PDA

View Full Version : Does anybody still play 3.0?



ken-do-nim
2008-09-05, 02:07 PM
Just wondering. Seems to me that 3.0 is the "most dead", if you will, of D&D versions. All the other versions, from OD&D and Empire of the Petal Throne all the way up through spinoffs like Hackmaster and Labyrinth Lord, have games running that I know of. Heck, people are even running OSRIC games, and that was never even intended. But 3.0? Seems like everyone migrated to 3.5.

So if you're a 3.0 player, let us know, and tell us if you're just sticking with 3.0 until your campaign that started in it finishes, or if you actually prefer it.

only1doug
2008-09-05, 02:12 PM
we started playing 3.0 but upgraded to 3.5, it just works better.

3.0 was released too early and 3.5 fixed some of the problems without completely changing the game.

Shazzbaa
2008-09-05, 03:07 PM
One guy I know and almost played with runs 3.0, mostly because all his books are 3.0, so he knows it better. But he was willing to use 3.5 psionics rules when I wanted to come in as a psion.

One of the games I'm in now runs 3.x. The DM used to play 3.0, knows that better, and occasionally decides he likes one or two of their rules better... and actually didn't realise the extent he was combining the two systems until I came in with decent knowledge of 3.5 and no knowledge of 3.0 and we kept disagreeing on random points. ^^;

But really, don't all games become 3.x as soon as you, say, go into epic levels? I recall the Epic Level Handbook was 3.0?

But I think only1doug hit the nail on the head -- since 3.5 and 3.0, as far as I can see, don't feel like massively different games, 3.5 is kind of like "3.0 but with some tweaks and more supplements." If you want to go back and try an older edition, it'd make sense to try out 2nd, for example, but there'd be no real reason to dig up 3.0 unless someone in the group used to play and preferred it.

Frosty
2008-09-05, 03:14 PM
What she said. 3.5 is 3.0 except better. Seriously...haste giving an extra Standard Action? What kind of chicken crap design is that?

Chronos
2008-09-05, 03:17 PM
Seriously...haste giving an extra Standard Action? What kind of chicken crap design is that?One could say the same about Alter Self granting natural armor.

Akimbo
2008-09-05, 03:32 PM
One could say the same about Alter Self granting natural armor.

Natural Armor vs extra spell?

I know which one of those is more screwed up. (Now Shapechange on the other hand, that gives out a standard, a move, and a 5ft step, plus natural armor ect.)

Frosty
2008-09-05, 05:44 PM
Alter Self just needs to be a third level spell and it's pretty balanced.

Curmudgeon
2008-09-05, 06:11 PM
Let's be honest here. 3.5 was rushed into release, and there were screwups. Not allowing keen and Improved Critical to stack was a solution to a problem that didn't exist. Making rising from prone provoke AoOs created a sweet spot for spiked chain users with Improved Trip and Combat Reflexes; they clearly didn't think that through. Alter Self and everything that follows from it (the Polymorph chain) is a problem that is exacerbated by every new race and monster subsequently created.

That said, they did fix more things than they broke. Haste is the biggest fix, turning that from the sine qua non of spells to something that's still quite useful. Removing Ambidexterity gave a slight boost to two-weapon fighting -- though that 4-feat chain is even weaker compared to two-handed fighting, which got a boost from the single feat it needs: Power Attack. The skill system got mostly better, though Alchemy got needlessly nerfed. Damage reduction got both more reasonable in power, and more generally useful. Ditto for sundering.

3.5 is mostly an improvement over 3.0. 3.0 was a huge improvement in character flexibility over AD&D 2nd Edition, where add-ons like the Character Options books required replacing big chunks of the core rules. Because 3.0 was such a big boost, it's easy to not notice that the 3.5 rules are better (by a little bit) still.

Zeta Kai
2008-09-05, 07:04 PM
In my games, I usually allow Haste to be used as it was in 3.0, but only as a 4th-level spell. I haven't notice any problems with this solution. Most problem spells can be dealt with by adding +1 to the SL (especially in the hands of a Bio-Mage, which was originally crafted in 3.0, then edited for 3.5).

Worira
2008-09-05, 07:07 PM
Don't forget 3.0's levelx2 limit of animal companions.

Prometheus
2008-09-05, 07:11 PM
I use 3.5 but for the longest time ran off of all 3.0 books (I just included the modifications and went on). I think there are a lot of good PrC from the old Class books (Tome and Blood, Song and Silence etc) that I will update to incorporate. The two are close enough that it is essentially the same, with the exception that 3.5 already includes many of the necessary changes required of 3.0

Oslecamo
2008-09-05, 08:45 PM
I still have one DM who never upgraded to 3.0 with the wich I play.

I'm really not sure if they fixed more than they broke. Haste giving extra action wasn't that

Polymorph and friends, on the other hand, sky rocketed thanks to granting a lot more abilities than before.

