Does anyone actually play 3.0?

[Kayden Prynn]

The forum lists 3e/3.5/d20, but I'm curious how many people actually play 3.0, and what reasons they have for doing so?

[Mildly Inept]

I picked up Neverwinter Nights 1 on Steam and had fun with it, if that counts.

If so, then due to extensive mod support and an intuitive level designer.

[King of Nowhere]

I've been playing 3.0 until a couple years ago, for the simple reason that I have the 3.0 handbooks since I started almost 20 years ago. I only switched recently due to how easy it is to get informatic sources nowadays

[HouseRules]

3.0 material are valid in 3.5 with the necessary minor changes (long list of changes) that needs to be made.

[Feantar]

I play 3.0 sometimes. and like that it had a more fluff oriented approach to things and much less focus on balance (not that 3.5 is balanced). You can see that very blatantly in spells. Spells were stronger and somewhat more -mystical-. Teleport could, if you teleported into a mountain, strand you in the astral plane (because, fluff-wise, that's what it uses as a method of conveyance). Polymorph (self & other) was effectively permanent, but had some rules on slowly acclimating to your new form, and generally followed the mythological trope of a witch turning someone into a beast as a punishment much more closely than the meager 1 minute/level it is now. Of course, it was also extremely broken due to the duration. Even the spell names weren't Mage's Disjunction but Mordenkainen's Disjunction (Greyhawk). 3.0 had a tendency to front-load classes (both base and prc) with class features, encouraging 1 level dipping much more.

On the other hand, the rules were more convoluted and somewhat more broken (but not by that much). The classes who were bad then are kinda bad now. Of note, 3.0s incantatrix was kinda meh compared to 3.5s. Otherwise it was kind of the same. Half-elves still sucked, so did rangers, bards unless built right fell like matchsticks and wizards ruled. Fighters were as useless as ever.

PS: One of the things I keep from 3.0, is that I set teleportation effects into Transmutation (turning yourself into essence and moving yourself through the astral fast not summoning yourself somewhere else). But then I also put healing spells in necromancy, which was a 2nd edition thing, so...

Edit PS 2: 3.0 psionics are... well I never could get them to work. Mental combat reminded me of speed factor in 2nd edition. They aren't bad, per se, just so different that the system feels foreign. Also, subdual damage and partial actions FTW!

[Powerdork]

Even the spell names weren't Mage's Disjunction but Mordenkainen's Disjunction (Greyhawk).

I have to stop you here. You realize 3.5 and 5e both kept the name Mordenkainen's disjunction in the official media, and Wizards of the Coast only made mage's disjunction a thing for the System Reference Document that allowed people to publish non-D&D-branded content that was compatible with D&D? I can open my copy of the Player's Handbook right now and point you to the entry for Bigby's crushing hand.

[zergling.exe]

I have to stop you here. You realize 3.5 and 5e both kept the name Mordenkainen's disjunction in the official media, and Wizards of the Coast only made mage's disjunction a thing for the System Reference Document that allowed people to publish non-D&D-branded content that was compatible with D&D? I can open my copy of the Player's Handbook right now and point you to the entry for Bigby's crushing hand.

3.5 did officially change it in print as well... in the Spell Compendium, a setting neutral book.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I don't personally know anyone who plays "pure" 3.0, using all 3.0 books and deliberately ignoring/excluding 3.5 content. I have, however, played with two different groups that use both 3.0 and 3.5 together but keep the 3.0 rules where they conflict, the reverse of the usual rule, and have talked with some other players whose groups did the same.

In some cases, this was because they preferred the 3.0 versions of things for various reasons, the main ones being damage reduction (DR [large]/+X is more impactful/less trivializable than DR [small]/magic), animal companions (animal friendship encourages multiple utility-focused companions where the 3.5 Animal Companion rules encourage one combat-focused companion), martial PrCs (those that first appeared in Sword & Fist were generally nerfed unnecessarily when they were updated in Complete Warrior), and spell thematics (the kinds of fluffy idiosyncrasies that Feantar mentioned).

In other cases, this was because they'd already houseruled certain things and didn't feel the 3.5 updates were relevant. For instance, 3.5 added a bunch of bonus feats to the ranger but one group had already adapted 2e's Weapon Proficiency system to give the fighter, paladin, and ranger the equivalent of a bunch more bonus feats anyway, and 3.5's consolidated skill list is essentially strictly superior to 3.0's but both groups had swapped out the skill system wholesale (one replacing it with updated 2e NWPs, one doing something closer to the kind of skill system updates that were common in late 3e), so any skill changes 3.5 made were irrelevant to them.

