Anyone still running a 3.0 game ?

[DungeonMaster]

I run a 3rd edition game with a handful of (the few) intelligently designed peices of 3.5 by player demand. There's no such thing as 3.0 incidentally.
There's 3rd edition and 3.5.

 

[Melkor]

I run a 3rd edition game with a handful of (the few) intelligently designed peices of 3.5 by player demand. There's no such thing as 3.0 incidentally.
There's 3rd edition and 3.5.

Yeah, but if the title had said "3rd Edition" instead of 3.0, everyone who responded (no matter if the played the original 3rd Edition, or 3.5) would have answered "Yes".

 

[sjmiller]

I've been running one 3e game, off and on, since the books first came out. I have been running another one for about a year and a half. We've been enjoying the game and have no reason to switch. Just about everyone has a PH, and that is about all they need. We're all quite happy with it, and have no real complaints. About the only complaint I have is I am having trouble finding good books to support it.

 

[Shemeska]

I still run 3.0, though I'll use things from 3.5 books freely and I will use certain rules tweeks from 3.5. Effectively a bastardized 3/3.5 hybrid that's more on the 3 side of things, but that's really no different from a 3.0 game with house rules in place.

I don't honestly see that much beyond superficial differences between 3 and 3.5, and it's not a huge deal for me, though I might look at somebody odd if they started to cherry pick feats, PrCs and spells of 3.5 advent simply to exploit any perceived 3.0 weaknesses.

I really get disturbed when anyone dismisses a 3.0 book like it's outdated or no longer relevant unless it's explicitely 3.5. There's not much difference outside of some rules tweaks; it's not like using 1e books in a 3.5e game.

 

[Shadowdancer]

We still use 3.0 in our regular game. We have no plans of ever switching to 3.5.

I own the 3.5 books for use in RPGA events, but no one else in our group participates in RPGA.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

While I run a 3.5 campaign, we switched mid-stream from 3.0 to 3.5. Nary a bump in the road that was -- a virtually seemless transition. I regularly use 3.0 stuff right along with my 3.5, making a few adjustments (DR, tactics, spells) but nothing that isn't too difficult to do on the fly. I find that in practice, if you're willing to gloss over a few things (like exact numbers of skill points for monsters/NPCs and so on), it doesn't matter which core version of the rules you're using, you can use books from the other versions just fine -- a stat block is a stat block, whether 3.0 or 3.5.

 

[GrayIguana]

Still Playing 3.0

As others have mentioned, the changes haven't been that great to force the move. I use many of the new 3.5 books (the complete series for example), and things still seem to move along fine.

I also have to think of several other players, and whether I really need to make them buy new books. In fact, one of them e-mailed me a month ago to ask if I had heard about the new 3.5 rules they saw in a store.

 

[Wombat]

While I never bothered to buy 3.5, I don't play 3.0 either anymore; instead I play Monte's AU.

Then again, I haven't upgraded to AE either, mainly because I don't see the need yet.

And in any case, I have heavily modified the rules so they are closer to my tastes.

 

[Psion]

I go with the best of both worlds. Mostly 3.5, but I use selected outtakes from 3.0 -- I still allow "+" DR, still use the vastly superior 3.0 cover and concealment rules and face and reach rules, and selected spell and feat rulings.

 

[Voadam]

I run 3.5 but use a lot of 3.0, d20 modern, and older stuff and convert as I go or as needed.