I had a 13 years long campaign based on D&D 3/3.5E, so, obviously, I have fond memories of it. Other's mileage may vary.

The two best things this edition offered were the incredible amount of "tool-boxy" material and the quality of the writing (I'm strictly talking about WotC's products). Regarding the latter, I have a lot of books that I never used but still are a pleasure to read. Pathfinder had a young adult approach to the fluff but 3E just spoke to everybody. The Forgotten Realms 3E were full of lore and, IMHO, the peak that this setting had to offer. "Draconomicon" was a book about dragons written by Leonardo da Vinci. Two friends of mine bought it just for the lore.

There are a lot of misconceptions surrounding this edition. Some "players" tried to show that it was "broken" by creating Thanos-level characters. They always forgot how:

A) 20th level Characters don't spring in existence fully formed like Athena from the head of Zeus. They evolve organically. Example:

The characters start in Northlandia, a far off province of the Empire up in the Far North. They spend levels 1-7 fighting giants and orcs coming down from the Utter Mountains during the bitterest winter in centuries. Be assured that feats useful in urban, desert and tropical environments will not be part of their painstakingly researched "builds" (a word that I hate but whatever). After their victory the Emperor, who has heard about their valor, calls them to fight the War in the Steppes, against the Reptilian Invaders. All of sudden, the characters' "builds" makes them unprepared for the new situation. This is how a real campaign works.

B) A corollary of the above: no one ever said that [Gary Oldman]EEEEEEEEVERYTHIIIINGG!!![/Gary Oldman] in the books is available. The DM can rule that, for example, in his campaign there are no Wizards and no Sorcerers: the only magic is the Divine one. Some feats are either not allowed or, at least, not available in a certain region/culture - maybe because you need a teacher for them and no one is around. Same for certain spells. Maybe barbarians do not exist because in that area their tribes were civilized centuries ago. Maybe clerics pray for their spells but it is up to their gods if to grant them or not - for whatever reason. When the players scream foul, the DM can simply point out how every official world has specific rules. Dragonlance starts with no clerics. The Forgotten Realms have Regional Feats. The list goes on.

[A nice counterpoint to the above is how 3E allows incredibly absurd builds if the players and the DM want to really have fun. You can play as an ancient green dragon half ranger(!)/half witch(!!) if you want. 3E was build from the ground up to allow any sort of shenanigans - which, in turn, allow for very creative campaigns. I ran "CSI Waterdeep" for one year, after finishing my gigantor magnum opus, and 3E plus some supplements gave me everything that I needed.]

Regarding the need to use miniatures, this was introduced with the 3.5E revision. 3E allowed for "theatre of the mind" just fine. Personally, I never used miniatures in my games. When there was the need to clarify who was where, from dice to pencil scrawlings were enough. We are doing the same with CoC. I started playing RPGs when I was 16 and miniatures always were an imagination killer which turns imagination into a tabletop game.

I admit that 3/3.5E were not perfect (but I house-ruled them into being ) and how 5E, rule-wise, is probably the best edition for the modern players. However, I never felt the need to learn it. You simply can't find "Frostburn" or "Lords of Madness" for 5E. Tools like "eTools" (a very underrated aid for Windows) greatly simplify the creation of characters, encounters and treasure. And the fluff is still unsurpassed.

I cut my teeth on 3.5 so I have a fondness for it.

My original gaming group consisted of two old school players and a bunch of newbs.

We played a lot, though never really in high levels, but enough to become exasperated with some of the usual suspect stuff (like grappling, playing with mini/grid rules).

We switched to 4e and after a handful of sessions, no one said they hated it, but we hated it. Group fell apart (not solely b/c of the edition swap, but I think that accelerated the process). Then we talked forever about going back to 3.5, but no one wanted to DM. So when dndnext started up, fearing it wouldn't be good and that the second hand prices would shoot up, I purchased the 3.5 DMG and MM and planned on DMing to get the gang back together.

It didn't happen.

Phandelver comes out, and with the excitement of a new edition, I get the group back together. All agreed it was essentially 3.5, but streamlined in a way that actually fit our gaming style. Old school guys liked the gridless play and 3.5 guys felt it alleviated a lot of things that were issues for us. I don't think 5e is popular for nothing. A group like ours was probably what they had in view I'd guess. But I like 5e because I first liked 3.5.

