Do any of you still play 3.0?
- Thread starter Melkor
- Start date
I jumped to 3.5 upon its release.
However, one of the guys in our group continued to DM a 3Ed campaign right up until the release of the 4Ed previews...at which time he upgraded to 3.5.
However, one of the guys in our group continued to DM a 3Ed campaign right up until the release of the 4Ed previews...at which time he upgraded to 3.5.
El Mahdi
Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
Well, I'm currently writing my own houseruled system, but I'm basing it off 3.0 (not 3.5). I'm basically trying to do what was originally intended for 3.5 (just simple errata and a few balancing tweaks)...so I'm ignoring most of what 3.5 did (except for the errata and some of the tweaks). I'm also working in some of my favorite parts of SWSE, Unearthed Arcana, D20 Modern, and 4E. But, the core is 3.0 is most definitely 3.0.
For straight D&D (non-houseruled), I prefer to play 3.0.
For straight D&D (non-houseruled), I prefer to play 3.0.
Last edited:
green slime
First Post
Bits and pieces from everywhere, so I couldn't really say. But probably more a kind of 3.35...
I've had to rewrite the classes, some spells, various other rules (cover / concealment, missiles).
It seems to be working for us, nonetheless.
Edit: I'd play any version of DnD, but I can't be bothered learning another edition to game master. I looked over 4, and it just didn't grab me. Another guy said he'd DM that, so that's his baby.
The differences between 3.0 and 3.5 are superficial. Its just a matter of grabbing those aspects of the rules you like, and ignoring the changes you didn't.
I've had to rewrite the classes, some spells, various other rules (cover / concealment, missiles).
It seems to be working for us, nonetheless.
Edit: I'd play any version of DnD, but I can't be bothered learning another edition to game master. I looked over 4, and it just didn't grab me. Another guy said he'd DM that, so that's his baby.
The differences between 3.0 and 3.5 are superficial. Its just a matter of grabbing those aspects of the rules you like, and ignoring the changes you didn't.
Last edited:
Angelus789
First Post
3.5ed all the way, 3.0ed had way too many loophopes and not specified enough rules. The exploit potential was way to high in the early edition.
3.0 and 3.5 is of course quite the same, with only some erratas and better explanation of rules.
4.0ed on the other hand... yech! Ew!
3.0 and 3.5 is of course quite the same, with only some erratas and better explanation of rules.
4.0ed on the other hand... yech! Ew!
Ogrehatescomputers
First Post
play whatever makes your group happy. We play 3.5 only. And have decided to avoid 4e for a few simple reasons. it's broken. it's money we dont have it. and most of all, we are lazy. lol.
3.5 with some house rules (which I guess is the norm for most D&Ders anyway - to use some house rules in what ever system they play)
3.5 made the flow much smoother and most of the redefinitions (DR, weapon sizes for example) make things so much more smooth and clear.
I tried playing a couple of 3.0 games after the switch but found it aggrivated me too much after the changes from 3.5 - so no more.
3.5 made the flow much smoother and most of the redefinitions (DR, weapon sizes for example) make things so much more smooth and clear.
I tried playing a couple of 3.0 games after the switch but found it aggrivated me too much after the changes from 3.5 - so no more.
Malachei
First Post
Sure.
My group and I had started a 3.0 campaign and included a few houserules, when 3.5 came out. We looked at it in detail, even buying the books, but as the game had been working out perfectly, and noone abused the loopholes, we stayed our course. We do use the new monsters from the other monster manuals, however, as well as the updates to the MM I (outsiders and some others). I use 3.5 for online and play-by-post gaming, however, and I still feel the difference is really not big enough to justify all the fierce discussions.
So, not wanting to start a 3.x discussion here, but to explain a bit: Most of my group felt that 3.5 came too early, and, although it closed some issues with rules, it also failed to address many others, while at the same time opening new ones (including some pretty significant issues).
Personally, I felt that although I guess 3.5 was a commercial success for WotC, it broke the concensus in the gaming community -- with 3.0, in spite of the usual discussions and houserulings, there was only one official rules canon to refer to. With 3.5 that changed, and suddenly there were two reference points (because people had to compare, and some did not make the step to 3.5, or decided to only partially adopt new rules). I think in this regard, the birth of Pathfinder (pretty neat in picking up the 3.x legacy) really has its roots in the step from 3.0 to 3.5.
My group and I had started a 3.0 campaign and included a few houserules, when 3.5 came out. We looked at it in detail, even buying the books, but as the game had been working out perfectly, and noone abused the loopholes, we stayed our course. We do use the new monsters from the other monster manuals, however, as well as the updates to the MM I (outsiders and some others). I use 3.5 for online and play-by-post gaming, however, and I still feel the difference is really not big enough to justify all the fierce discussions.
So, not wanting to start a 3.x discussion here, but to explain a bit: Most of my group felt that 3.5 came too early, and, although it closed some issues with rules, it also failed to address many others, while at the same time opening new ones (including some pretty significant issues).
Personally, I felt that although I guess 3.5 was a commercial success for WotC, it broke the concensus in the gaming community -- with 3.0, in spite of the usual discussions and houserulings, there was only one official rules canon to refer to. With 3.5 that changed, and suddenly there were two reference points (because people had to compare, and some did not make the step to 3.5, or decided to only partially adopt new rules). I think in this regard, the birth of Pathfinder (pretty neat in picking up the 3.x legacy) really has its roots in the step from 3.0 to 3.5.
