I do like how your first sentence is “I have no idea what this means” and then follow up with more text saying how I’m wrong than my rule took.

You're the one here advertising how much of a gigabrain move using your homebrew rules is, people are going to come with the assumption that it's ready to use and understandable and you're opening your creation to critique. People shouldn't have to play 20 questions to figure out how to use your revolutionary homebrew rule, thus it is perfectly valid to criticize vaquely written rules.

If you were wondering, 1 level means -1 on your d20s.

Then why not just say that instead of the mess you wrote? Literally "you deduct your 'exhaustion' level from your rolls". Also, which d20 rolls? Attack rolls, ability checks, saves, damage rolls, that one random roll your GM asks you to make to determine whether you run into a random encounter in the wilds, some of them or all of them? This is important so don't leave your readers quessing.

That’s because I take away the old system of exhaustion completely.

So let me get this straight, it has none of the effects of exhaustion nor is it cured nor accrued in any of the ways already defined in D&D 5E? Then why is it called exhaustion when it clearly has nothing do with an already existing concept with the same name? This is needlessly confusing. Call new concepts new names.

The short rest respite is only on the FIRST short rest of the day.

And how are your readers supposed to guess this if you don't write it out? There aren't supposed to be any hidden rules. Besides, if you make it work literally like long rests, why not just tack it only on long rests? Rules saying there's only one long rest in a day already exist, why not leverage that?

Anything else to ask before dishing out a critic when you don’t really understand it in the first place ? I’m honestly happy to talk, I would prefer with people asking before dishing out thought.

If your homebrew is supposedly ready for use, people should not need to ask. I'm not trying to be rude but honestly, this has a plenty of smells of a kind of "GMs first homebrew":

• Needless complexity: That's hell of a lot text for a supposedly simple system and you're already leaving stuff out. The longer your rules and the more people have to puzzle things out, the less tables are going to use it.
• Reinventing the wheel: Why could this not work with the existing rules for exhaustion?
• Leaving out important details and edge cases: The unstated limit on short rests, not defining what you mean by d20 rolls, do you take a death saving throw before your action, after it or at all?

What if you rewrote all of this as simply "You can ignore the effects of being unconscious from being at 0 hp for one turn at the cost of one level of exhaustion"? You could leverage existing rules to a great degree and it would be easily understandable and digestible. It'd have minimal mechanical impact as people are almost invariably going to use their action to get more hp at which point they can just act normally. Dropping to 0 hp already renders you prone which already halves your speed or costs half your speed to get up, etc...

Exhaustion: On the d20

1 = -1 2 = -2 … 9 = -9 10 = death

I have no idea what this means.

Recovery First rest shorts = - 1 Exhaustion Long rest = - 2 Exhaustion

How does this interact with the existing rules for exhaustion that say you only lose one level of exhaustion per long rest? Do you have to track exhaustion from different sources separately? What is stopping the party from taking five one hour long short rests in one day to completely eradicate all exhaustion with little effort?

This is fairly broken: The dying character can just use their action or bonus action to heal themselves, teleport away, etc. and since the short rest rule makes exhaustion trivial to heal there is barely any risk of death or even a cost for going down.

I feel like this is an overly complex, not well-thought-out nor playtested "solution" trying to patch an issue that lies somewhere completely different. If your table is taking 30 minutes for a single round of combat, either you have way too many players at the table or someone doesn't know how to run their characters. It takes some time when you're just getting started out but eventually every player (and the DM running their NPCs) should be familiar with what their character is going to do in combat and most of it should flow quite automatically. Your players (and the DM) should be planning their move during the others' turns and visibly displaying an initiative tracker letting players know when they're up can encourage them to be ready on time. If someone is taking inordinately long, say their character is too indecisive to act and skip their turn, they'll shape up in less than 5 minutes. Ban phones at the table, seriously.

More great ideas to fix slow combat

Yeah, there's a fine line here. The DM improvising something whimsical and funny on the spot can be enjoyable to everyone, but if the party is going out of their way to do their absolute best to derail and force DM to waste any and all prepared material they're just dicks. The DM is still a player in the game doing it have fun too and doesn't owe you a campaign that bends to all whims of the party without restraint.

Also, a good lesson for GMs is to try and write any prepared material in a way that allows it to later be reused if players manage to miss it. Just because the party didn't investigate that one cave with a goblin ambush in it doesn't mean they can't run into a goblin ambush later down the line somewhere entirely different.

What portion of the 18 skills 6 saves + AC 30+ tools do you list for every character on your GM screen?

Oh please, you don't have to make this stupidly contrived. The base attributes, skills and AC are plenty enough. You might not even need the skills outside of outlandish expertise cases as even proficient skills are not that far off. You do realize the way skill scores are calculated is extremely predictable in 5e? Save DCs come from rules text most of the time, and besides, you probably should not be doing outlandish DC checks like 2 or 40 that often for it to become a trouble. When's the last time you've actually needed to know the players' tool proficiencies? You know the rogue can pick a lock and the bard can play a lute. If they have something more outlandish, they'll let you know.

Are you running games with 6+ players?

