Does anyone still play 3.0e?

[Belegbeth]

I ran a great 3.0 campaign in 2001-2002, but then moved. After a year of not playing, I've just started a new campaign, and it is 3.5. The only reason for this is that all the players own the 3.5 stuff, and want to play that version.

I'm the DM, and plan on running the campaign with my 3.0 books and the 3.5 SRD. We'll see how it goes, but I'm reluctant to spend money on the 3.5 books (I mean, they could of at least included new art, for Odin's sake).

Except for the improved bard and ranger classes, I'd be happy to stick with the 3.0 rules (though 3.5 combat seems a bit easier to understand, as far as I can tell).

That aside, this thread reveals one of the most annoying consequences of the move to 3.5: the proliferation of 3.0/3.5 hybrids. Instead of a "standard" set of rules that everyone knows (and on which house rules can be based), we have many mixes of 3.0 and 3.5 in different games (spells from here, feats from there, etc.). What a mess. Adding to the confusion is the fact that many of the differences between 3.0 and 3.5 are quite subtle. It makes inter-campaign discussions unnecessarily confusing, IMO. And when joining a new campaign, one has to figure out which exact mix of rules is being used. A lot of unnecessary headache for a hobby.

 

[Cannibal_Kender]

Both my groups still play 3.0. Three years is too short for a revision, plus many of us in the group are cheap. Thats what the SRD is for.

 

[VirgilCaine]

Does anyone still play 3.0e as written?

Yes. I don't like most of the changes they made to the spell durations, some spell levels, to damage reduction, to gnomes...I could probably go on.

I do like some of the changes to spells--like the new Symbol spells, but theres a few huge gaffes made...like Haste. Instead of adding penalties (subdual damage) or material components (250 GP each casting) or something, the entire effect of the spell is totally transmuted. Great work, WotC.

 

[Kalendraf]

I'm running 2 campaigns, both in 3.5. One of them was originally 2e, then went to 3e when that came out, and now is running 3.5. The other campaign started under 3e and moved to 3.5 onces we got the books. Overall, I see 3.5 as a huge improvement over 3e and agree with nearly all the changes that were made, especially to spell effects and durations.

If there's one thing I don't like about 3.5, it is the whole gnome favored class = bard situation, but I don't lose any sleep over it.

 

[thud13x]

The Current campaign I am playing in could be considered a homebrew 3.25 edition. The DM created new PC Races but uses all the classes from 3.5 except for Sorceror and Ranger whom he modified himself. Spells are still 3.0ish for the most part. Everything else is based on the massive amount of documents he gives in regards to his world.

On a personal level, I still own and have my 3.0 books, WOTC and others. I have yet to buy anything specifically 3.5 from any publisher (I do however have a print out of the 3.5 SRD. Got it thanks to ENWorld!) This is really a combination of a number of things. Primarily cost and hesitance on my part is what has kept me from going to the FLGS and getting my hands on any. My current Wishlist at Amazon has mostly 3.0 books and a couple 3.5 books that I might be interested, mostly for flavor purposes.

I am just not convinced that 3 years after buying most of my gaming books for 3rdEd., that re-stocking with 3.5 books is really worth while. I have read good reviews both here and elsewhere on a number of 3.5 books, yet that apprehension is something I cannot shake.

Any advice from anybody who has had a similar experience?

nk

 

[Henry]

...but theres a few huge gaffes made...like Haste. Instead of adding penalties (subdual damage) or material components (250 GP each casting) or something, the entire effect of the spell is totally transmuted.

This is one of the changes I personally agreed with them on, because I would still as a wizard or sorcerer include haste in my daily lineup no matter WHAT the cost, if it did anything short of kill me outright. It's that good. In truth, it's now (under 3.5) closer to the original 1st and 2nd edition version than anything.

 

[buzzard]

We play 3.0. This is because nobody really sees much advantage in the 3.5 ruleset. Also my group doesn't see any point to spending money for a new set of book. Being the LG junkie that I am, I do have the 3.5 books, and am well versed in the rules. However, if I were to become DM again, I'd probably still advocate using 3.0, as I am not impressed favorably with the changes.

buzzard

 

[Arnwyn]

We play a hybrid. We would have stuck with 3.0 entirely, but the updating of spells ("nerfing", if you will) in 3.5 was what made me consider getting the 3.5 books. (I hated the 3.0 spells - almost enough to make me ignore 3e altogether and stick with 2e. Yes - that much.)

So, we'd still be entirely 3.0 if it weren't for the 3.5 spells. (Nothing else in 3.5 was that impressive.)

 

[VirgilCaine]

This is one of the changes I personally agreed with them on, because I would still as a wizard or sorcerer include haste in my daily lineup no matter WHAT the cost, if it did anything short of kill me outright. It's that good. In truth, it's now (under 3.5) closer to the original 1st and 2nd edition version than anything.

You're not one of those people who would take 3.0 Haste even as a 9th level spell would you?


I HATE that comparison. I wouldn't take Haste, I would take Time Stop. Duh!

At 17th+ level, as a wizard if I am ambushed, I will be killed. Casting Haste will not help me escape or ascertain the situation, whereas the several rounds from Time Stop will allow me to cast the necessary spells to ascertain the situation and escape or fight back, whichever is appropriate.

 

[eris404]

It seems that Wizards has been very sucessful with 3.5e. From what I've seen the old 3e is all but dead, superseded by 3.5e. I know people who have sold their entire 3e collection (worth hundreds of dollars) after 3.5e was released. Of course there are a few enbittered players who refuse to switch out of spite for WotC. Then there are some who use a hybrid system. However, it seems like the vast majority of players have made the switch. Am I just a grumpy, enbittered 3.0e fanboy for refusing to make the switch? Does anyone still play 3.0e as written?

(Rant off)

Our group is in between, mostly because so many of the players invested a lot of money in 3.0 books that aren't even close to being worn out. Well-meaning non-gamers bought my boyfriend multiple copies of the DMG and PHB even. Our books look brand new even though all of them have seen a good deal of use these last few years.

That said, one of our DMs did switch completely to 3.5, so I printed out most of the SRD in a 2-column format (errr...umm...at work...) and put it in a binder. The second DM has adopted certain rules, such as the 3.5 version of Harm and let me play a 3.5 ranger, but otherwise uses 3.0 as written. The third DM has no intention of going to 3.5 until his books turn to dust in his hands. I don't think he hates the changes so much as he hates spending the money all over again.