In general, I'd say that groups who stuck with 3.0 for edition-related reasons (as opposed to just not wanting to buy more books or the like) did so because they wanted a game closer to AD&D in the nitty-gritty details than 3.5 was, so they'd either houseruled 3.0 extensively to get back that older-edition feel or just felt that 3.0 was acceptably divergent but 3.5 was a bridge too far.


PS: One of the things I keep from 3.0, is that I set teleportation effects into Transmutation (turning yourself into essence and moving yourself through the astral fast not summoning yourself somewhere else). But then I also put healing spells in necromancy, which was a 2nd edition thing, so...

It's funny, I'm a strong proponent of AD&D's spell school distribution for most things--Conjuration (Healing) should be in Necromancy, Conjuration (Creation) should be in Evocation, Abjuration should be both broader mechanically and more focused thematically than just "defensive spells," etc.--but I'd been moving teleportation/plane shifting/blink/etc. from Alteration to Conjuration in my houserules since 1e. Conjuration being the school of "moving people or things to or through other planes" always made more sense to me than its original presentation as the grab-bag school that claimed spells like prismatic wall, the power word line, and enchant an item were "summoning" spells.


Edit PS 2: 3.0 psionics are... well I never could get them to work. Mental combat reminded me of speed factor in 2nd edition. They aren't bad, per se, just so different that the system feels foreign.

Though I primarily run 3.5 and use its psionics as-written, I still have a soft spot for AD&D/3.0 psychic combat, despite how time-consuming and clunky it could be, and the association of the 6 disciplines with the 6 ability scores. Whenever I run any sort of dreamscape-/mindscape-related sidequest (projecting to Dal Quor in Eberron, a showdown with a psionicist BBEG in Dark Sun, etc.) I generally houserule in some sort of psionic-combat-esque minigame (often involving shuffling mental and physical ability scores somehow), and I've used trivia about attack and defense modes in more than one puzzle in a high-psionics setting.

[inuyasha]

I play almost pure 3.0 with one group, occasionally backporting things from 3.5

Is it wonky? Yeah, but there are some ways that it's more fun. Like crit-range effects stacking, the spell durations, high-level monks getting to use a D20 for damage, the whole weapons by size rather than handedness is a quirky, fun thing that adds to a humanocentric world (and can be easily changed).

Plus, the one that I like the most (and use even in my frequent Pathfinder games) is DR/+X rather than magic and Cold Iron and this and that. It gives +X weapons a purpose and helps with the golf-bag of weapons thing. That said, the materials do count as appropriate +X weapons, but requiring a +1 weapon is still more interesting than requiring a magic one.

That being said I do use 3.5 material, stuff from Eberron, stuff from various splats and sourcebooks every once in a while. As for psionics? They're kinda... off, so yeah we mostly use 3.5 (or maybe one of these days the Pathfinder rules that I got my hands on), but even then, they're used so infrequently with my group that they're basically ignored.

Also, this one's a nitpick, but there's a Gnome Illusionist Iconic and the Bard Iconic is not a Gnome in 3.0, and I really like Gnome Illusionists, because it's super classic.

Yeah, that was kinda rant-y, but long story short some people play 3.0, and I'm a big fan, and I'm confident in my abilities to convert 3.5 backwards :smallsmile:

EDIT: Also there's a lot of little stuff in the 3.0 DMG that's really nice. Nothing comes to mind right now, but there's just some helpful stuff in there that was later removed.

[Feantar]

I have to stop you here. You realize 3.5 and 5e both kept the name Mordenkainen's disjunction in the official media, and Wizards of the Coast only made mage's disjunction a thing for the System Reference Document that allowed people to publish non-D&D-branded content that was compatible with D&D? I can open my copy of the Player's Handbook right now and point you to the entry for Bigby's crushing hand.

I didn't remember that and was pleasantly surprised. Did they also keep the artifact names in the DMG (St. Cuthberts instead of Saint's Mace) or did they change those?