No, because my experience tells me too large groups lead to singular players having their time in the limelight so infrequently boredom is practically assured. Even then, a table with 6 or even 10 colums is barely wider than one with 3. Like literally, go boot up Excel, paste the skill names on the left column and you'll see very quickly that it'd all easily fit on one sheet of paper. The numbers don't take up much space horizontally.

Noticing that the Rogue has been doing very well on thieves tools checks and thus not making them roll to pick a lock is a clear example of the possible ways DM bias can occur, since another character (let’s say a Wizard with History expertise) with a skill bonus that’s just as high that hasn’t come up as much won’t get that same benefit.

This is silly. The solution to this is to take note of the wizard's specialties too, not to punish the rogue with having them roll pointless rolls. Your characters are not going to have that many outlandishly high scores that you couldn't just round up these outliers and make a note of them. From all of my experience with 5e and various DMs and DMing myself, most DMs make their players roll way too many damn pointless rolls. People forget the old rule of thumb that says that you should not roll unless both success and failure are possible and both provide a meaningful outcome that carries the story forwards. If the characters are not under time pressure and they can retry endlessly, just let them have it without a roll. The rolls will feel far more suspenseful when 90% of them aren't wasted on meaningless drudgery.

That all said, if you have auto crit fails on 1s, why are you not asking for rolls all the time, anyway?

You have it backwards. You should not be asking for rolls constantly because 1 always fails, you should only ever be rolling checks if 1 can fail! If 1 can't fail (or 20 succeed) you just don't roll. It's that simple. When's the last time you missed your mouth when trying to eat a sandwich? Doubt that's happened to you any time recently. Similarly, don't ask for rolls on trivial things. You don't roll to get out of bed, you don't roll to climb a set of stairs, you don't roll to not choke while drinking. Accept that the player characters are good at what they do. A pro does not fail a trivial task 5% of the time, so don't use a die to force them to. The rogue has picked locks his whole life and picking one is trivial for him, unless there is a specific circumstance that makes it otherwise, like time pressure, risk of getting caught or a particularly difficult lock.

4d8 + cantrip, other spell or even melee attack every turn is still considerably more damage than 1d8+5 per turn, whether they do that for one, two, three, ..., or ten turns. We are comparing damage per turn, the number of turns is irrelevant.

At this point you have yet to make one cogent claim on the subject so I'm going to assume you're trolling on purpose and will not engage you further. Have a good day, sir.

People tend to not realize how often something is going to be happening with a one in twenty chance and that you are going to be rolling your basic attack roll a gazillion times per session. When you start rolling the dice, making attacks every turn, that is going to come up very often. In fact, statistically this rule would mean that your character would be carrying on average ~13½ arrows. By the time you've rolled 14 times it's more likely that there was at least one 1 in there than not. With multiple attacks per turn that's going to happen infuriatingly often.

The way a party is going to be adjusting to a backstabbing murderhobo is to throw them out of the party at the earliest convenience. It's the only realistic outcome. If you want your character to be a part of the party, it's your job to come up with a backstory and personality that makes them willing to work with the party, not the others'.

The reason all of this is skipped on a meta level is that most people want to get to the actual adventuring instead of trying to figure out one good reason why they'd ever keep someone's unique evil snowflake in tow.

If theres going to be a party then the players are responsible for coming up with a justification why their character would agree to work together with the rest of the party. I will always welcome even evil characters if and only if their player can actually show that they are capable of the necessary teamwork. The evil guy helping good guys begrudginly because they get something out of it is a classic trope and that's all fine.

Meanwhile, if your alignment is the classic Chaotic Stupid and you go full murderhobo and backstabber, why would the rest of the part ever tolerate that? They'll turn up face downwards in the nearest ditch and the player can try coming up with a new character that actually wants to be in the party.

Sure, but the equivalent here would be stealing the cars from your family. Just no.

The First two movies, Beginnings and Eternal are simply a slimmed down version of the original series. The third movie, Rebellion, is entirely new content, as is the upcoming movie. Thus, either:

• Original series > Rebellion > Walpurgisnacht: Rising
• Beginnings > Eternal > Rebellion > Walpurgisnacht: Rising

Will both work fine, though generally the series is recommended over the movies due to them having to cut out some scenes to save runtime. Or if you want and don't mind the repetition, you can always watch the series first and then all of the movies.

Magia Record series is a spinoff featuring a different main cast and can be watched any time after the original series/first two movies. It will most likely not be in any way mandatory watching before the upcoming movie.

Yamcha not only looked awesome first, but he is genuinely one of the strongest human characters in the entire series. In his first fights with Goku he even clearly has the upper hand. It's just that the series is also infamous for the rapid power creep and starts rolling in all kinds of non-human monstrosities and alien races that his strength as a mere human is dwarved in comparison.

we also create a bunch of NPCs specifically bonded to our characters that the DM weaves into the plot.

That's the kind of good backstory a DM can use in crafting the campaign, things like:

• Past friends and foes to bring in as impactful NPCs
• Things your character might want/love/hate/fear enough to drastically affect the way they'll behave
• What your character wants to get or achieve as a basis for a personal quest

You'll be hard-pressed to find a DM who wouldn't love a trove of these for your character.

Conversely, stuff like inconsequential past deeds, unnecessarily detailed physical descriptions and personality traits are things that people can pick up on as you play and not something a DM can really use. Save your DM's time and cut that unnecessary fluff.