D&D 3E/3.5 What will we miss from 3.5E?

[RSKennan]

I'm with Atlatl Jones on the psionics (and other 3.5 material that will take a while to update), at least at first. I'd finally gone all out and bought every psionics title I could find... The same thing happened to me when 3.5 was announced.


However, there's so much to look forward to, including a game that so far, I really want to master-much more so than I ever did for 3.x- and write for again. I'd lost the initial passion for 3.0 and 3.5, but it really seems like they're doing a lot that matches my tastes for 4.0. I'll stop now though so I don't derail the thread.

 

[WarlockLord]

Psionics, binders, the monster-advancement thing.

Other then that, I'm fine.

DEATH TO THE GNOME!!!!!!

 

[Skyscraper]

Without the Vancian Spell System its just not DnD. Its just yet another generic fantasy RPG that should be ignored.

I seem to recall another post or two by this same poster that went along this very constructive. I think the above second sentence should probably read "poster" instead of "RPG".

Sky

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Gnomes.

That about covers it.

 

[Kunimatyu]

Without the Vancian Spell System its just not DnD. Its just yet another generic fantasy RPG that should be ignored.

An amusingly charged statement. Would you like to support it?

 

[William Ronald]

If gnomes are not in core, I'll miss them. If there's a down-playing of alignment, I'll miss that.

My understanding on gnomes is that they may be the race eliminated from the Player's Handbook but that race would be reintroduced shorthly thereafter. Also, the comments that I have seen on alignment is that they will still exist. (Possibly there might be a redefining of alignment.)

 

[FireLance]

I will miss the flavor of paladins being exclusively Lawful Good, but that's easy enough to change in my campaigns. I'll come up with a more generic term for the class, maybe holy warrior, or templar, or crusader, and use the term "paladin" only for the Lawful Good ones.

 

[AWizardInDallas]

Not a damn thing because I am not going to stop playing 3.5e and I am most certainly not going to play 4e.

Here! Here!

 

[Visceris]

An amusingly charged statement. Would you like to support it?

Sure.

Name one other PnP RPG that uses the Vancian System. I can only think of one and that is Dungeons and Dragons. Nearly every other fantasy role playing game out there has what boils down to as Spell Points, may it be called Mana, Essence, or whatever. I like the way that DnD does spells because it doesn't go into that whole Spell Point nonsense that you see in other such as RIFTS or Rolemaster.

It is what makes DnD unique. That is one of the reasons why I like it.

Now I am not saying there can't be improvements on the baseline 3.5e vancian system. In fact I love how Monte Cook's variation of it with Arcana Evolved and if that became the primary way of doing it I would be very happy, but ditching it will just make DnD yet another bland generic fantasy RPG.

I don't want anything to do with that.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Without the Vancian Spell System its just not DnD. Its just yet another generic fantasy RPG that should be ignored.

I disagree. To me, the magic in D&D is shaped more by its style and what it can do than what game mechanic is used. When you read about characters in D&D novels, the vancian mechanic is hardly ever mentioned (and for good reason, as it is completely absurd, "realistically" speaking).

Whatever mechanic they go with, as long as we can still shoot lighning bolts and fireballs from our fingertips, fly, polymorph, teleport, go invisible and the like, it will still be D&D. The game mechanics are just abstractions. Even though the system for fighters hitting things with their sword has changed greatly over the years, it still represents fighters swining their swords. A new magic system is no different, as long as it adheres to the same themes as previous editions.