still landing more successful attacks).

If not, do you have thoughts about stealth in combat?

Stealth in combat will definitely be a thing. The main requisite is you have to have cover or concealment vs the creature(s) you're using Stealth against. This is actually part of the rogue metagame since they have abilities that can temporarily dazzle* or blind characters, which allows them to then use Stealth against their opponent to follow up with a major sneak attack.

*: The dazzled condition in d20 legends is basically mini-blinded and causes everything to have concealment against you (20% miss chance).

How are spells targeted? One major difference between 3.x magic and Potterverse magic is the auto hit in 3.x. In contrast, the duels in Harry Potter were all about getting your spells to stick, with it not really mattering what spell you hit with (a stun is as good as a kill).

Depends on the spells but they tend to be targeted in much the same way as traditional d20. Some spells have a lesser or greater effect based on how successful your magic attack was against the target(s).

Are you sticking with the 'better spells are better' ethos? In 3.5, a 5th level spell that does something similar to a 4th level spell is strictly better. It will have a higher save DC, do more damage, and be harder to counter. There is no trade off between using a higher level spell and a lower level spell, other than the spell slot. I like the idea of using higher level slots to fuel more uses of lower level spells, but it suggests that you think playing casters should revolve even more around planned resource management*, rather than less. Am I correct in this?

Yes and no. Higher level spells will provide higher level effects (those effects may come in the form of extra damage, more robust AoEs, or just entirely new effects, etc). Unlike traditional D20, the level of the spell does not determine your chances to successfully land a spell on your targets. Spells can be cast with higher level slots and most automatically scale in various ways for doing so (such as gaining increased AoEs, more damage, etc). Casting high level spells is difficult though, primarily because of the new Concentration mechanic while I'll explain a bit of here.

In D20-Legends, every time you cast a spell (or manifest a power, etc), a Concentration check is made. Now you can take-10 on this check if you're not currently being threatened (as in, if no one is threatening you in melee you can take-10). The DCs for casting higher level spells are notably more difficult than casting lower level spells. Likewise, various factors apply penalties to your Concentration checks (for example, most status ailments increase the DC of casting a spell; casting defensively increases the DC; armor check penalties apply to your Concentration checks). Because of this, casters can be pressed into situations where casting lower level spells is their safer options.

What is the targeted power curve? Lets use mooks vs level curve for reference, even if nobody would ever actually play a level 10 vs the appropriate number of level 1s due to it taking 4 days to play out.

At the moment the projected power curve is every two levels you should be worth twice what you are now. So if you're 2nd level now, at 4th level you will be worth two of you. I might end up tweaking it slightly if the need arises but the general gist of the idea is that gaining levels is a very big deal.

As to taking 4 days to play out a "use versus 100 orcs" is probably not going to be a huge issue since the system is being built around the idea of making mook sweeping something that's kind of innate to characters. Many spells are significantly more painful to creatures with low defenses, and martial characters can move and make all of their attacks, get bonus damage from a higher BAB, and so forth. So to give an example from an early tech-demo I ran for my brother and our friends...

Example: My brother was playing a dwarf rogue using the warrior path. He wore heavier armors than your typical rogue and carried a shield and fought with an axe and used a flintlock pistol as his favorite ranged weapon. They were playing at 4th level so he had +1d6 damage to his attacks from BAB and could make +1 attack / round (at a -2 penalty). If he decided to make a dual-wielding attack during his turn he would get an extra +1 attack (at a further -2 penalty, giving him 3 attacks at -4). The party was ambushed by about a dozen mooks.

During his turn, he moved through a crowd and fired his pistol at one mook (he applied Dex to damage, and because he was within 30 ft. of his foe got his rogue's cunning strike damage, and then the +1d6 from his BAB). Since the mook only had around 8 HP, the mook takes a bullet and drops. He continued his movement, dropping his pistol as a free action and drawing his axe as he continued moving. He then ended up in melee with two other mooks and dispatched both of them with an axe and shield slam. The entire process was quick to resolve and he was instantly enamored with how awesome and mobile he felt compared to vanilla-d20.

Is mass combat planned? I find that mass combat tends to work best if you build the system with it in mind from very early on, and that if you don't you either end up with huge discontinuities or a trivial game.

We haven't discussed it in much detail beyond "We need to see if we can come up with some mass combat rules that work without bogging the game down too much".

Is christmas tree avoidance a design goal?

Not really. We like phat lewts.

* For example, a final boss will almost always call upon a caster's most powerful spells, and the rest of the adventure will be about keeping your most powerful spells for the final boss. The decision will always be about using the least expensive spell for the job, rather than the most appropriate (which would almost always be the most powerful).

I think this is largely an adventure pacing thing and a matter of threat management skills on the players' side. That said, since casting higher level spells is harder, in particularly difficult battles you may find yourself incentivized towards casting lower level spells due to their better reliability.

[Ashiel]

I have a question about combat rules...

Taking a -2 for every additional attack seems like a good idea, IMHO. However...

How will TWF work? Taking a -6 to all attacks as soon as you get your first iterative seems a bit much.
What about abilities such as Haste and Flurry of Blows, whose whole purpose is getting an extra attack... Will they inflict the -2 penalty as well? Will they work differently? Will they even exist?

It's a -2 per additional attack, not per attack. So it would be a -4 penalty to make 1 attack + 1 bonus attack + 1 dual-wield attack. That's a pretty sweet deal, especially since your ability scores and stuff probably increased as well on your way to 4th level (since stats scale more smoothly), and isn't accounting for any buffs or gear improvements.

Haven't decided about haste type effects yet. We might...

• Make it a "free" bonus attack.
• Make in an extra normal attack.
• Make it reduce the penalties for making bonus attacks instead of granting an additional attack (this would incidentally make it more attractive on martial charaters).

At the moment the dual-wield mechanics mention that you can make a flurry of unarmed strikes. Unarmed strikes are the exception to dual-wielding's requirement to use different weapons for your bonus attacks (so you can "dual-wield" unarmed strikes). This also opens up the ability to add new effects (such as feats or class features) that let you flurry with other kinds of weapons (which would allow you to make an extra dual-wielding attack with the same weapon).

[Ashiel]

This really reminds me of an old thread of this forums.

Are you someway related or aware of that homebrew?

Nope.

How do you plan to address the discussed problems that arose from the same ideas you have (main problems were feature bloat, excess of options, and noob traps)?

Mostly through a design philosophy if "scrap it, don't trap it". Either a feature is worth taking or it's not worth making.

Options for sake of options is a bad design. I'm designing the system to minimize the amount of extra content that is required to make robust characters. Due to the way the class system is set up, you can approach new classes or new class talents on your own terms. It's easier to parse what they do, and they can just be integrated into the classes and options you were already using without requiring you to learn and evaluate whole new classes in the traditional d20 sense (which also means they can be more condensed and easier to parse).

I wholly believe that "less should do more". That's something I'm striving towards with this.
In comparison to the link you sent me, a lot of that stuff mentioned simply has no need to exist in D20 Legends. For example, d20 legends has no need for Paizo style Archetypes, nor does it have need for Prestige classes in the traditional sense. Archetype-like things would just be a new set of talents. The feel of prestige classes could be gained by making multiclass talents (such as talents that required talents from two different classes and merged some sort of feature of those two classes to work in conjunction with one-another).

[Lemmy]

What's the plan to deal with "Rocket Tag"?

On one hand, nobody likes spending half a hour to resolve a turn, OTOH, ending boss fights by seeing who gets to land the first full attack is pretty underwhelming and anti-climatic. With the faster power scaling and added mobility, "rocket tag" may be a greater problem than before.