Is 3.0 Playable?

[rounser]

Yes....but be sure you bring this thing along for the ride:
NPC Designer
It's free, now, although the page doesn't say so. Essential software, do not miss.

 

[Henry]

Yep - except for the three H's (Haste, Harm, Heal), games of it were very playable and fun. In fact, stick to under 10th level, and not even Haste was that much of a problem!

 

[delericho]

Is a game using just the 3.0 books playable (and hopefully enjoyable)?

Yes, and yes.

IMO, 3.5 is the better game overall, but in hindsight it is also clear that many of the so-called 'improvements' that it brought about were nothing of the sort. Either they added unnecessary complexity (weapon sizes), or they upset some balance points (weapon familiarity), or they represented a partial solution to a bigger problem that was never fully resolved (disintegrate ceased to be a save-or-die effect, but none of the other save-or-dies were changed to match).

That said, 3.5 did bring in a couple of important fixes. The upgraded Ranger was an improvement, and the fixes to haste, heal and harm are notable examples.

But 3.0 is definately playable, and should be enjoyable.

 

[MortalPlague]

Untrue.

Rant: If Keen and Improved Critical Don't Stack, The Terrorists Will Have Won

Interesting read. But I can't help but think that the pick breaks this rule... Having an 17-20 x4 crit weapon seems broken no matter how I look at it.

OP: 3rd Edition is definitely playable in its original form. Coming from 2nd Edition, my group had a blast with 3.0. Our best campaigns came after the switch to 3.5, but that had more to do with our group's development into one that could handle long campaigns.

 

[delericho]

Interesting read. But I can't help but think that the pick breaks this rule... Having an 17-20 x4 crit weapon seems broken no matter how I look at it.

Aye, but to get that you need a keen weapon and Improved Critical and a Prestige Class that gives you a doubling as well. When they used to stack, each 'doubling' only increased the multiplier by one step. If a player is willing to invest that much into one aspect of his character, he probably deserves to reap the reward, especially since he'll still be doing normal damage most of the time.

The reason that the stacking of these two would be broken in 3.5 is the "double Power Attack" rule for two-handed weapons. A keen greatsword with stacked Improve Critical would crit on 17-20, and the user could then apply a modest Power Attack for a huge benefit - a 5 point reduction in to-hit would give +10 damage normally, or +20 on a crit. The corresponding greataxe would be 18-20 and give +10/+30.

But that's more an issue with 3.5e Power Attack, IMO. It seemed like a good idea, but it really wasn't.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Yep - except for the three H's (Haste, Harm, Heal), games of it were very playable and fun. In fact, stick to under 10th level, and not even Haste was that much of a problem!

Yeah, haste was pretty broken, but 3.5 went way too far imo. They made it pretty much useless. I houseruled it similar to AD&D's haste. An aoe effect that doubled movement and attacks, aged everyone a year and implemented a dc 6 fort save or die (to simulate system shock rolls.) This made haste a great spell to cast when tshtf, but one not used as standard tactics. A 5% chance of death is nothing to sneeze at, half the party could drop dead from one spell. This might not work for everyone, after all, the bad guys could still cast it every fight, they could generally care less if their minions died from a failed save. It worked for our group, though.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Ok. First things first:

WS-EDITION-WAR = 'N'

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!

Yes, it is playable. I know this, because I played it, and I enjoyed it for many years.

I would personally suggest the 3.5e books if they're of a similar price, as they made some useful changes, but there is nothing wrong with 3.0e if you want to play it.

You'll find that haste is the best spell in the game, though, just to be warned.

 

[Krensky]

Interesting read. But I can't help but think that the pick breaks this rule... Having an 17-20 x4 crit weapon seems broken no matter how I look at it.

1d4+1 18-20/x4 isn't broken.

A +1 Keen Light Pick in the hands of a fighter with Improved Critical (Light Pick) and the 3.0 stacking will do 5.6 points of damage a round, assuming 100% threat confirmation. The 17-20 you list, which would require some other character option, or something like a diamond laminate blade from Dragonstar, is only doing 5.8 points per round. Sure when a critical lands it averages 14 points of damage, but every time it's a regular hit or an unconfirmed threat it's only doing 3.5 points of damage.

The same situation with a long sword has an average damage of 5.9 and a rapier has an average damage of 5.1.

 

[malkav666]

If the price is right then snag them. 3.x is a fabulous system. It had bugs, just like every system, but I would have to say its probably my favorite flavor of D&D for running a campaign.

love,

malkav

 

[Desdichado]

Yep. Our group actually prefer it over 3.5. In fact, we never downgraded to 3.5.

I've always kinda thought that 3.5 fixed a handful of things wrong with 3e (like haste and harm, etc.), it broke a handful of things right with 3e (weapon sizes and facing, WTF?), and it changed a ton of stuff that was a net wash. Not better or worse, just different.

Of course, the problem with that is that you have to look stuff up more if you played them both. Either that or just pull whichever rule you remembered and not worry about the fact that you were actually playing some kind of 3e/3.5 hybrid.