[Fizban]

Throw me on the pile of "de-updating" a number of things 3.5 "fixed," or at least taking the fact that they were changed into account. Did you know that two-handed Power Attack was never a core damage benchmark? That's a 3.5 update. Did you know that 3.0 skeletons and zombies were utter trash and the Animate Dead spell had half of its current capacity as well as being 5th level for non-Clerics? That's a 3.5 update. Did you know that until they printed Scorching Ray there wasn't a single 1d6/level *no save* damage spell until Otiluke's Freezing Sphere at 6th, let alone any with rider effects? That's a 3.5 update. Did you notice that 3.0 Enlarge didn't give any reach or weapon die increases at all? That's a 3.5 update. Lightning Bolt used to be less terrible with a 10' wide option, nope, 3.5 update. Glitterdust, Web, and Stinking Cloud being massively OP? Well they didn't change the effects, but they did remove SR:Yes, so thanks 3.5 update. Alter Self's inability to make a proper disguise but abusability for "as much natural armor as you can find in a splatbook?" Yeah, that's a 3.5 update. Evard's Black Tentacles used to have individual hp that the enemy could hack through, but 3.5 update. And the number of SpC spells that just plain removed limitations or shot up in power is hilarious once you start checking, even if they did reign in a few others.

Now, you may consider any or all of those good updates on their own- but the number of combos and problems that are based on them which would be drastically less effective without? Well, it's not very surprising when so much of the 3.5 content is just 3.0 with the minor updates applied, including and especially the monsters. Have you noticed that even though tons of monsters got extra feats due to unifying feats/HD, most of those were do-nothing feats that didn't seriously change their difficulty? Not an accident. But a ton of those minor 3.5 updates actually represent massive PC power boosts, which only got more and more inflated as new material combo'd or spring-boarded off them.

I don't play 3.0, but there are a good number of 3.0 reversions on my tweak list, and would be more if so many many of them weren't so ingrained, even in my own material. And that's my rant done.


As for stuff cut from the DMG, well there's the 1st level multiclass character section. Extremely niche, but a perfect answer when someone wants an X+Y character at 1st level which isn't possible at 1st level. They also got rid of the rule where you can only harm a +X weapon or armor with another weapon of +X or higher- removing a classic trope and making it ridiculously easy for poorly armed monsters to break the PC's stuff, and another devaluing of enhancement bonus in general. It's been a long time since I really read through my 3.0 DMG though, so I couldn't say what else went missing. They did add a bunch of useful stuff of course, and rearranged a lot in ways that make it easier to reference but harder to parse overall, because the sections were originally written to flow in a different order.

[Eldariel]

Rarely, but I port a lot of stuff into 3.5. I do prefer the fairy taleish elements of 3.0 versions of Polymorph and company but as they stand, they are sadly just broken and not really tenable for the game (for the optimal answer is never to be a human knight). Same with Haste; it's just too good, but it makes sense. I do keep the "double speed" part of it and Monks get inherent speed bonuses so that synergy at least remains.

But yeah, lots of PRCs in particular. All the good martial archery PRCs (Deepwood Sniper, Order of the Bow Initiate, Peerless Archer) are 3.0 material as are most of the interesting and decent martial PRCs in general (Master of the Chain, Weapon Master, Disciple of Dispater, etc.). So...I like to keep those in. And yeah, stacking crit range should totally be a thing. It's absurd that they make Improved Critical that high level and straight-up a +1 weapon enhancement if they don't stack. 3.5 supports crit-fishing incredibly poorly (Blood in the Water, Kaorti Resin, 15-20/x2 weapon and that's about it) but that's an alternative path for martials and I definitely find it worth supporting.


That said, I like the skill consolidation of 3e and many of the spells are better. E.g. I do prefer the level 1 "Enlarge" and "Reduce" to 3.5's hyperspecific "Enlarge Person" and "Reduce Person". Much more interesting to make it less powerful (unable to increase size category), but able to produce so much utility (Enlarging and Reducing anything).

[Feantar]

Rarely, but I port a lot of stuff into 3.5. I do prefer the fairy taleish elements of 3.0 versions of Polymorph and company but as they stand, they are sadly just broken and not really tenable for the game (for the optimal answer is never to be a human knight). Same with Haste; it's just too good, but it makes sense. I do keep the "double speed" part of it and Monks get inherent speed bonuses so that synergy at least remains.

But yeah, lots of PRCs in particular. All the good martial archery PRCs (Deepwood Sniper, Order of the Bow Initiate, Peerless Archer) are 3.0 material as are most of the interesting and decent martial PRCs in general (Master of the Chain, Weapon Master, Disciple of Dispater, etc.). So...I like to keep those in. And yeah, stacking crit range should totally be a thing. It's absurd that they make Improved Critical that high level and straight-up a +1 weapon enhancement if they don't stack. 3.5 supports crit-fishing incredibly poorly (Blood in the Water, Kaorti Resin, 15-20/x2 weapon and that's about it) but that's an alternative path for martials and I definitely find it worth supporting.


