A response to the other thread claiming 3.75. My guess is it may be a popular opinion from the 4th ed crowd. D&DN has more 4th ed in it than 3.5 and even 4th ed had elements of 3.5 in it such as feats, d20 mechanics, an evolved skill system etc. Elements of 4th ed were also introduced in 3.5 with the Book of Nine Swords being the famous one. I do not see anyone complaining about 3.5 elements in 4th ed. Some things also only share the same title as well just like various things in 4th ed usually paragon paths that were 3.5 prestige classes.
Anyway there is very little in the current playtest that can actually be pinned on 3.5 that was not also recycled in 4th ed and that is mostly d20- feats and skills for example. Skills in D&DN right now resemble a 3.0/3.5 skill list but their resolution is more simialr to 4th ed and the skill dice is new AFAIK.
I will have a quick look through the packets roughly in the same order as every players handbook ever printed.
No racial penalties check. 4th ed influence. No raical powers, not a 4th ed influence, no +2 except for humans either so that indicates a pre 3rd ed presence. Humans in 3.0-4th ed and PF were very similar as well, bonus feat and skil etc. Right now the races are more pre 3rd ed with 4th ed influence.
Vancian is back OH NOES they are reprinting 3rd ed. 4th ed was the only edition to not have vancian casting in its 38 year history so 4th ed is actually the odd one out here. Thats not a 3.5 influence it is a pre 4th ed influence. Of the individual classes.
Cleric. Probably the stongest 3.5 class influence in the game via level 8/9 spells (pre 3rd ed priests /clercs only had lvl 7 max) and they also have a domain that while different does evoke 3.5 here IMHO.
Not even close to the 3.5 fighter although some of the manuveurs to evoke the naes of 3.5 feats mechanicially they duplicate 4th ed status effects (push, knockdown etc). I honestly see more 4th ed in the current fighter than 3.5. Maybe 4th ed essentials. This is not a bad thing and I like the current fighter although it is boring after level 10. It also doesn't resemble the pre 3rd ed fighter much.
Uses some 3rd ed terminology that was probably borrowed from pre 3rd ed. Resembles the 4th ed monk more than the others due to the primary fact the D&DN Monk doesn't actually suck like it did in 3rd ed and maybe 1st. 2nd ed monk was a priest varient with spells. Also hits hard so it is kind of a striker in 4th ed terms. Doesn't really resemble any editions monk that much but 4th ed probably has the most influence but its marginal. Once again thats a good thing IMHO. Monk still sucks in Pathfinder. No alignment restrictions is a definate 4th ed influence.
More or less a new class. If one looks hard enough you can see 3.5, 4th and Star Wars Saga influences in it. Whatever it is it barely resembles the 3.5 Rogue and its 4th ed influence is not a strong one excet that it hits hard which is a bit like a striker I suppose. Very little 3.5 influence either way.
AH the sky is falling its a 3.5 wizard. Well for starters it is actually more or less a 2nd ed wizard with 4th ed at wills strapped on. The at wills resemble 4th ed ones more than 3.5 reserve feats anyway. The wizard lacks the power of the 3.5 one, and it has no 3.5 class features. The only class features it really has is spells and what it gets at level 1.
Skills. Maybe a 3rd ed influence but its really d20. 4th ed had 3rd ed influence in regards to its skills.
Spells. More or less 2nd ed here in terms of power level and iconic spells like fireball do not scale similar to 4th ed powers. Since 1st ed -3rd ed all used a similar magic mechanic this is more of a pre 4th ed influence than directly 3.5. The pre 4th ed influence is stronger IMHO than the modest 4th ed influences here (at wills, capped spells)
The recharge mechanic has been used for Dragons since at least second ed but D&DN uses the 4th ed recharge format. The layout of the monsters also resemble 4th ed stat blocks and some of the have abilites simialr to 4th ed ones. The monsters are probaby 4th eds strongest influence on D&DN. They are not 3.5 monsters by any means although they may have a simplicity to them that 3.5 lcked. 3.5 was actually the odd man out here in terms of simple monsters as BECM,1st,2nd, and 4th were all reasonably basic and simple.
Overall the 3 main things that stand out for me in 3.5 era D&D would be the power level of the spellcasters, complexity and options both in bloat and the way one could multiclass. D&DN spellcasters are nerfed in that context and are similar to second ed ones. D&DN isn't that complex when compared to 3.5 era either and we do not know how multiclassing will work yet. Prestige classes are also going to be coming apparently but we do not know if they wil be like 3.5 ones or resemble a 2nd ed kit or 4th ed paragon path. See previous point about terminology that even 4th ed used form 3.5. Only 1 class out of 5 even resembles a 3.5 class with the wizard while being vancian resembles the pre 3rd ed wizard with at wills strapped on.
Very little distinct 3.5 is actually present in D&DN, alot of pre 4th ed ideas are there but not many of them date from the 3.5 era. The 4th ed influences in the game are mostly positive ones as well although I personally like things such as racial stat penalties and alignment restrictions (more or less due to tradition).