The druid got so bloated I can't tell. Better skill list, MUCH better animal companion(in 3.0 you had to go out there and find it yourself), dinossaurs became animals,

Freedom of movement didn't protected you from grapple instnatly.

Bagera
2008-09-05, 08:57 PM
You have to admit that the 3.0 rules for towershields were really awesome. My group likes to house rule those in. But some of the 3.0 stuff was ridiculous like leap of the clouds monks had the ability to jump as high as they could jump.

monty
2008-09-05, 09:05 PM
But some of the 3.0 stuff was ridiculous like leap of the clouds monks had the ability to jump as high as they could jump.

How is that ridiculous? Maybe then monks would suck less.

Akimbo
2008-09-05, 09:14 PM
Am I the only one that saw he said the monk could jump as high as he could jump?

Just like every character ever?

Hairb
2008-09-05, 10:05 PM
Am I the only one that saw he said the monk could jump as high as he could jump?

Just like every character ever?

I knew of a gnomish druid with low self-esteem who never tried his best at anything. So no, he never jumped as high as he could have. Even when he could have changed into a cat or kangaroo, or indeed a dire flea.

monty
2008-09-05, 10:11 PM
I knew of a gnomish druid with low self-esteem who never tried his best at anything. So no, he never jumped as high as he could have. Even when he could have changed into a cat or kangaroo, or indeed a dire flea.

But the point was that he could, not necessarily that he did.

TheThan
2008-09-05, 10:29 PM
I spend a couple of months updating Oriental adventures to 3.5, now I have to upgrade it again. *sigh*

I guess them's the breaks.

Justin_Bacon
2008-09-05, 11:34 PM
Just wondering. Seems to me that 3.0 is the "most dead", if you will, of D&D versions. All the other versions, from OD&D and Empire of the Petal Throne all the way up through spinoffs like Hackmaster and Labyrinth Lord, have games running that I know of. Heck, people are even running OSRIC games, and that was never even intended. But 3.0? Seems like everyone migrated to 3.5.

The differences between 3.0 and 3.5 are not particularly significant.

I play using the 3.5 rulebooks, but I use the 3.0 cover and keen rules; have modified the DR rules to look more like the 3.0 versions; use a blended monk that lies somewhere between the 3.0 and 3.5 versions; refer to Alchemy instead of Craft (alchemy); and refer to Wilderness Lore/Survival interchangeably.

I also regularly use 3.0 supplements and adventures. (With the exception of conflating skills and the DR rules, there is essentially nothing that isn't cross-compatible between 3.0 and 3.5.)


What she said. 3.5 is 3.0 except better. Seriously...haste giving an extra Standard Action? What kind of chicken crap design is that?

Oh, right. I also use the 3.0 version of haste because of its simple and elegant design.

We've never had a problem with the extra spell per round at my table for the same reason we don't have the problems other people have with fighters at my table. Deciding to burn through their resources twice as fast is a decision the spellcasters need to weigh carefully.

If it ever did become a problem, I'd still prefer to keep the 3.0 mechanics and simply house rule that you can't use that action to cast a spell.

Thrud
2008-09-05, 11:44 PM
My campaign that just broke up a couple months ago was all 3.0 with a few tweaks of 3.5 added in here and there. It ran for years. Unfortunately all the players wound up having to move to different places in the country. Now I am in a 4.0 game that is boring me to tears. Could be the DM, but I'm just not having much fun with it. Oh well, maybe its time to just drop D&D till another new edition comes out (knowing Hasbro it will probably only be 2 or 3 years) which will once again radically redefine the game.

Maybe I can find a group playing Mage around here. Now that is probably my favorite RPG. Except the new edition of Mage was ALSO completely $#@^$^%[email protected]#$ by its new rules.

I hate gaming companies that decide to completely change something that works PERFECTLY WELL THE WAY IT WAS! ARRRGGGGHHHH. I'll bet it was White Wolf that gave Hasbro the idea to completely redesign their new edition too.

*Feels depressed and wanders off to find a game of Wraith.*

BobVosh
2008-09-05, 11:57 PM
My campaign that just broke up a couple months ago was all 3.0 with a few tweaks of 3.5 added in here and there. It ran for years. Unfortunately all the players wound up having to move to different places in the country. Now I am in a 4.0 game that is boring me to tears. Could be the DM, but I'm just not having much fun with it. Oh well, maybe its time to just drop D&D till another new edition comes out (knowing Hasbro it will probably only be 2 or 3 years) which will once again radically redefine the game.

Maybe I can find a group playing Mage around here. Now that is probably my favorite RPG. Except the new edition of Mage was ALSO completely $#@^$^%[email protected]#$ by its new rules.

I hate gaming companies that decide to completely change something that works PERFECTLY WELL THE WAY IT WAS! ARRRGGGGHHHH. I'll bet it was White Wolf that gave Hasbro the idea to completely redesign their new edition too.

