D&D 3E/3.5 Are You Still Playing D&D 3.0?

[Pawndream]

No. I barely played 3.0 when it came out. Was very excited for it when it came out. Bought all the core books as soon as they were available (PHB, MM, DMG) , played it a couple of times with friends, and then moved to Korea and didn't do any gaming while living there.

When I moved back to the US, I looked to join a game and nobody was playing 3.0 anymore, because 3.5 had just come out. So I purchased 3.5 books and played that for a few years. I still couldn't tell you what the differences were/are between each edition. It seemed the same to me...

I estimate I might have played 12 total hours of 3e. Still have the books, but am not likely to play it again.

 

[billd91]

No. For the most part, we felt 3.5 eclipsed it in terms of playable quality - with a few exceptions (too many spell durations shorted, weapon sizes).

 

[Li Shenron]

I am just curious on this 20 year anniversary: do you still play D&D 3.0? If so, how often? In what context (sometimes vs regularly etc)? What, if any, 3PP do you rely on? How extensive are your house rules? And so on.

For my part I have not played it in a long time but every couple of years I get the urge to give RAW 3.0 a try again out of nostalgia.

I play 5e but if I had the chance to play 3e again I would largely prefer 3.0 over 3.5, core + the first wave of splatbook OR a specific fantasy setting books only, to keep the amount of material limited.

 

[Flamestrike]

5E is my main edition of choice but D&D 3.0/3.5 was my gateway into D&D. I wouldn't be against trying and playing 3.0/3.5, however, we are gonna have to Pimp my Ride the hell outta it by changing a number of things.
Examples being:
-Using Warblade/Swordsage/Crusader in place of the default Fighter/Monk/Paladin as they are the more superior martial versions of the default three.

If I were to ever Run it again I'd implement the following rules:

1) PHB +1 Book for every player. The player must provide at least a PDF of the +1, and PHB includes Tome of Battle.
2) Caster spells per day changed to 5E progression (more spells at low levels, less at higher levels)

That said, I just dont see the need. I can basically get all the above from 5E in a neater package.

 

[Shiroiken]

I haven't played 3E in forever, and don't have any plans to do so. However, I knew a dedicated grew that ignored Pathfinder completely, staying with 3E... until 5E came out. It took them a while, but they decided to switch over.

 

[cbwjm]

I haven't played it in years but I also wouldn't be opposed to playing it. Like most editions of DnD, I'm generally easy playing them all if that is something others wanted to run.

 

[ccs]

If by 3.0 you mean Pathfinder 1e, sure.....

But seriously, no. Maybe now & then at GenCon. But not for home games. Still use various 3x material mixed with PF though.

 

[Weiley31]

If by 3.0 you mean Pathfinder 1e, sure.....

But seriously, no. Maybe now & then at GenCon. But not for home games. Still use various 3x material mixed with PF though.

It's the only proper way to play 3.0/3,5 by doing that method.

 

[wingsandsword]

No. For the most part, we felt 3.5 eclipsed it in terms of playable quality - with a few exceptions (too many spell durations shorted, weapon sizes).

Yeah, 3.0 was GREAT when it came out, it was far superior to 1e or 2e.

3.5 was in some ways a rough transition, just enough changes that you really needed the new core books and couldn't have half the players with one book and half with another, but too few changes to really feel "different". Ultimately everyone I knew adopted it as better, but yeah, various little miscellaneous rules like lots of spell durations changed, and those weapon size rules were not changes for the better. I knew a few groups that house-ruled significant parts of 3.0 back into 3.5, but still used 3.5 as the base.

 

[Reynard]

Honestly, I don't remember most of the differences. We transitioned to 3.5 pretty much as soon as it was out and between that and Pathfinder 1E I don't recall anything specific about 3.0 mechanically. I know I liked the smaller, soft back class books but also seem to think they were considered super broken at the time.