3.0: Does anyone still play it?

[deuxhero]

I'm curious if anyone still plays 3.0 (not 3.5) and if so why. I can't think of a single time I've seen playing 3.0 (not 3.5 with 3.0 stuff) mentioned here.

[Sir Chuckles]

Off the top of my head, there's one person here.
She'll hopefully respond, as I don't remember her user name.

[Agincourt]

Every once in a while, someone creates a new account and then asks a question about 3.0 only. There are a few 3.0 DMs out there and the people who have them are usually careful to outline their limits.

[Hecuba]

If I want a psionics-only game, I'll dig out the 3E psi handbook (and ignore the psionic combat modes): the different stats per discipline was always cool to me (at least when dealing with low enough levels that stat inflation doesn't make it moot.

That's a really narrow niche, though, even for me. Generally, the games that I would want that for are better served by M&M or similar superhero systems - I just happen to play with a few people who are suspicious of any RPG not named Dungeons & Dragons.

[Larkas]

I've played 3.0 for quite some time, from 2000 to something like 2007. Haven't played it strictly since then, though. Of course, after playing it for such a long time, a few rules crop up in my group's games every now and then. Specially facing rules.


If I want a psionics-only game, I'll dig out the 3E psi handbook (and ignore the psionic combat modes): the different stats per discipline was always cool to me (at least when dealing with low enough levels that stat inflation doesn't make it moot.

That's a really narrow niche, though, even for me. Generally, the games that I would want that for are better served by M&M or similar superhero systems - I just happen to play with a few people who are suspicious of any RPG not named Dungeons & Dragons.

I'm not suspicious, but I must confess I have some problems devoting too much time to any RPG that's not AD&D1E up to D&D3.5 and Pathfinder. Can't exactly point out why, though. :smallfrown:

[Zweisteine]

My DM imports some rules from 3.0. He calls it 3.2. I don't like it very much, but mostly because it seems like having only one weapon size disadvantages non-medium characters, and seriously disadvantages tiny and huge characters, etc.

But I think he mostly does it because he only has 3.0 core books, and knows them best. He's also a very fair DM, so it's never a problem.

There are a lot of reasons 3.0 isn't played anymore, though. There are far more books for 3.5, which was in print for about twice as long (I think), and most 3.0 material has been or can be converted to 3.5. 3.5 fixed a lot of 3.0's problems, and is free to use (yay for the SRD!), so people don't even have o buy new books to play.

[Vedhin]

My IRL group plays 3.0.

Sometimes we play what we've dubbed "3.25", where we allow various 3.5 splatbooks.


As for why, we started playing during the 3.0 era, and never really felt inclined to switch our current characters over. After that game ended, it was partly habit.

We also like how some options are nice for mundanes, like haste.

[Ansem]

I've only ever met 1 person who plays 3.0, after finding out their houserules to fix 3.0 made it almost 3.5 (but obviously not as fixed) he just looked at me with a stupid expression explaining why he just doesn't switch to 3.5.

[Psyren]

Off the top of my head, there's one person here.
She'll hopefully respond, as I don't remember her user name.

Yeah there's this one guy/gal that posts about converting everything back to 3.0 from time to time.

[Duke of Urrel]

I played with 3.0 books, all bought shortly after 2000, for several years and switched to 3.5 only very recently. I had a lot of house rules designed to fit version 3.0, so I can sympathize with Ansem's friend. It took some work to learn to appreciate version 3.5, but I've made the switch and won't turn back.

That having been said, I've preserved two aspects of version 3.0 and still use them in my own games.

(1) I apply dim-light penalties to Spot checks. These are adaptations of the rules that appear on pages 59 and 60 of my Dungeon Master’s Guide from the year 2000. Basically, if you're human, you suffer a -4 penalty on Spot checks in moonlight, -6 in moonshadow or magical Darkness, or -8 in starlight. If you have Low-Light Vision, you suffer a -4 penalty in moonshadow or magical Darkness, -6 in starlight, or -8 in starshadow (which is the closest thing to total darkness short of total darkness itself). Note that -8 is the same as the +8 racial bonus that owls add to Spot checks in dim light; my rules are designed to balance in this way.

(2) I apply facing rules part of the time. During your turn, you don't have to worry about your facing, following the 3.5 rules. But outside of your turn, you have to declare the direction in which you will face until your next turn begins, so that until that time, you have a front zone, two flank zones, and a rear zone. (I exempt monks from this rule, so that monks have free rather than fixed facing all of the time.)

This part-time application of facing rules does several interesting things: (a) affects your Spot checks from the end of each turn to the start of your next turn, because penalties of –5 or –10 apply with respect to creatures in your flank or rear zones; (b) imposes reach penalties on some attacks of opportunity (I reduce them slightly to -4 or -8 for AoO in your off-hand flank and rear zones, respectively); (c) makes off-hand weapons (such as bashing shields) useful, because you can make penalty-free attacks of opportunity with them in your off-hand flank zone; (d) gives everybody +2 bonuses for flank attacks and +4 bonuses for rear attacks; (e) makes shields a little less protective outside of your turn, but more interesting (because of aforementioned shield-bashing attacks of opportunity); and (f) enables rogues to do some real back-stabbing without sacrificing their flanking Sneak Attack.

I have not retained the main-hand versus off-hand distinction of version 3.0, however. I allow you to be functionally ambidextrous.

