Does anyone still play 3.0 D&D?

[Demonweave]

I think the title is pretty self explanitory. I ask because I have all the 3.0 rule books (and multiples of most of them) and don't always have access to 3.5 books.

[JellyPooga]

A friend of mine still runs 3.0 largely for the same reason as you...he got a whole bunch of 3.0 sourcebooks and didn't want to fork out to update to 3.5.

There's really nothing wrong with 3.0. It's perhaps a little more glitchy than 3.5, but when a system is as messy as 3rd ed. D&D, it's just a drop in the ocean.

[Demonweave]

Yeah it is glitchy, but what game isnt? Plus it is still a good concept.

And 9 times out of 10 the quality of the game comes down to the DM. Good DM=good game. Sadly I am an extremely creative DM but lack confidence sometimes.

[GhoulPolitician]

My group plays using the 3.0 core mostly because we are too cheap to purchase hard copies of the 3.5 core, and partly because it is what we are used to. When it comes down to it 3.0 is nowhere near as bad as everyone makes it out to be, it is a perfectly serviceable system with some advantages over 3.5 (jump checks and alter self I'm looking at you). That being said it is not completely without its faults. Haste, though incredibly fun is pretty broken, though not banned because the DM (me) finds it amusing, well that and there aren't actually any wizards/sorcerers in the party.

[mucat]

The difference between 3.0 and 3.5 is minor enough that you don't really have to choose one or the other. Your group can easily use a mixture of 3.0 and 3.5 rules, depending on (a) which books you have on hand, and (b) which rules you like better for a given topic.

If you're trying to participate in a 3.5ed game while yourself owning 3.0ed nooks, again you'll probably be fine...just expect that once in a while, someone will tell you, "no, that works different in 3.5". Especially at character creation, you might want to borrow a 3.5ed Player's Handbook. It's not necessarily worth investing in a whole new set of books, though.

For the record, I think most people (myself included) believe that most of the changes from 3.0ed to 3.5ed were improvements.

[Ravens_cry]

Harm. No save and you drop to 4 hp. Only spell resistance helps. Ouch.
Haste made more logical sense, but was ridiculous from an action economy perspective, like a mini Time Stop.
I do like the stacking critical extensions though. Heh heh heh. I may bring those back asa fairly high end feat as crits are fun.

[Electrohydra]

I still play with some 3.0 books, basically because I don't have the money to buy 3.5 versions of 3.0 books I have, and also I use those that I have that where never updated (I think) but have some nice things in them (candlemasters are awesome). You can always check the SRD for most things, and the rest, well 3.0 works fine in my group.

[Bang!]

I've never played with anyone who gave a **** which printing of 3rd edition a person used.

[Loren]

Question: since the core of 3.5 is freely availibel via the SRD why not change core and still use your 3.0 expansions (similar question applies to pathfinder)?

[Pechvarry]

3.0 is even worse than 3.5 at "melee can't have nice things". Look at the PHB charts of all full BAB classes (excepting barbarian, perhaps) in 3.0 vs 3.5 and you can see what I mean. Ranger gets all their class features at level 1, Paladins are pretty much done at level 2, neither are really good at anything, Fighters don't even have intimidate as a class skill... and every melee PrC is terrible. Usually, they get a semi-useful ability once/day. said semi-useful ability replicates a 1st- or 2nd-level spell.

[Ravens_cry]

Stacking critical threat ranges is fun for anyone who makes attack rolls, but I only own the DMG and PHB, so I can't really comment on much else besides.

[UserClone]

I miss the apprentice-level rules. I always thought multiclass characters should level up both classes at the same time, the way they did in 2e.

[Greenish]

and every melee PrC is terrible. Usually, they get a semi-useful ability once/day. said semi-useful ability replicates a 1st- or 2nd-level spell.Well, OA was 3.0, and Singh Rager is still one of the better melee PrCs.

[Bang!]

Ability buffs were much friendlier. We still use them because the whole total-item-dependency thing is lame. Total-caster-dependency isn't a whole lot better, but it's kind of a given in 3e, any way you spin it.

3.0 also had most of the decent 3e archery classes (not counting casters; because that's not usually what people mean when they want to play an archer, ime).

The old Soulknife made more sense and sucked less iirc. It wouldn't be easy to directly ship it across the systems, but it probably wouldn't be a bad idea.

[GhoulPolitician]

3.0 is even worse than 3.5 at "melee can't have nice things". Look at the PHB charts of all full BAB classes (excepting barbarian, perhaps) in 3.0 vs 3.5 and you can see what I mean. Ranger gets all their class features at level 1, Paladins are pretty much done at level 2, neither are really good at anything, Fighters don't even have intimidate as a class skill... and every melee PrC is terrible. Usually, they get a semi-useful ability once/day. said semi-useful ability replicates a 1st- or 2nd-level spell.

Book of vile darkness was 3.0, so disciple of Dispatar was available. Combine that with the 3.0 version of vorpal (it activates on any confirmed threat) and you are looking at a lot of headless enemies.

