Anyone still using 3.0?

[teitan]

I was wondering, is anyone out there still using 3.0 as opposed to 3.5 or 4e etc?

I am one of the few that preferred 3.0 to 3.5 as I felt the rules changes were unnecessary or in some cases completely changed the flavour of the game. To me 3.0 is the last version of the D&D game though I don't discount the 3.5 & 4e systems as D&D, but what I mean is the paradigm of D&D as I grew up with it. 3.0 to me was simply a gelling of house rules like no class restriction or level limits & an excellent rewrite of the Non-Weapon Prof. rules in a useable form. With 3.5 products I sensed a dramatic change in tone occur. I saw no problem with rangers for instance because I was/am still in the paradigm that you played a class because you wanted to be THAT class, not because you wanted their abilities. SO if you wanted to play a ranger, you selected that class. As time went by I noticed emphasis on using class abilities as opposed to being a class as a concept.

 

[joethelawyer]

I was wondering, is anyone out there still using 3.0 as opposed to 3.5 or 4e etc?

I am one of the few that preferred 3.0 to 3.5 as I felt the rules changes were unnecessary or in some cases completely changed the flavour of the game. To me 3.0 is the last version of the D&D game though I don't discount the 3.5 & 4e systems as D&D, but what I mean is the paradigm of D&D as I grew up with it. 3.0 to me was simply a gelling of house rules like no class restriction or level limits & an excellent rewrite of the Non-Weapon Prof. rules in a useable form. With 3.5 products I sensed a dramatic change in tone occur. I saw no problem with rangers for instance because I was/am still in the paradigm that you played a class because you wanted to be THAT class, not because you wanted their abilities. SO if you wanted to play a ranger, you selected that class. As time went by I noticed emphasis on using class abilities as opposed to being a class as a concept.

Our group uses 3.0 as a base. Click my blog link below to go to my blog, then download the bard campaign guide off the top right corner of the blog for my houserules. We didn't use it instead of 3.5 specifically, it was just the book we all had bought yers ago. We got back into the game in the 3.5 era but didn't know there was a new edition. I reviewed the 3.5 rules and didnt like most of them, so we never converted. 3.0 worked for us as houseruled.

 

[ggroy]

In my first 3.5E game a few years ago, I think technically it was probably run more like a 3E game. The DM and players didn't have any of the 3.5E core rulebooks, other than a pdf copy of the 3.5E Player's Handbook and the first 3.5E Monster Manual which the DM had on a laptop.

After a few weeks, one of the other players bought a copy of the 3E Player's Handbook found at a 2nd handed bookstore and started to bring it every week to the game. The DM ended up largely using this copy of the 3E Player's Handbook to look things up, but who also was kind of lazy and didn't bother checking for the major differences between the 3E and 3.5E rules. In the end, it probably wouldn't have mattered much whether it was 3E or 3.5E rules being used for most of the combat encounters. The DM stopped the game by the time we were around level 9 or 10, and nobody ended up using any additional rules beyond mindless hack and slash in combat.

 

[seskis281]

Well, I'm not quite in the category you're looking for, because I did move to C&C awhile back, but I will say this: 3.0 is what brought me back to gaming, and I had used it, with my house-rules, for several years. 3.5 turned me off. If I hadn't discovered C&C, I probably would have developed my own version of D&D based off of the original 3.0 rather than go forward (and probably would have ended up with a hybrid of rules somewhere in the vicinity of C&C or BFRPG).

 

[Jack Colby]

I never bought 3.5 anything, so 3.0 was the version we used back when I still played 3E. I don't play it anymore though, because I dislike 3E. I also think the last "true" D&D (or should that be traditional D&D) version was 2nd edition. 3E changed a lot...

 

[Shemeska]

Sort of. Mostly.

We're still using the same 3.0 PHBs, though using stuff from 3.5 books with no problem alongside that (spell compendium, etc) and I run so loosely on the rules anyways, any differences don't really appear.

 

[Aus_Snow]

When running 3e, it's (nowadays) a mixture of 3.0, 3.5 and Pathfinder. Oh, and house rules from here and there, some my own.

I started D&D again, after a long break, with 3.5, just after it came out (it wasn't intentional - IOW, I would've started again with 3.0, but happened to luck out, with the timing, I guess). Then I found that some parts of 3.0 were preferable, so adopted those. I always end up house ruling systems, so I did that too, from the get-go. And now, with Pathfinder as it is and as it will be, I've been mixing that in.

And yeah, the final release of 3.PF might be what I base my 3e games on. We'll see.

 

[Orius]

Sort of. I never got the updated core books or really any books after the revision, but I usually write up the game material in 3.5 standards. So I pretty much just use a mismash of the two.

 

[Greg K]

I use elements from 3.0 and 3.5

3.0 core books
MM2
Fiend Folio
elements from the 3.5 srd
3.5 Unearthed Arcana
various third party supplements (both 3.0 and 3.5)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Currently, in a group that includes multiple GMs (and no players who like 4Ed), only a couple of GMs have run 3.X games- most have only run 3Ed.

3.X may dominate gameplay eventually, but it hasn't yet.

However, we're also experimenting with M&M (in my 1912 Supers game) with an eye towards possibly trying out the FRPG version of the system- W&W- when it comes out in September. Other contenders include True20 and Pathfinder, of course.