That said, I like the skill consolidation of 3e and many of the spells are better. E.g. I do prefer the level 1 "Enlarge" and "Reduce" to 3.5's hyperspecific "Enlarge Person" and "Reduce Person". Much more interesting to make it less powerful (unable to increase size category), but able to produce so much utility (Enlarging and Reducing anything).

On haste, an interesting nerf you can apply is that it speeds up your body, not your mind (if you're functioning under a mind/body duality that is). So, yes, it gives you another standard action, but it cannot be a mental one. So, extra attack, move, trip attempt, jump, etc you can do, but extra spell or power etc nope. So it buffs martials a lot, but not wizards.

On the skills, I miss Scry - it felt fitting to have a subset for professional scryers even as a skill tax. But yes, the skill consolidation (Innuendo?!) is pretty helpful. On the other hand, 3.5 still has Use Rope...for some reason.

[Eldariel]

On haste, an interesting nerf you can apply is that it speeds up your body, not your mind (if you're functioning under a mind/body duality that is). So, yes, it gives you another standard action, but it cannot be a mental one. So, extra attack, move, trip attempt, jump, etc you can do, but extra spell or power etc nope. So it buffs martials a lot, but not wizards.

Optimally I would prefer some kind of "Haste acclimation" system, since moving that fast is going to be a hindrance more than an advantage much of the time if you are not used to it/your mind can't keep up and thus the +4/+4 is vastly overvaluing its utility. Perhaps something similar could be designed to make Polymorph-kinda stuff good and scary without entirely making non-Polymorphed characters obsolete.


On the skills, I miss Scry - it felt fitting to have a subset for professional scryers even as a skill tax. But yes, the skill consolidation (Innuendo?!) is pretty helpful. On the other hand, 3.5 still has Use Rope...for some reason.

Yeah, Scry was kinda cool, but ultimately skill taxy enough that I'm happyish with it gone. Perhaps turn the professional scrying into a feat (chain) or something that nobody buy a professional scrier is going to take :smalltongue:

[Fizban]

On the skills, I miss Scry - it felt fitting to have a subset for professional scryers even as a skill tax. But yes, the skill consolidation (Innuendo?!) is pretty helpful. On the other hand, 3.5 still has Use Rope...for some reason.
Goodbye Intuit Direction, and good riddance. Use Rope on the other hand- well I dunno about other people, it might just be a "useless city folk" kinda thing, but I have no clue how to use a rope. I practically go cross-eyed every time someone tries to teach me one.

No, seriously, think about it. If you haven't specifically learned how to make all those different knots, there's no way you can just pull them out of nowhere. I could see myself spending hours (probably over days) inventing and testing knots to see what worked and what didn't for what types of job, but that's trying to actively teach yourself, getting that first rank. The Use Rope skill includes knowing exactly the right knot and how to use it for any situation, a certain amount of rope-making in the ability to splice ropes together well enough there's no mechanical difference from a single rope (something that must be possible but which seems real sketchy to actually pull off), binding prisoners (again, something you could figure out with some trial and error but the skill does automatically at a huge bonus), and landing a grappling hook. It's actually quite a bit of important stuff. . . if you ever actually intend to use it. And core items to get around the skill cost a decent amount of cash too.


Optimally I would prefer some kind of "Haste acclimation" system, since moving that fast is going to be a hindrance more than an advantage much of the time if you are not used to it/your mind can't keep up and thus the +4/+4 is vastly overvaluing its utility. Perhaps something similar could be designed to make Polymorph-kinda stuff good and scary without entirely making non-Polymorphed characters obsolete.
I'm all for reinstating similar penalties on polymorph as well. The first and most obvious of which being "if you don't have multiple heads, you can't control multiple heads." One could extend this to all limbs. so you don't get wing or tail attacks either. But you can control those limbs effectively if you concentrate as a standard action, which may or may not include movement depending on how nerfed the DM is aiming for. Swimming and underwater breathing are fine though. Other than than that I'd probably just not allow any given problem forms, anything with high enough bonuses it would require a penalty counter is just nah. Restrict actions or penalize the bonuses down to a reasonable buff total, but not both or you've got no reason to use it.

