D&D 3E/3.5 Retro-cloning D&D 3.0

"Organic" creation is one of the methods in the DMG. Essentially, roll 4d6 drop lowest in order, re-roll one of the scores, swap two scores. The method results in very interesting characters.

Ah, I do 4d6, drop the lowest, arrange in any order.

And I allow you to reroll “4-F” set of stats (fail the draft physical) if you want - that’s if there’s any stat lower than 7.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I'm starting to collect D&D books and at the moment I'm looking at 3.0 books. Can anyone tell me how to determine if the PHB is a first printing? I've googled and can't seem to get a definite answer. Currently looking at a phb on ebay that claims to be a first printing but just want to make sure. Thanks
 

I'm starting to collect D&D books and at the moment I'm looking at 3.0 books. Can anyone tell me how to determine if the PHB is a first printing? I've googled and can't seem to get a definite answer. Currently looking at a phb on ebay that claims to be a first printing but just want to make sure. Thanks
The second printing is clearly marked "Second Printing November 2000" in the credits page. You definitely want one to play, as it corrects quite a few things. I have been looking for later printings of the 3.0 DMG and MM, but I don't know if there were ever issued.
 

teitan

Legend
Don't retroclone; get the books on eBay or get the pdfs.

Personally, these days, when I want to use an adventure from past editions, I use the ruleset it was written for. For example, I use D&D3.0 when I want to play the Ashardalon modules (The Sunless Citadel etc) or the original Rappan Athuk.
By the way, I agree with the OP in that the atmosphere 3.0 creates is more similar to old school than 3.5. But 3.0 is also severely broken (with spells such as Haste and Harm, or magic items such as Rhino Hide, Absorbing Shield, Bracelet of Friends etc).
those are only broken in the context of later versions. They were still in line with the way D&D was played going into 2000.
 

teitan

Legend
I vastly prefer 3.0 to 3.5 because yeah, 3.5 signaled a change in D&D that was very odd and not to my taste at all.

The one thing looking back that I would fix is the skill system like so many others. I would combine some skills, get rid of some skills and increase skill points for bards, rangers and rogues.

Ok, more than one thing. I would move monster stats away from PC stats, what was once a blessing was really a curse in the end. It made designing much harder.

I would also do tweaks to a couple feats like toughness. It was so useless. Make it a +1 Hit point per level or something instead of a one shot +3. Ugh what a horrible feat.
 

Ok, more than one thing. I would move monster stats away from PC stats, what was once a blessing was really a curse in the end. It made designing much harder.
I thought about this in a fashion. HD would be equal to CR but all racial HDs would have Good BAB and Saves (I haven't made a decision about HD size but I still think d6s were too low) but I imagine using some benchmarks of hp, attack bonus, and damage by CR is infinitely better (faster) than the present way.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top