Quote from: VisionStorm on February 10, 2023, 06:06:48 AM
The 5e distinction between Perception and Investigation is silly and confusing too. Sifting through junk to find something not immediately apparent to the naked eye is not some sort of specialized skill that requires separate training. The deductive reasoning aspect of the skill might be easier to justify as a separate skill, but that's something I'd usually prefer to leave to the players to figure out on their own rather than have a skill check do the thinking for them, and would handle as an actual Deduction/Reason skill if I wanted to include it.

Also: An "Archives/Research" where you're sorting libraries of records, lore, encyclopedias and whatnot. Deduction/Reason might as well handle that though.

Gather Information should not exist if the players could otherwise roleplay talking from NPC to NPC, following the trail of "I heard from Jim Bob! He heard it from Vincent Fernando!" Why would they want to roll away opportunities to notice the guy tipping the apple cart trying to get in earshot of the players, or out of the line of sight? Failing that, you'd have moments to use Intimidation, Bluff, Diplomacy, "Haggle" skills in town or out on the field. I doubt most people get a chance to use any of those social skills much. Too much worldbuilding left unmade.

Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 10, 2023, 11:47:33 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on February 10, 2023, 06:06:48 AM
The 5e distinction between Perception and Investigation is silly and confusing too. Sifting through junk to find something not immediately apparent to the naked eye is not some sort of specialized skill that requires separate training. The deductive reasoning aspect of the skill might be easier to justify as a separate skill, but that's something I'd usually prefer to leave to the players to figure out on their own rather than have a skill check do the thinking for them, and would handle as an actual Deduction/Reason skill if I wanted to include it.

Also: An "Archives/Research" where you're sorting libraries of records, lore, encyclopedias and whatnot. Deduction/Reason might as well handle that though.

Gather Information should not exist if the players could otherwise roleplay talking from NPC to NPC, following the trail of "I heard from Jim Bob! He heard it from Vincent Fernando!" Why would they want to roll away opportunities to notice the guy tipping the apple cart trying to get in earshot of the players, or out of the line of sight? Failing that, you'd have moments to use Intimidation, Bluff, Diplomacy, "Haggle" skills in town or out on the field. I doubt most people get a chance to use any of those social skills much. Too much worldbuilding left unmade.

TBH, I have mixed feelings about Information Gathering because it sounds like something that might make thematic sense, and often comes up in fiction as the streetwise character who tends to go "hit the streets" for information from their underworld contacts and such. But the fact of the matter is that in practice it rarely comes up, and when it does, characters just RP it out, and the GM gives them what he's gonna give them regardless, making a skill roll superfluous and pointless. And when a check actually makes sense in context, it's always some other social skill that applies, like you point out. So it might be better to just remove it, and just replace it with some sort of "Contacts" feat that automatically gives them info or who to go to for favors and such, to the degree that such an ability might arguably be even necessary, and perhaps a situational bonus to relevant social skill rolls when they come up.

Quote
This is also a D&D specific issue AFAIK, because no other game that I recall uses three different skills to handle spotting things through sensory perception, which is a carryover from earlier editions, where Find Traps and Listen were separate Thief abilities, like noticing a tripwire was some type of specialized tasks that required special training. The 5e distinction between Perception and Investigation is silly and confusing too. Sifting through junk to find something not immediately apparent to the naked eye is not some sort of specialized skill that requires separate training. The deductive reasoning aspect of the skill might be easier to justify as a separate skill, but that's something I'd usually prefer to leave to the players to figure out on their own rather than have a skill check do the thinking for them, and would handle as an actual Deduction/Reason skill if I wanted to include it.

But IIRC the Investigation is used also for 3,5 Search qualities that do not fit easily with Perception - like seeking forbidden knowledge in Grimoire.
I'd probably rename Perception to be Vigilance - and keep difference between general kinda passive surrounding Awareness and purposeful search/research of something very specific. It's kinda intuitive for me to keep those two separate.