[Eldariel]

I'm all for reinstating similar penalties on polymorph as well. The first and most obvious of which being "if you don't have multiple heads, you can't control multiple heads." One could extend this to all limbs. so you don't get wing or tail attacks either. But you can control those limbs effectively if you concentrate as a standard action, which may or may not include movement depending on how nerfed the DM is aiming for. Swimming and underwater breathing are fine though. Other than than that I'd probably just not allow any given problem forms, anything with high enough bonuses it would require a penalty counter is just nah. Restrict actions or penalize the bonuses down to a reasonable buff total, but not both or you've got no reason to use it.

Something like that and then perhaps some numeric penalties. By default, a random form should be worse for you than your default form, not the other way around. Then introduce feat chains to acclimate into a single form to enable "master of one form"-characters and make those good without making them free.

[unseenmage]

Wonky as it is, I've been having fun porting 3.0 elements into PF for a while now. But then I also need wonkiness to live so there's that.

[Quertus]

I think it's fair to say I try to never play 3.5. I import 3.5 into 3e.

3.5 took away so many tools from muggles. Crit stacking, good buffs, lethal Vorpal, cheap "needful things" (like fight).

3.0 was superior in many ways.

[Lapak]

I'm in a group that's been running a 3.0 campaign continuously since around 2007. We have back-ported in some 3.5 content, but not much.

The why of it is just that those were the books the group had at the time, IIRC.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I'm all for reinstating similar penalties on polymorph as well. The first and most obvious of which being "if you don't have multiple heads, you can't control multiple heads." One could extend this to all limbs. so you don't get wing or tail attacks either. But you can control those limbs effectively if you concentrate as a standard action, which may or may not include movement depending on how nerfed the DM is aiming for. Swimming and underwater breathing are fine though. Other than than that I'd probably just not allow any given problem forms, anything with high enough bonuses it would require a penalty counter is just nah. Restrict actions or penalize the bonuses down to a reasonable buff total, but not both or you've got no reason to use it.


Something like that and then perhaps some numeric penalties. By default, a random form should be worse for you than your default form, not the other way around. Then introduce feat chains to acclimate into a single form to enable "master of one form"-characters and make those good without making them free.

The big problem with this approach is that that sort of "when you change forms you gain the new form's X, Y, and Z and keep your own X but replace your Y and Z, and you gain W unless you have fewer W in which case you retain your own W, and you take a -V to all U, T, and S unless..." complexity is a real killer at the table when you cast it, and then variable penalties, system shock rolls, requiring concentration for certain things, etc. just adds complexity for the spell's duration. Not ideal.

Instead of mixing-and-matching long lists of traits and defaulting to gaining all of the target form's stuff unless [conditions], it's actually more accurate to previous versions to either keep your own abilities and only gain the shape and certain specific things from the new form or to completely become the new form, with nothing in between. AD&D polymorph self only granted "forms of locomotion" (movement speeds, plus things like Earth Glide and oozes squeezing under doors), and in 2e it granted forms of breathing as well; a druid's Wild Shape turned you into the creature "in all respects save the mind;" and polymorph other in 1e grants everything and in 2e either grants only form, locomotion, AC, and attacks (if the target makes its save against "acquiring the mentality of the new form") or everything (if it fails its save). Though if you're going to assess an unfamiliarity/non-proficiency penalty of some sort, it should be fixed and apply to all rolls, instead of 2e's "might be penalized at the DM's option (for example, -2 penalty to attack rolls)" clause.

What might make sense is splitting up the polymorph spells into a full spell line, each spell of which gives a different and very specific set of benefits. Mobile polymorph gives locomotion, breathing, and any special qualities that relate to speed or movement (like a cheetah's Sprint or a phase spider's Ethereal Jaunt); combat polymorph gives natural weapons, natural armor, DR and resistances, and special attacks that involve launching projectiles (like a giant's Rock Throwing or a manticore's Tail Spikes); stealth polymorph lets you turn into very small creatures and grants Dex, Hide/Move Silently modifiers, and special qualities that involve avoiding detection (like a nerra's Hide in Plain Sight or an invisible stalker's Natural Invisibility); and so on. There's still enough flexibility there to make those spells worth casting, and it retains the flavor much better than a PF-style "choose abilities from an arbitrary menu of generic stuff which may or may not match the form" build-your-own-form setup, but "I polymorph into a giant octopus! I gain a swim speed of 30 feet, the ability to breathe water, and the Jet special quality!" is much faster and easier to handle, and more in line with other buff spells.