[Chess435]

Guilty as charged. :smallredface:

[randomhero00]

I still play 3.0 if you count including 3.0 books whilst playing 3.5.

[hamishspence]

Most 3.0 books come with a 3.5 update- and those that don't, generally don't need much updating (remove a few skills, adjust damage reduction, if any).

Using 3.0 content in a 3.5 game isn't really unusual.

To be "playing 3.0" may imply using some of the 3.0 conventions:

Damage Reduction which goes up numerically for example (X/+1, Y/+2, etc).
Various skills that were subsumed (Read Lips, Innuendo, Scry, Intuit Direction).

Etc.

(Since 2nd ed, 1st ed, and even 0th ed used the same DR principles, it might be thus easier to use even older material in 3.0).

[Demonweave]

Wow didn't think this thread would generate much interest.

The reason I don't update the existing books to 3.5 is that it is alot of effort to update for multiple copies of each book for not much of a return. 3.5 is slightly better, but updating means loose paper and I like to have Hardbacked books as my only need for references. (I guess it's a personal taste thing) Can't stand checking PDFs or printouts everytime I need to look up a rule.

[Ozreth]

Just about anybody who plays Forgotten Realms in their 3.5 game is using a lot of 3.0 stuff : )

[hamishspence]

Forgotten Realms has a lot of 3.5 updates though.

The web enhancement to Player's Guide to Faerun, updates nearly every 3.0 Forgotten Realms monster to 3.5.

And quite a lot of feats, PRCs, etc in 3.0 Faerun material got 3.5 updates.

[UserClone]

I get great enjoyment out of Oriental Adventures and Rokugan Campaign Setting, the former of which has an official-ish update in Dragon Magazine, though I adapt them both to 3.5.

[Roderick_BR]

Wow didn't think this thread would generate much interest.

The reason I don't update the existing books to 3.5 is that it is alot of effort to update for multiple copies of each book for not much of a return. 3.5 is slightly better, but updating means loose paper and I like to have Hardbacked books as my only need for references. (I guess it's a personal taste thing) Can't stand checking PDFs or printouts everytime I need to look up a rule.

You just need to "update" the core rules. Check what a class gains at certain levels, what skills are merged, and what feats were added. For example, paladins gains multiple smite evil attacks, fighters have access to the Greater versions of Weapon Focus/Specialization, and so on.

You can consider the classes as "class fixes", and the feats as just another splat book. You can still use your old 3.0 splatbooks.

[Demonweave]

Thanks guys, but this wasn't me asking how to upgrade to 3.5, or even which is better or anything like that. My group are happy playing 3.0 and I'm familiar with it so it works fine for us.

I was just simply asking if anyone enlse still used 3.0 too.

[big teej]

my group plays 3.x

as in

"hey guys I've got this awesome new book we get to use as soon as I read it"


it matters very little to us if we're using a 3.0 book or 3.5

they're close enought that we didn't even NOTICE my DMG was 3.0 until somebody on the board pointed it out (which they realized from the way I worded a question)

which we had been using in conjunction with the 3.5 SRD (and still do)

tl;dr
yes
I play 3.0

[Psyren]

3.0 Psionics was a cluster... well, a mess, so emphatic no on that one.

3.0 had some crazy spells too. Haste... Harm... TR had no XP component... the buffs lasted for hours... Though I will admit that giving Conjuration everything in 3.5 was probably a mistake.

[ken-do-nim]

I'm not playing either at the moment, but I've been thinking about starting a 3.0 game. I just have fonder memories of playing 3.0 than 3.5.

I do want to point out that I don't believe haste was intended to allow casting 2 spells per round. In some splatbook, I found a 9th level spell that does that, and I think the splatbook is by Monte Cook himself.

[Psyren]

I do want to point out that I don't believe haste was intended to allow casting 2 spells per round. In some splatbook, I found a 9th level spell that does that, and I think the splatbook is by Monte Cook himself.

That's exactly what it does in Neverwinter Nights though, so somebody at Bioware was following RAW.

Ditto with Harm... what were they thinking?

[abadguy]

Not to mention some feats that everyone took like the one in Sword and Fist ... Superior Tactics? The one that gave partial actions.

Omg partial actions .... haven't used that term in a while, how I hated thy confusion!

[holywhippet]

There was one really nice "trick" in 3.0 - the identify spell only tells you the lowest level enchantment on a magical item. My DM used this in one of his campaigns when a ghost sorceress arranged for the party to have a ring that could cast augury on demand - it also had an enchantment that let her scry on the party at any time regardless of any countermeasures they may have taken. Given how useful an unlimited ring of augury was there was no way they'd ever lose, sell or otherwise dispose of it.

Since they only used an identify spell on it, and never tried the analyse dweomer spell (when they got it) they never realised why she could thwart them so easily.

[Yahzi]

That's pretty clever, Whippet.

I still play 3.0. But I've borrowed a few things from 3.5 (like Mage's Sanctum) that should have been in 3.0.

But then, who doesn't change a few rules/add a few spells/ban a few dozen splatbooks? That's kind of the point of the game: you mod it to represent the world you want to run.