QuoteTBH, I have mixed feelings about Information Gathering because it sounds like something that might make thematic sense, and often comes up in fiction as the streetwise character who tends to go "hit the streets" for information from their underworld contacts and such. But the fact of the matter is that in practice it rarely comes up, and when it does, characters just RP it out, and the GM gives them what he's gonna give them regardless, making a skill roll superfluous and pointless. And when a check actually makes sense in context, it's always some other social skill that applies, like you point out. So it might be better to just remove it, and just replace it with some sort of "Contacts" feat that automatically gives them info or who to go to for favors and such, to the degree that such an ability might arguably be even necessary, and perhaps a situational bonus to relevant social skill rolls when they come up.

General Streetwise skill - with wide array of options just like Survival contain multiple aspects of Wilderness.
If you wanna interrogate very specific NPCs - sure go with social skills. If you wanna go with abstracted night of bard listening to gossip in taverns of Orc Quarters - Streetwise roll is fine.

I have mixed opinions. On one hand very nostaglic, on the other hand, the game just implodes at higher levels because of the required GM prep.

Quote from: Wrath of God on February 11, 2023, 07:25:44 PM
But IIRC the Investigation is used also for 3,5 Search qualities that do not fit easily with Perception - like seeking forbidden knowledge in Grimoire.
I'd probably rename Perception to be Vigilance - and keep difference between general kinda passive surrounding Awareness and purposeful search/research of something very specific. It's kinda intuitive for me to keep those two separate.

I think I already covered some of this in the quoted post. If it involves finding stuff through sensory perception that's not a separate skill, even if you're actively looking. If it involves figuring things out, that's usually a player task rather than something that should be handled by rolls that replace players thinking.

RE: renaming Perception, I would say that the confusing part is Investigation, since it's supposed to be a cerebral skill (at least in part) but the name implies looking for stuff, which is what Perception already does (unless by "looking" you mean "in a book" or searching for stuff that requires specific knowledge). I'd rename Investigation to something like Deduction instead, or Research if it involves digging through books. But like I mentioned, that's usually something that players do, not something that's handwaved with dice. And "Research" feels a bit too specialized to base an entire skill around that (maybe make it a more broad "Academics" skill that also covers general knowledge or some such?).

Plus forcing players to roll to find a bit of information needed to advance the plot seems counterproductive, since it would make progress throughout the adventure contingent on a check relying on a very situational skill. If PCs REALLY need a piece of info to move forward they should usually just find it if they look in the right place. A roll should only be necessary if they're just trying to get an edge, or there are multiple ways to get there and you want to make it more challenging.

QuoteGeneral Streetwise skill - with wide array of options just like Survival contain multiple aspects of Wilderness.
If you wanna interrogate very specific NPCs - sure go with social skills. If you wanna go with abstracted night of bard listening to gossip in taverns of Orc Quarters - Streetwise roll is fine.

That's probably the best way to handle it. Streetwise could handle info gathering type stuff, plus also stuff like identifying gang signs, knowing who the big players are in town or who to go to to buy or sell illegal stuff, which are the bad parts of town, etc.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 11, 2023, 08:04:05 PM
I have mixed opinions. On one hand very nostaglic, on the other hand, the game just implodes at higher levels because of the required GM prep.

Not just because of the required GM prep, but because the math became unwieldy (for example, attack bonuses far outstripped ACs). This is why by the end of 3e, somebody came up with the "E6" concept and neatly sidestepped most of the problems of 3e high-level play...

QuoteI think I already covered some of this in the quoted post. If it involves finding stuff through sensory perception that's not a separate skill, even if you're actively looking. If it involves figuring things out, that's usually a player task rather than something that should be handled by rolls that replace players thinking.

And that I generally disagree because at least in my experience it's kinda very different to search something specific (clues, minute details) and very different to be generally aware to threats and so on. So one skill to Search actively and another to let's say passively detect enemy Stealth, oncoming enemies from distance, being aware of let's say enemy in some disguise is very different.
On functional level.

I'm decent in former, but terrible in latter so for me difference is very very intuitive. Maybe rename them for Awareness and Investigation...
The question is to apply it's consistently in game.