[Powerdork]

I didn't remember that and was pleasantly surprised. Did they also keep the artifact names in the DMG (St. Cuthberts instead of Saint's Mace) or did they change those?

Well, for instance,

The Mace of Cuthbert: St. Cuthbert, tales say, once walked the earth as a man. When he did, he used a potent weapon to strike against the infidels and evil beings he encountered everywhere he went. Today, this relic appears to be a simple, well-used cudgel, but its simple appearance hides great power. The Mace of Cuthbert has a +5 enhancement bonus and functions as a heavy mace with the holy, lawful, and disruption special abilities. The wielder can project searing light from the mace at will, at caster level 20th.

[Fizban]

I think it's fair to say I try to never play 3.5. I import 3.5 into 3e.

3.5 took away so many tools from muggles. Crit stacking, good buffs, lethal Vorpal, cheap "needful things" (like fight).

3.0 was superior in many ways.
Ironically, a lot of the super-cheap flight items in the 3.0 DMG appeared to have been typo/editing sort of mistakes (as they were updated to comply with the formulas). Then MiC comes along and just discounts stuff left and right- except for flying items that look similar to those in the DMG. But other round-based combat flight items are just dirt cheap.


The big problem with this approach is that that sort of "when you change forms you gain the new form's X, Y, and Z and keep your own X but replace your Y and Z, and you gain W unless you have fewer W in which case you retain your own W, and you take a -V to all U, T, and S unless..." complexity is a real killer at the table when you cast it, and then variable penalties, system shock rolls, requiring concentration for certain things, etc. just adds complexity for the spell's duration. Not ideal.
Applying polymorph as written is already super complex. My bodily/action restrictions are a fully intuitive DM call: you've got two arms, two legs, and a mouth, anything that's not a weapon mount for one of those requires concentration, everything else works as normal (for the spell)- if anything the reduction in natural weapons and disincentive of flight during combat ought to reduce complexity. Simliarly, blanket penalties are also simple. I'll easily agree that variable penalties would be a pain, but I get the feeling that Eldarial is thinking for really long durations or repeated use. So it'd be a thing you opt into by working towards, not a round by round gotcha.


What might make sense is splitting up the polymorph spells into a full spell line, each spell of which gives a different and very specific set of benefits.
Well yeah, but that's not 3.0 reversion or inspired by limitation, it's just a bunch of new/replacement spells. Though 3.0 Alter Self is already that type of spell, as it has a very specific list of things you can get: add or subtract one or two limbs, fly 30' poor, and gills. Personally I'd add swim 30'.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Applying polymorph as written is already super complex.

Well, yes, but "being better than polymorph as-written" is a very low bar. :smallwink: Both "Here's a short list of specific benefits like any other buff spell" and "Ditch your character sheet, replace it with the monster entry" are much more straightforward that any sort of mix-and-match scheme, whether the mixing and matching comes from a checklist in the books or requires line-item vetoes by the DM.


Well yeah, but that's not 3.0 reversion or inspired by limitation, it's just a bunch of new/replacement spells. Though 3.0 Alter Self is already that type of spell, as it has a very specific list of things you can get: add or subtract one or two limbs, fly 30' poor, and gills. Personally I'd add swim 30'.

The 3.0 alter self with its short list of specific benefits is actually partly what inspired that suggestion, yes. The other part was that throughout the pre-3.0 editions various polymorph effects have each given different sets of traits (movement or not, breathing or not, attacks or not, etc.), so creating several polymorph spells that each give specific benefits is essentially letting you pick which BECMI/AD&D version of the spell you like and use that.

[Particle_Man]

I regret that I will never get to try out a 3.0 vorpal sword.

[Mordaedil]

I kinda prefer 3.0's damage reduction system to the one 3.5 uses, simply because it made higher enchantment weapons actually matter. Now you just need either a +1 or a +6 weapon to overcome damage reduction and then a golfbag of other materials. Or just hit so hard you automatically overcome the DR, another thing that was likely unfeasable in 3.0.

Speaking of, was Ice Burst ever errata'd? I want a blast spell for my ice sorcerer in a campaign, but I'm not sure if the one printed in Tome & Blood is the only one printed.

[Crake]

Plus, the one that I like the most (and use even in my frequent Pathfinder games) is DR/+X rather than magic and Cold Iron and this and that. It gives +X weapons a purpose and helps with the golf-bag of weapons thing. That said, the materials do count as appropriate +X weapons, but requiring a +1 weapon is still more interesting than requiring a magic one.