[DruidAlanon]

I play 3.0 with many houserules for the last 8 years. The main reason is the lack of translated books. I only have player's handbook and monster manual I in my native language thus it's far easier to play with 3.0 and introduce the game to new players.
Also, our traditional (and best so far) DM is not a bookworm. So, if he learns 1 rule he'll stick to it no matter what. The truth is, most of our games are created with just 3.0 handbook + a few houserules. I can still remember our longest game (about 4 years long) where in the end, DM used to created his own creatures and items with no relation to monster manual or other books.

Things started to change when I invested in 3.5 books a few years ago. I am a bookworm and I really like reading D&D thus I came up with new ideas etc. So, in order to keep the other players close to me in terms of power (coz if you introduce 3.5 to a 3.0 campaign you end up with an unbeatable character) our DM started to 1) nerf me (even my monk!!!!) 2) read more 3.5.

[TuggyNE]

We also like how some options are nice for mundanes casters, like haste.

Fixed that for you, I think. (3.0 haste is better for mundanes than 3.5, yes, but not nearly as much better as it is for casters. If you want that, give an extra move action to be almost as good without the ridiculous two/three spells per round garbage.)

[Pluto!]

I played in a group that does, but it was 100% because the books the DM and another player had were 3.0, and they didn't see any reason to switch to 3.5/PF, when doing so would mean having to learn new rules to a game that's still basically the same and either shelling out money for a new book, or replacing books with computers at the table, with their associated distractions.

[Vedhin]

Fixed that for you, I think. (3.0 haste is better for mundanes than 3.5, yes, but not nearly as much better as it is for casters. If you want that, give an extra move action to be almost as good without the ridiculous two/three spells per round garbage.)

Umm, that's not fixed. It's nice for mundanes, so what I said is true. While it is better for casters, it's great for mundanes (read the 3.0 charging rules carefully, and you'll find that it is like Pounce and an extra attack all rolled up into one buff).

[Psyren]

Umm, that's not fixed. It's nice for mundanes, so what I said is true. While it is better for casters, it's great for mundanes (read the 3.0 charging rules carefully, and you'll find that it is like Pounce and an extra attack all rolled up into one buff).

What Tuggy was saying is that you could change it to an extra move action to keep the pouncing benefits for melee without turning all casters into double-spelling maniacs. (Though of course this does mean said casters can run around while throwing out full-round spells too, so its still unbalanced for its level.)

[TuggyNE]

Umm, that's not fixed. It's nice for mundanes, so what I said is true. While it is better for casters, it's great for mundanes (read the 3.0 charging rules carefully, and you'll find that it is like Pounce and an extra attack all rolled up into one buff).

I stand by what I said: it's not bad for martials, but it is absolutely crazy good for casters. It would probably be worth casting even if it were 9th-level: rounds/level multi-target free Quicken Spell+ with a few additional options? DO WANT!

Partial charge is amusing, but it only gives you one attack that's part of the charge. The others are just a regular full attack, so it's both better and worse than Pounce, not strictly better (since it doesn't synergize with any multipliers all that well and doesn't let you move as far, but does give an extra attack at highest BAB). Switching this to a move action drops the single extra attack entirely, but that's not much of a loss in comparison to the drop in spellcasting from 2/3 per round to 1/2 per round. (And, honestly, it's a well-deserved nerf. Pseudo-Pounce on multiple targets for rounds/level is kind of overpowered for a third-level spell, even if you're trying to use it to correct systemic imbalances.)

[Vedhin]

I stand by what I said: it's not bad for martials, but it is absolutely crazy good for casters. It would probably be worth casting even if it were 9th-level: rounds/level multi-target free Quicken Spell+ with a few additional options? DO WANT!

Partial charge is amusing, but it only gives you one attack that's part of the charge. The others are just a regular full attack, so it's both better and worse than Pounce, not strictly better (since it doesn't synergize with any multipliers all that well and doesn't let you move as far, but does give an extra attack at highest BAB). Switching this to a move action drops the single extra attack entirely, but that's not much of a loss in comparison to the drop in spellcasting from 2/3 per round to 1/2 per round. (And, honestly, it's a well-deserved nerf. Pseudo-Pounce on multiple targets for rounds/level is kind of overpowered for a third-level spell, even if you're trying to use it to correct systemic imbalances.)

Oh, I'm not arguing that it's not completely broken for casters. Just that it's a nice boost for martials.
Also, 3.0 haste is single target.

[TuggyNE]

Also, 3.0 haste is single target.

I am corrected. Maybe it's a 7th, then. :smallyuk:

[137beth]

Fixed that for you, I think. (3.0 haste is better for mundanes than 3.5, yes, but not nearly as much better as it is for casters. If you want that, give an extra move action to be almost as good without the ridiculous two/three spells per round garbage.)

Well, 3.0 Bull's Strength/Cat's Grace are long duration, so that's at least something for martials.

As far as which edition is better for martials overall, though? 3.5 has ToB AND Dungeonscape. 3.0 has epic spells:smalltongue:

[Windstorm]

Off the top of my head, there's one person here.
She'll hopefully respond, as I don't remember her user name.

BrokenChord I think. I tried a PM but it bounced, might be a full inbox.

[137beth]

BrokenChord I think. I tried a PM but it bounced, might be a full inbox.

It's full of PMs saying "BrokenChord! There's a 3.0 thread right now, we need your help!"