QuotePlus forcing players to roll to find a bit of information needed to advance the plot seems counterproductive, since it would make progress throughout the adventure contingent on a check relying on a very situational skill. If PCs REALLY need a piece of info to move forward they should usually just find it if they look in the right place. A roll should only be necessary if they're just trying to get an edge, or there are multiple ways to get there and you want to make it more challenging.

Only if you play very linear adventure. Then yes. With more sandbox approach... not necessarily.
Also there are tactical choices that can influence roll - for instance - how much time do you want to spend searching.

Quote from: Wtrmute on February 12, 2023, 09:13:45 AMNot just because of the required GM prep, but because the math became unwieldy (for example, attack bonuses far outstripped ACs).

Id say its other huge issue is the constant buffs you gotta juggle. As a player, and as a GM. At a certain point greater dispel just becomes the most combat optimal action to use every time.

Quote from: Wrath of God on February 12, 2023, 11:28:29 AM

QuoteI think I already covered some of this in the quoted post. If it involves finding stuff through sensory perception that's not a separate skill, even if you're actively looking. If it involves figuring things out, that's usually a player task rather than something that should be handled by rolls that replace players thinking.

And that I generally disagree because at least in my experience it's kinda very different to search something specific (clues, minute details) and very different to be generally aware to threats and so on. So one skill to Search actively and another to let's say passively detect enemy Stealth, oncoming enemies from distance, being aware of let's say enemy in some disguise is very different.
On functional level.

I'm decent in former, but terrible in latter so for me difference is very very intuitive. Maybe rename them for Awareness and Investigation...
The question is to apply it's consistently in game.

This goes completely against my own experience, and attentiveness/observation is something that I've consciously cultivated since I was a kid*. And there's been zero difference in my experience between actively looking for something or becoming suddenly aware of it through instinct. It's all about pattern recognition, and that applies more or less equally whether you notice a noise that sounds like someone is entering your house, or you're actively using your hearing to guide you to the source of the noise or track where they're going. The only difference is that in one instance you weren't expecting it and aren't trying to do something specific about it, and in the other you're consciously focusing that same attentiveness that allowed you to suddenly notice something to track its source.

Unless by "searching for clues" you mean trying to figure something about what you found that isn't apparent through sensory perception alone (such as where it came from, if it fell from somewhere, or something to that effect), your ability to notice things pretty much has you covered whether you're doing it actively or passively. And even when you're trying to deduce stuff, if that deduction involves finding additional stuff through sensory perception so you can put two and two together to figure something out, your ability to notice things may still be relevant in finding those secondary clues (maybe that thing you found fell from somewhere that left a trail. But how do you find the trail, assuming there is one...? And if you need a second Perception check to find that trail, do you really need a third Deduction check to figure out that's where the thing came from when the player probably can figure that out the moment you tell them they found a trail? And if the player figures it out but the character fails the Deduction check, do you prevent them from acting on that assumption, cuz skill checks trump player agency?).

*and know that I'm good at it cuz I'm frequently annoyed at how inattentive people around me seem to be, often stumbling onto stuff I immediately notice and such, or scaring off crickets when I'm trying to catch one that's trying to nest in the house, cuz I'm apparently the only one in my family who can spot them effectively.

Quote

QuotePlus forcing players to roll to find a bit of information needed to advance the plot seems counterproductive, since it would make progress throughout the adventure contingent on a check relying on a very situational skill. If PCs REALLY need a piece of info to move forward they should usually just find it if they look in the right place. A roll should only be necessary if they're just trying to get an edge, or there are multiple ways to get there and you want to make it more challenging.

Only if you play very linear adventure. Then yes. With more sandbox approach... not necessarily.
Also there are tactical choices that can influence roll - for instance - how much time do you want to spend searching.

Meh, even in sandbox play I don't see the point on requiring a check if they player specifies that they're searching in the exact spot where the thing they're searching for is actually at. Stuff like that is the point where I actually agree with old school players that complain about overuse of skills to handle everything. Skill checks are for when there's doubt. But if you, as a player actually specify the exact spot where something happens to be at, there's no doubt that if dig around you'll stumble onto it eventually, if only by accident, unless there's pretty strong magic or something masking its presence.