Did you know that pathfinder actually found a different method of fixing this? In pathfinder, depending on the +X, the weapon counts as silver/cold iron (+3), adamantine (+4) or aligned (+5), so actually having a higher +X on your weapon means you can bypass more kinds of damage reduction without actually having those special abilities or materials on your weapon.

Side note, mithril also bypasses DR/silver in pathfinder, something I backport as a method of having some kind of no-penalty DR/silver weapon at the expense of cost.

[inuyasha]

Did you know that pathfinder actually found a different method of fixing this? In pathfinder, depending on the +X, the weapon counts as silver/cold iron (+3), adamantine (+4) or aligned (+5), so actually having a higher +X on your weapon means you can bypass more kinds of damage reduction without actually having those special abilities or materials on your weapon.

Side note, mithril also bypasses DR/silver in pathfinder, something I backport as a method of having some kind of no-penalty DR/silver weapon at the expense of cost.

I see that quoted a lot, but I feel like I've never actually seen it in the book! Is it in an obvious spot that I've missed all these years?? That aside though, I just assume that the DR/+X is the default, because the golfbag of weapons thing bothers me a lot except for in very specific cases.

[Blueiji]

The forum lists 3e/3.5/d20, but I'm curious how many people actually play 3.0, and what reasons they have for doing so?

I was wondering this same thing earlier this afternoon—was pleasantly surprised to discover this thread near the top of the page upon checking in today.

[TalonOfAnathrax]

I mostly own the 3.0 books (I still haven't gotten my hands on a paper copy of the 3.5 PHB, for example), and so I usually play 3.0 when I play face-to-face with friends unless they insist on GMing.
When I play online (play-by-post, etc) I use 3.5, because getting online resources is easy.

[Fizban]

Speaking of, was Ice Burst ever errata'd? I want a blast spell for my ice sorcerer in a campaign, but I'm not sure if the one printed in Tome & Blood is the only one printed.
Nope, Tome and Blood is the only version. And a good thing too, because if they had "updated" it, they'd probably have either removed all the differences from Fireball or completely changed the level and effect or something.

Conceptually I have a weird relationship with Ice Burst. I like it, but by existing in the same system that has Ice Storm, it seems off. The extra wide area is actually a very significant feature, but one that is of little use to seriuz adventruin bizniz and potentially a huge drawback, while the reduced range means it can't actually take the place of Fireball. Ice Storm is clearly meant to be the counterpart to Fireball for long range cold (in 3.0, while in 3.5 Freezing Sphere lost the no-save ray and became a long range small AoE), but it's also got this whole small amount of fixed no-save damage that stays in place for a round and is a level higher except for Warmages, which makes its use completely different. In short I'm keenly aware of the fact that the original 3.0 spells made the energy types very different, and as cool as Ice Burst is, having a straight 3rd level burst, for cold, at an even wider area, goes completely against Ice Storm.

You'd have to drop Ice Storm to 3rd (and reduce the damage) and push Ice Burst to 4th and swap the ranges to preserve the "cold is worse/fire is better at point AoE" dynamic. But if SpC is in play with Scintillating Sphere, then those dynamics have been wrecked pretty hard so who cares? Of course, with the massive array of fancy targeting and just more damage fire spells, cold can afford to keep Ice Burst. As well as Freezing Sphere with all the 3.0 and 3.5 functions, a Greater Ice Storm, and a few more spells, and you actually have enough to fill every level and make cold a comparable-ish choice. But originally there was no "comparable choice," just this shape with this damage type.

[Powerdork]

I see that quoted a lot, but I feel like I've never actually seen it in the book! Is it in an obvious spot that I've missed all these years??

It's in the definition of damage reduction, either the one in the Bestiary or the Core Rulebook's (from the chapter on special abilities), I believe.

[Crake]

I see that quoted a lot, but I feel like I've never actually seen it in the book! Is it in an obvious spot that I've missed all these years?? That aside though, I just assume that the DR/+X is the default, because the golfbag of weapons thing bothers me a lot except for in very specific cases.

It's listed on this page (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/special-abilities/#TOC-Damage-Reduction), scroll down to damage reduction and you'll see a little table.

Personally I really like the golfbag of ammo when playing as an archer or gunslinger, I love having a tonne of very circumstantial ammo that acts as almost a silver bullet for the right target, like a +1 silver holy anarchic magebane evil outsider bane lawful outsider bane bullet. It may cost 1,280gp (and 103xp if you're playing 3.5) to craft (a very expensive bullet indeed), but against a devil it's a +7 bullet that does +10d6 damage and overcomes all it's damage reduction, even epic thanks to it's effective +7 bonus.

