Is 3.0 Playable?

[AnthonyRoberson]

Ok. First things first:

WS-EDITION-WAR = 'N'

Now that I have that out of the way, I have a question. I can pick up the 3.0 books cheaply. Is there any reason that I shouldn't use them? Is a game using just the 3.0 books playable (and hopefully enjoyable)? Your experiences and/or opinions are welcome!

 

[jgbrowning]

Ok. First things first:

WS-EDITION-WAR = 'N'

Now that I have that out of the way, I have a question. I can pick up the 3.0 books cheaply. Is there any reason that I shouldn't use them? Is a game using just the 3.0 books playable (and hopefully enjoyable)? Your experiences and/or opinions are welcome!

Yep, playable and enjoyable.

joe b.

 

[Holy Bovine]

Ok. First things first:

WS-EDITION-WAR = 'N'

Now that I have that out of the way, I have a question. I can pick up the 3.0 books cheaply. Is there any reason that I shouldn't use them? Is a game using just the 3.0 books playable (and hopefully enjoyable)? Your experiences and/or opinions are welcome!

Played it for 4 years with few problems. Maybe fewer than I ran into with 3.5 actually.

 

[Fifth Element]

Kind of a strange question, really. 3.0 is playable and enjoyable as joe b. says. Not sure why you would think otherwise.

3.5 is really a revision, not a correction. There's nothing inherently bad about 3.0.

 

[Vorput]

I played it for several years and thought it was great. I didn't even realize it had flaws until 3.5 came out.

Now that I've played 3.5 though, I think it'd be hard to go back to 3.0 without changing at least a few of the more obvious things 3.5 changed... that being said the games were pretty much exactly the same.

So my vote is for yes- completely playable. It almost seems nostalgic enough to make me want to go try it again....

 

[Pbartender]

Now that I have that out of the way, I have a question. I can pick up the 3.0 books cheaply. Is there any reason that I shouldn't use them? Is a game using just the 3.0 books playable (and hopefully enjoyable)? Your experiences and/or opinions are welcome!

Sure it's playable and enjoyable... We're playing 4E right now, but I've still got my 3.0 books (and 3.5 books, and 2E books, and 1E AD&D books, and Basic books, for that matter ).

It's got its quirks just like any edition does, but all in all it's no worse than 3.5E or 4E are in their own ways. Buy them, play them.

 

[AnthonyRoberson]

Sure it's playable and enjoyable... We're playing 4E right now, but I've still got my 3.0 books (and 3.5 books, and 2E books, and 1E AD&D books, and Basic books, for that matter ).

It's got its quirks just like any edition does, but all in all it's no worse than 3.5E or 4E are in their own ways. Buy them, play them.

Thanks for the replies everyone! The positive vibes in this thread are almost overwhelming. Are you sure this is ENWorld?

 

[Mallus]

Absolutely.

(The best thing about 3.5e is some of the material in the later books --PHBII, Tome of Magic, Book of Nine Swords-- not the revisions to the core.)

 

[Storminator]

The hardest part about switching between 3.0 and 3.5 is the very nearly but not quite the sameness. You'll likely rule things the wrong way without noticing it.

PS

 

[JeffB]

I preferred 3.0 to 3.5- there were some changes in 3.5 that really bugged the crap out of me and/or made for big headaches down the road, IME (changes to DR leading into the XMas tree magic item problem, decreased buff durations caused more bookkeeping during combat, spacing/facing changed to be more mini-centric, those are some that come to mind immediately). There were some good changes to the classes in 3.5 , and the books were beefed up to add some value/utility (The DMG & MM especially). But overall I didn't see a real need for 3.5- then OR now.