• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Is 3.0 Playable?

Dykstrav

Adventurer
3E was wonderful when 2E was the last game you played... I remember spending an entire week just reading the Player's Handbook when it came out. It's a very enjoyable game, and well worth a minimal investment.

I will caution you about the haste spell, however. It's pretty broken in 3E and was one of the big things nerfed in 3.5. Instead of granting you an extra attack, it actually grants you an extra action. That's right, an extra action. So you can theoretically toss out three spells in a round if a wizard gets Quicken Spell and haste going on at the same time.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Starbuck_II

First Post
3.0 DMG had dual class rules. I still like them.
Basically you get 2 classes at level 1 but at 1/2 strength (0th level).


Only part of 3.0 I liked in comparison to 3.5.
 


Obryn

Hero
Hmm, I also think it would be fair to say that 3.0 is very power-game-able, but the encounters don't assume the PCs have been power-gamed. As long as your PCs aren't power-gamed, it's a wonderful system.

3.5 assumes a higher default PC power level than 3.0 does, and changes up the challenges appropriately, while scaling back some of the more problematic spells.

-O
 

3.0 is perfectly playable, and lots of fun. I played in many 3.0 campaigns.

Now, 3.5 was clearly made to fix some issues with 3.0 that came up over lots of play. Lots of them were fairly minor and would only come up with lots of play, especially high-level play. If you're sticking to a normal 25-point buy game, especially staying at relatively lower levels (under 10th level or so) most of the time, and not trying to min-max a lot it will work great (I get the suspicion that these were the circumstances it was mainly playtested under).

A 1st through ~10th level campaign, done with core-rules classes and races and a 25 point buy, with PC's not min-maxing and generally staying single-classed (or at most two-classed for non-spellcasting characters) will work pretty flawlessly and you may wonder even why they made a 3.5.

Some spells are ridiculously powerful, especially higher-level ones but a few at lower levels too. Haste is the most famous overpowered spell, but Harm has an infinite damage capacity, and Disintegrate is a save-or-die spell that can kill virtually anything (except Gods, since specific immunity to Disintegrate is a pretty rare immunity) since it's not a Death effect (I saw the climactic battle of many-session running of the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil module end in one round when a PC hit module-boss-villain Imix with Disintegrate and he failed his save, since the writeup of him didn't include immunity to that spell).

Many base classes are more "front loaded" than 3.5, meaning that you can take one or two levels in a class then multiclass out, and with lots of multiclassing you can create some truly bizarrely classed monstrosities of PCs with lots of power (especially with a very literal reading of some rules, that was popular in some gaming circles when 3.0 game out). Example, the Cleric Domain rules just said "per level" instead of "per cleric level", so for things like the Strength domain's strength bonus or the Death domain's Death Touch a literal reading could mean you could have one level in Cleric, take the Death and Strength domains then go up in other classes, and have a once per day uber-strength bonus and a big death touch. Note how in 3.0 the Wizard Toad familiar gives a Constitution bonus instead of Toughness as a feat, that's a pretty beefy bonus for a familiar.

Multiclassing can break the game, in either direction. Prestige classes like Arcane Trickster and Mystic Theurge (and Cerebremancer) are the fixes put into D&D to let spellcasters multiclass, and in 3.0 they don't exist so you can seriously cripple a PC by making him part-spellcaster part-melee, and as I said above, with creative multiclassing you can make some unholy chimera character that can make the rules scream.
 


coyote6

Adventurer
3.0 is most assuredly playable; lots (possibly millions) of people played it (and I know some did [me included] even after 3.5 came out). It has pitfalls, but most RPGs do. Besides the kind of weak ranger, the somewhat overpowered haste (fear mass haste), the big one is probably harm. It pretty much can guarantee a two-shot kill against anything the 11th+ level cleric can hit with a touch attack & beat SR.

Fear the hasted cleric with harm, the Magic domain, and a wand of magic missiles of caster level 3+ -- one round, no-save death against almost every monster without SR.
 

Ok. First things first:

WS-EDITION-WAR = 'N'
I have no idea what this means. Are only programmers allowed to respond or something?
Now that I have that out of the way, I have a question. I can pick up the 3.0 books cheaply. Is there any reason that I shouldn't use them? Is a game using just the 3.0 books playable (and hopefully enjoyable)? Your experiences and/or opinions are welcome!
Bizarre question. Millions of people played it regularly for years. So the answer is, obviously yes. We moved on (somewhat reluctantly) to 3.5, but the two systems are broadly compatible with each other, sorta like how BD&D and AD&D would have been back in 1983 or so.
 

AnthonyRoberson

First Post
I have no idea what this means. Are only programmers allowed to respond or something?

Sorry. It was a COBOL joke. It basically stands for "Working Storage variable Edition War equals No". It was my way of saying that I didn't want the thread to devolve into an edition war...
 

SKyOdin

First Post
Of course 3.0 is playable. I don't think anyone would ever say that any edition of D&D was unplayable. I vastly prefer late era 3.5 though. I can't imagine going back to before the days of the Complete book base classes, the Expanded Psionic Handbook, the PHB 2, the Tome of Magic, and the Tome of Battle.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top