Which D&D "cow" is least sacred?

[Tarrasque Wrangler]

Yep. But then people want limitations more than options it seems. No idea why. I mean do you got to McDonalds and say "Hey give me water!" when you really rather have a big mac meal?

I don't see how taking out any of these things makes D&D more limited. AU did away with alignments and the "standard" races, and I think you could hardly say that limits your options.

And I'm not trying to say any or all of these should be excised for Xth Edition. It's just a what-if. Which of these things that D&D will NEVER lose can you look at and say "Hey, D&D might actually be better off without this."

 

[Nightfall]

I know TW. I'm just playing devil's advocate. I just forgot to pay my fees.

 

[diaglo]

It goes back further than d20 or 3.0. Death by massive damage goes all the way back at least to the beginning of 2e. It's on the last page of the combat section in my 2e PHB.

anybody remember system shock survival? it has roots in 1edADnD too.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I voted "Vancian Magic".

But there are two issues here.

1) I dislike memorizing spells, as it really reduces character flexibility, and kinda requires me as DM to check if people memorized stuff. *bleah* I can deal with the idea more now that it is "preparing" as I can kinda make the "game physics" feel saner, but the meta-game problems are still there.

2) I LOVE the ease of spell slots, and the 9-level spell lists.

 

[Gez]

Stuff

Damn, it was long time I hadn't seen this handle.

 

[psychognome]

I voted for Tolkeinesque races. I mean, this cow isn't really sacred any more, they've thrown the poor bovine in the barbecue. With each edition of D&D the über-elves of Tolkien have slowly turned to the prancing ninnies they are nowadays (they weren't really über to begin with, really), the halflings have been turned from the leaf-smoking, furry-footed, big-bellied creatures of tolkien to mean and lean adventurer types, and the dwarves have turned from isolated miners of the mountains to, well, less isolated miners of the mountains who quite often seem to grab an axe and go adventuring. The orcs aren't really Tolkien, and they've gone and added races that are less Tolkienic... now we have gnomes, gith, thri-kreen, cat people, dog people, lizard people, and so on. The other things that you listed seem to have been with D&D since the beginning.

 

[Kelek72]

I voted alignment. It has caused so many problems...mainly amongst players arguing over what someone else's character can or can't do.

 

[Nifelhein]

That matter of alignment is a hard one, but we have maed it into a more guideline of what teh characetr actually is, so we be what we like and hav alignment reflect that, no penalty for changes at all.

That way you can be as evil as you like, but you would detect as so, as good as you like and detect as so.

I prefer to have alignment mean the general conception of a character behavior, thus even a lawful good character can be evil, at times, if far too often he would just become lawful neutral and that is all.

 

[DragonLancer]

I voted for "other" because I believe that if you remove any of those options then its not D&D.

I really don't know what people have against Vancian magic. Its part of what makes D&D what it is.

 

[Epametheus]

I voted Alignment, since it only really comes up when certain spells are used. Or when someone is playing a Paladin.

Getting rid of HP in favor of a system where anyone and anything can die from a lucky hit doesn't really facilitate epic combat..

The amount of goodies that White Wolf gives their 8 HP characters just so that they aren't guaranteed to die in their first battle is kinda amusing.