*Feels depressed and wanders off to find a game of Wraith.*

Why would you pay more money for exactly the same? *although I do agree new mage sucks. Hardcore. Any word on the new changeling?*

I like 3.5 better, simply because they fixed a lot of things. Such as haste, as everyone has mentioned. In 3.0 you could easily fling out 3 spells a round if you built yourself right. More if you built yourself exceptionally right.

EvilElitest
2008-09-05, 11:59 PM
Just wondering. Seems to me that 3.0 is the "most dead", if you will, of D&D versions. All the other versions, from OD&D and Empire of the Petal Throne all the way up through spinoffs like Hackmaster and Labyrinth Lord, have games running that I know of. Heck, people are even running OSRIC games, and that was never even intended. But 3.0? Seems like everyone migrated to 3.5.

So if you're a 3.0 player, let us know, and tell us if you're just sticking with 3.0 until your campaign that started in it finishes, or if you actually prefer it.

huh? Correction, and this comes from a don't care about 4e/3E quality view point right now, 3E is the least dead of replaced editions. It has the open game license, and 4E does not. So while 4E will be popular, 3E is still the 'default' roleplaying style
from
EE
edit
oh i thought you were talking about something else. Well in that case, i can't say. They are very much the same, one is just improved and shiny

Fhaolan
2008-09-06, 01:17 AM
My gaming groups still run 3.0. We simply can't be bothered to 'upgrade'. None of the rule glitches that require converting to 3.5 seem to happen in our games. And we just can't justify restructuring the existing games for 4e right now.

Ascension
2008-09-06, 01:25 AM
The last PnP DM I dealt with mixed 3.0 and 3.5 material indiscriminately, leading to some strange rule glitches, particularly when it came to spells. I was drawing the text for my sorcerer's spells out of the 3.5 PHB, while he was referencing the 3.0 PHB... it got messy a couple times. We also had some confusion over just what the heck a whip really is, and whether or not the Sword & Fist prestige classes that didn't get carried over to Complete Warrior were still usable or not.

Good times, good times.

Grey Paladin
2008-09-06, 05:24 AM
3.0 was a lot more balanced then 3.5, Non-casters/Gishes were stronger due to item/spell bonuses to saving throws/stats stacking- save or lose was a lot weaker and Natural Spell/Divine metamagic/Spell Thesis and their ilk didn't exist while the Fighters could fight with a critical range of 8-20 and 30 Strength at level 12 without much effort, investing most of their cash into utility (read: flight/anti magic) items.

Eldariel
2008-09-06, 06:07 AM
Actually, Natural Spell is right in 3.0 core. And Druids get an ungodly amount of animal companions and overall kick even more ass than in 3.5.

BobVosh
2008-09-06, 06:14 AM
Actually, Natural Spell is right in 3.0 core. And Druids get an ungodly amount of animal companions and overall kick even more ass than in 3.5.

They did have a posse, but it kinda sucked.

Grey Paladin
2008-09-06, 06:16 AM
I have my 3.0 Player's handbook right here and I do not see Natural Spell in it,
And 3.0 Animal companions were only as powerful as the DM made them- the limit was Druid level*2 HD and more often then not you'd find druids with hordes of small useless animals or a couple of bears, all unadvanced.

Tobrian
2008-09-06, 06:16 AM
I know a group that still plays 3.0.

I run a 3.5 game heavily modified with house rules, an another group I play in might switch to the Pathfinder 3.5b system by Paizo Publishing soon. Personally, I have no intention to switch to 4E.

I've seen both 4E and 3.5 D&D games at conventions here in Germany, but all people I play with still use 3E. Heck, some of them would still use AD&D 2nd Ed if I hadn't introduced them to 3E back then. On the other hand, D&D isn't even my favorite system... it's just that most groups playing fantasy here in Germany use either D&D, Midgard, or Das Schwarze Auge as systems. *shrug*


Actually, Natural Spell is right in 3.0 core.

Under 3.0, Natural Spell feat is in Masters of the Wild. Some GMs consider those "class supplements" Core rules, some don't, just as some do not even consider the Complete XX supplements for 3.5 "core" rules. Which is a bit silly if you ask me because essential feats like Extra Turning were not in the Player's Guide, only in the class supplements.

But yeah the feat already existed in 3.0.

ken-do-nim
2008-09-06, 08:08 PM
The last PnP DM I dealt with mixed 3.0 and 3.5 material indiscriminately, leading to some strange rule glitches, particularly when it came to spells. I was drawing the text for my sorcerer's spells out of the 3.5 PHB, while he was referencing the 3.0 PHB... it got messy a couple times. We also had some confusion over just what the heck a whip really is, and whether or not the Sword & Fist prestige classes that didn't get carried over to Complete Warrior were still usable or not.

Good times, good times.

I was in a campaign that started 3E then switched to 3.5 when we were all around 12th level. My monk was gearing up to take the Red Avenger prestige class when the switch occurred, and as you know Red Avenger isn't in 3.5.

Anyways, sounds like a few games are still going in 3E. Good to know. I sold my 3E books on eBay for peanuts when 3.5 came out, so it's now the only edition I don't own.