But conversely, carrying around a bunch of mithril, cold iron, adamantine, cyrite or flametouched iron bullets, all ghost salted to be able to hit incorporeal foes without a 50/50 miss chance always made me feel like a badass.

[inuyasha]

It's listed on this page (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/special-abilities/#TOC-Damage-Reduction), scroll down to damage reduction and you'll see a little table.

Personally I really like the golfbag of ammo when playing as an archer or gunslinger, I love having a tonne of very circumstantial ammo that acts as almost a silver bullet for the right target, like a +1 silver holy anarchic magebane evil outsider bane lawful outsider bane bullet. It may cost 1,280gp (and 103xp if you're playing 3.5) to craft (a very expensive bullet indeed), but against a devil it's a +7 bullet that does +10d6 damage and overcomes all it's damage reduction, even epic thanks to it's effective +7 bonus.

But conversely, carrying around a bunch of mithril, cold iron, adamantine, cyrite or flametouched iron bullets, all ghost salted to be able to hit incorporeal foes without a 50/50 miss chance always made me feel like a badass.

Wow I feel like that was in a ridiculously obvious spot. Thanks you two!

Ammo is one exception to the golfbag thing, you're right. Mostly because I think it's easier to carry a big bundle of arrows than a spare greatsword, just makes more sense to me, hah.

[Ellrin]

I see that quoted a lot, but I feel like I've never actually seen it in the book! Is it in an obvious spot that I've missed all these years?? That aside though, I just assume that the DR/+X is the default, because the golfbag of weapons thing bothers me a lot except for in very specific cases.

AFB, so I can't give you a page number, but it's in the blurb about DR in the special abilities section. Have an SRD link (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/special-abilities/#TOC-Overcoming-DR).

EDIT: Whoops, didn't notice the question had been answered already. That'll teach me to try to post when I'm in the middle of cooking. :smallredface:

[Duke of Urrel]

Maybe somebody who was interested in this thread will be able to answer a related question of mine.

Does somebody still own a Player's Handbook in a 3.0 edition? I seem to remember a rule about readied actions and initiative checks that was discontinued in version 3.5.

The rule went something like this. If you readied a move to be triggered by an enemy's next attack, but then the enemy readied their attack to be triggered by your next move, you might both wait forever. To avoid this outcome, you would both break the infinite loop by making initiative checks. The one who lost would have to act first, thereby triggering the enemy's readied action.

I even seem to remember an example that was given to illustrate this rule. There was (if I remember rightly) a dialogue between Lidda and a stranger in a dark alley, which began with both of them readying actions and ended with Lidda losing the initiative check, saying "Well met," and crossing her fingers.

Does anybody remember this rule? Can anybody give me the page number where it appears? I like this rule and still like to use it, but I unwisely got rid of my old Player's Handbook from the year 2000.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

You're thinking of the Delaying rules, not the Readying rules:


Multiple Characters Delaying: If multiple characters are delaying, the one with the highest initiative bonus (or highest Dexterity, in case of a tie) has the advantage. If two or more delaying characters both want to act on the same initiative count, the one with the highest bonus gets to go first. If two or more delaying characters are trying to go after the other, the one with the highest initiative bonus gets to go last.

For instance, Lidda and an elf stranger run across each other in a back alley in a big city. Lidda’s initiative count is 17, higher than the elf’s. She doesn’t want to commit to attacking, fleeing, or parleying, so she delays, intending to act after the elf acts. The elf’s initiative count is 12. He delays, too. The initiative count drops down, and neither character acts. (If there were other characters in the encounter, they would act on their initiative counts.) Finally, the count reaches –17, Lidda’s limit (thanks to her +7 initiative bonus), and the elf still hasn’t acted. Lidda has to choose, and the elf (who apparently has a higher initiative bonus) will get to respond. “Well met,” says Lidda, crossing her fingers.

[Duke of Urrel]

You're thinking of the Delaying rules, not the Readying rules:

Thank you for this, PairO'Dice Lost! It's not exactly what I remembered. I suppose I need to make a house rule. But it's very good to have my memory tuned up!

[ShurikVch]

Did you know that 3.0 skeletons and zombies were utter trashWell, templates were released in 2001 - way way before the 3.5 (Skeleton (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mm/20010126a), Zombie (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mm/20011027a))