Is 3.0 Playable?

[Aus_Snow]

Totally playable. A bit broken, like those records (y'know, like, 'the industry's dying, the industry's dying. . .' or whatever) but actually no, nowhere near that broken.

Where was I. Oh yes. I even ported some 3.0 into my 3.5 games, as of finding the 3.0 SRD online. I started 3e with 3.5, you see. If I hadn't, I probably would've just stuck with 3.0, and done the same thing with the (much handier and prettier) 3.5 SRD.

There are neat aspects to both iterations. But if you want to run some of the awesome adventures that came out in the 3.0 era, you couldn't pick a better system, funnily enough.

And, by way of comparison, the Beta release of the Pathfinder RPG is also totally playable. I know, because we tried it out for a bit. And that one even says 'Beta' on it!

 

[Wombat]

yes, it is playable. even enjoyable

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Yes, absolutely.

Whether it plays as well as 3.5, 4E, Pathfinder, Warhammer 2E or whatever else depends on personal preferences. No game is perfect, some games come closer to your ideals then others.

 

[Obryn]

3.0 is very playable, particularly if you stick pretty close to default game assumptions like a 25-point-buy.

-O

 

[Remathilis]

To be the only fly in the ointment...

I dislike the 3.0 ranger. I much preferred Monte Cook's 3.0 ranger variant (http://www.montecook.com/images/Ranger3.pdf) to the core ranger.

Beyond that, I see no searing problems to running in 3.0.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

Since the SRDs for both are available for free online if you decide you want to at least try something that was changed in the edition you don't have you don't have to buy the books all over again.

 

[Umbran]

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

Most certainly, to my tastes, at least. I've had hundreds of hours of enjoyment from it. Go to, sir!

 

[Stoat]

The three core 3.0 books make a very playable and enjoyable game. I was less impressed with the 3.0 splat books.

 

[Fifth Element]

The hardest part about switching between 3.0 and 3.5 is the very nearly but not quite the sameness. You'll likely rule things the wrong way without noticing it.

There truth in this. Two years ago I joined a 3.5 group that had played 3.0 from 2000-2003. They were doing little things like "refocusing" initiative, which was a 3.0ism covered by "delay" in 3.5.

 

[La Bete]

There truth in this. Two years ago I joined a 3.5 group that had played 3.0 from 2000-2003. They were doing little things like "refocusing" initiative, which was a 3.0ism covered by "delay" in 3.5.

oh yes....

I was running a 3.0 game for about 2 years (up to level 11 iirc), while at the same time the same group was playing in a variety of 3.5 games. The "oh, thats a 3.5 thing" came up a LOT.