Am I the only 3.0 grognard left?

[Chainsaw Mage]

<disclaimer> I'm not attempting to be combative. I'm honestly interested in finding out how the 3e crowd works, and why. </disclaimer>

I converted. In my opinion the differences were so minimal that it can hardly even be called a 'conversion'. I'm curious as to what it is exactly the 3e folks like better about 3.0 than 3.5. The additional cost is inconvenient, but you could always just use the 3.5 updates that were posted with your 3.0 books.

How do you handle new material? I'm not aware of any companies producing 3.0 specific material. Do you just play the new stuff 'as is', do you simply convert the most obvious differences, or do you simply not use any newer products?

First you say that "the differences were so minimal that it can hardly be called a conversion", then you ask how we "handle new material".

You answered your own question.

 

[Atom Again]

Pssssst...I'll let you in on a secret. Shhhh...come closer. Ready?

[Looks around nervously, speaks in a mere whisper]

**Just because WotC releases new products, doesn't mean you have to buy them.**

[Coughs, stands up, looks around quickly]

Having said that, who needs new material? I have enough 2e and 3.0e stuff to last for years. Plus I have this thing called "imagination."

 

[Doug McCrae]

I bought the 3.0 core rules then moved up to 3.5. Although I was a bit disappointed by the lack of new material I like all the changes. Right now I'm playing in an almost completely 'by the book' 3.5 campaign and I love it. I'm planning to run my first ever 3.5 session in a couple of weeks.

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

I bought the 3.0 core rules then moved up to 3.5. Although I was a bit disappointed by the lack of new material I like all the changes. Right now I'm playing in an almost completely 'by the book' 3.5 campaign and I love it. I'm planning to run my first ever 3.5 session in a couple of weeks.

You "moved up", did you? Implying those of us who still play 3.0 are "staying below"?

Heh heh...see the other thread about metaphors.

 

[kigmatzomat]

<disclaimer> I'm not attempting to be combative. I'm honestly interested in finding out how the 3e crowd works, and why. </disclaimer>

Pretty simply: same as it did prior to 3.5. I treat 3.5 as I would any other d20 supplement. I used it as a basis for making the ranger less frontloaded in my house rules, but didn't go as far as 3.5 did. I'd already tweaked the sorceror, something I was disappointed 3.5 didn't. I can't see the spell changes improving anything, IMO, so there's no gain there.

I converted. In my opinion the differences were so minimal that it can hardly even be called a 'conversion'. I'm curious as to what it is exactly the 3e folks like better about 3.0 than 3.5.

It's not better, but it's not *worse.* There's no substantive change ergo no change is needed. And the cost *is* a factor. Several of my players are borrowing my spare 3.0 books because they are sans employment and I can't subsidize a complete version change by myself.

How do you handle new material? I'm not aware of any companies producing 3.0 specific material. Do you just play the new stuff 'as is', do you simply convert the most obvious differences, or do you simply not use any newer products?

How do you handle older material? As you said, the changes tend to be minor and assuming I can check an SRD to verify the few spell names that changed, it's a pretty moot deal.

I don't own any 3.5 stuff excluding the monster manual (mmmm, grapple check values calculated for me!) and use the 3.5 SRD when I'm in someone else's 3.5 game.

 

[Kalanyr]

'nother 3.0/3.5e Hybrider here, I like some of the 3.5e changes so I use em, primarily 3.0 though. Oh and as for using new supplements, meh, the only things you usually have to do is double (3.5 -> 3.0)/halve the energy resistance (3.0->3.5), double/halve the Damage Reduction, and switch some Damage reduction overcomers around, not a lot else changes.

 

[Aristotle]

First you say that "the differences were so minimal that it can hardly be called a conversion", then you ask how we "handle new material".

Well, yeah and no. I mean if thats your answer, and it works that way for you then great. In my opinion... The changes are minor enough from a clean slate, but there are obvious differences in the way things are balanced and whatnot when you try to mesh the products in an active setting. I'm not claiming either product does anything better. I was just wondering how you managed conversion. For instance, I'm running the original adventure path for my 3.5 game. The basics of the adventure mesh fine, but I've been rewriting many of the NPCs to ensure they comply with the newer rules. I tend to use the updated monsters from the 3.5 MM but I often do that 'on the fly'.

Having said that, who needs new material? I have enough 2e and 3.0e stuff to last for years. Plus I have this thing called "imagination."

Nobody who knows me would ever acuse me of not having an imagination; and I constantly find a need/want for new material. I don't find the two to be mutually exclusive. Of course if you don't buy new stuff, the question doesn't really apply to you. I was just curious to see how folks who run strict 3.0 games handle 3.5 material.

I run a strict 3.5 game. I pretty much banned 3.0 material from my game. A few books that handle things beyond the scope of the core rules (i.e. Stronghold Builders and Manual of the Planes) still see some use but even the prestige classes and spells in those books are mostly left out of play.

 

[VirgilCaine]

Another 3.5 Resistor, checking in here, sir!

I don't like the torture of Haste. Its not Haste, its...something else, with the name Haste. A "fixed" Haste would cost 500 gp in material components, and spank the user with 3d4 subdual every round he was hasted, and for good measure, a save or take a point of Con damage at the end of the duration. Thats fixing it.

The outline of changes where the talked about the reasons for the changes to the Ranger...gee, thanks for showing me how little you thought when switching things from 2e to 3e.

I like the durations long, the spell levels lower and most everything else about 3.0 Except the change to the Symbol spell, I like that.

 

[shadow]

Am I the only one who loves 3.0? Who prefers it, even? Seems there are more AD&D 1/2e die hards than 3.0...

It's nice to know that there are other 3.0 Diehards out there! To keep peace (and keep Eric's grandmother happy) I have to supress my hatred on these boards, but I personally HATE 3.5e (or 3.$e) with a passion. The release of 3.5e nearly killed D&D for me all together. I have only brought a couple of books since the release of 3.5e (and then promptly sold them back to my FLGS when I realized how much of a pain converting them back to 3.0 would be.) Why this pathological hatred for the "current version of the game"? There are several reasons. One of them is that I hate the majority of the changes (square spacings, weapon sizes, new DR rules, etc.). Also, despite WotC's claims of "backwards compatibility", I have found conversion a major hassle. (Many of the changes are minor, but others are quite severe. Try converting a high level Wizard with magic items!) Above all there is the economic factor. Sure for many people shelling out another $90 seems like nothing, but for a poor student it is a major investment. It's especially alot considering it's for a "revised" version of books I purchased a couple of years prior.

Anyway, sorry for the "I hate 3.5e" rant. Just had to get it off my chest!

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

We started out with 3.0, played to around 10th-11th level and switched to 3.5 after the party got spanked by the "harm/magic missile" trick. The players wanted to re-jigger their characters and the 3.5 switch made it worthwhile. We don't really use any supplements except the Books of Eldritch Might and Dungeon. All in all, I'm pretty happy about 3.5. In fact, we ignored weapon sizes at first and now I think it's better to have weapon sizes in the game than not.