Congratulations. You succeeded. I thought about it. And then I decided, "Well, instead of getting all worked up about a hypothetical, the sensible thing to do is go look at what's actually happening and get worked up (or not) about that."
Glad to hear it!
3E-style multiclassing. This is rumored to be in, but much like the vaunted "advanced tactics module," we haven't seen it yet.
People seem to think that part of the developer interest in "apprentice tier" is that it will "fix" D&D3-style multiclassing by preventing the single-level dip. Personally, I never had this problem at my table in D&D3 or Pathfinder, because generally speaking my players were focused on a different sort of min/maxing, focused on eventual access to a prestige class. The single dip /usually/ isn't terribly useful to that style of character construction.
My biggest problem with multiclassing has always been that you just can't have an effective multiclassed caster because of the way 'spells known' increase. And it doesn't look at this time like D&D5 is planning on fixing that problem.
I've said before that I would much rather see multiclassing resolved thematically rather than mechanically, through the clever use of background and specialty. I think there is strength in that mechanic that Wizards is moving away from exploring...
Monsters built using the same rules as PCs. This is rather obviously out, and I have seen 3E/Pathfinder fans complaining about that. They've gotten a somewhat chilly reception from everyone else.
All I really care about in terms of monsters is that they be complete entities, capable of participating in the same range of encounter types that PCs are, rather than being a stat block and accompanying list of combat-applicable abilities. If that can be done with two separate rulesets, I have no complaints as a Pathfinder fan.
That said, a /separate/ problem that having different PC and monster rules engenders is that NPCs must be built like monsters, which causes me some cognitive dissonance regarding class "powers." This is a pretty minor aggravation.
Iterative attacks. This is also clearly out. No one seems to care.
I will say that I vastly prefer them to just giving martial classes a straight-up damage bonus at higher level, which feels ridiculous. Iterative attacks provide a way to increase class damage output with a bit more finesse.
Skill points. Also out. I've seen very little discussion of this.
I don't think there is anything wrong with the D&D3/Pathfinder skill system, but most people who comment on it seem to agree that it came from nowhere and that they will not be upset if it returns to nowhere. D&D just isn't a skill-based system. I think D&D4's mistake in this regard was not failing to emulate D&D3, but rather trying too hard to emulate D&D3 when it was ultimately unnecessary.
I like the D&D5 skill system as it currently exists on all counts excepting the skill die, which just feels like unnecessary complexity. I also think it weirds the setting of DCs something fierce.
I dare say one could think of more, but those were what I came up with off the top of my head. 3E didn't introduce the kind of sweeping innovations that 4E did, and many of the innovations it did introduce were carried over into 4E. As such, there's simply far less to debate, unless you want to regard "3E/Pathfinder" as a shorthand for "the sum total of every edition except 4th." But, pound for pound, I'm not convinced there's a big difference in how 3E-isms and 4E-isms are treated.
I think this is apt.