As far as noticing features in your environment, maybe you also have a high Perception score, as vapid, flightly, clumsy, and otherwise inattentive people would have lots of difficulty. This would probably because they may not have the instincts of the hunter-gatherer in them, as opposed to the farmer who doesn't also hunt, but a lack of good rest or being intoxicated can also change your chances.

It's not that you can't get trained to be a better "spotter," if you can remember a pattern of where to look first, but some people will have a natural edge.

Vision Storm,

Your last several arguments are more or less the route that I go.  Except, I take it the next logical step, that "Perception" that pervasive is an "ability", not a skill.  At least in game terms, where things like Strength, Dexterity, etc. represent a combination of natural talent and broadly developed ability.  In contrast, where "skills" are so few and so broad as to not even really count as skills, then maybe not.  Though I'd argue that's not a skills-based game, either. 

Given a Perception ability or attribute, than depending on how you want the game to handle some aspect, it might make sense to then include an "Observation" skill or similar, to reflect the parts that can be actively learned in a more narrow sense.  Or if you really wanted "Perception" for that more narrow role, then take the broad part and stuff it into an Awareness attribute.  The naming does affect how people view the nuances.

This has the not inconsiderable effect of making getting that broad Perception (or Awareness) properly valuable in comparison to how many people play the kinds of games where this discussion is relevant, because getting a higher ability or improving it is typically costly compared to skills.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 12, 2023, 11:40:34 AM

Quote from: Wtrmute on February 12, 2023, 09:13:45 AMNot just because of the required GM prep, but because the math became unwieldy (for example, attack bonuses far outstripped ACs).

Id say its other huge issue is the constant buffs you gotta juggle. As a player, and as a GM. At a certain point greater dispel just becomes the most combat optimal action to use every time.

Dispel / Disjunction type effects are one of the worst things because the game's fundamental math requires PCs to have a slew of magical items, but recalculating your basic bonuses if your items were antimagicked is a huge PITA.

Quote from: Reckall on February 10, 2023, 06:19:22 AM
There are a lot of misconceptions surrounding this edition. Some "players" tried to show that it was "broken" by creating Thanos-level characters. They always forgot how:

A) 20th level Characters don't spring in existence fully formed like Athena from the head of Zeus. They evolve organically. Example:

Except a lot of players basically planned out every level before they even rolled a die. That was how a lot of players played.

Quote from: Reckall on February 10, 2023, 06:19:22 AMB) A corollary of the above: no one ever said that [Gary Oldman]EEEEEEEEVERYTHIIIINGG!!![/Gary Oldman] in the books is available. The DM can rule that, for example, in his campaign there are no Wizards and no Sorcerers: the only magic is the Divine one. Some feats are either not allowed or, at least, not available in a certain region/culture - maybe because you need a teacher for them and no one is around. Same for certain spells. Maybe barbarians do not exist because in that area their tribes were civilized centuries ago. Maybe clerics pray for their spells but it is up to their gods if to grant them or not - for whatever reason. When the players scream foul, the DM can simply point out how every official world has specific rules. Dragonlance starts with no clerics. The Forgotten Realms have Regional Feats. The list goes on.

Except the players did scream foul. "If WotC publishes it, I can play it" was a mentality that infected a huge swath of the 3.x community - I was told as much several times on TBP when I dared to admit that actually I considered everything at my discretion. That wasn't right, I was told. That was not the expected player/DM contract, I was told. That was not how WotC intended, I was told.

Quote from: Reckall on February 10, 2023, 06:19:22 AMRegarding the need to use miniatures, this was introduced with the 3.5E revision. 3E allowed for "theatre of the mind" just fine. Personally, I never used miniatures in my games. When there was the need to clarify who was where, from dice to pencil scrawlings were enough.

Disagree completely. 3.0 was pretty much just as beholden to miniatures as 3.5 was. Yes, you can play it without them. But a huge chunk of the rules - feats, spells, class abilities, etc - are designed with the expectation you are, and if you aren't, they become either completely meaningless, or very arbitrary to use.

Quote from: Reckall on February 10, 2023, 06:19:22 AMAnd the fluff is still unsurpassed.

Oh lord, you have to be kidding. The fluff for 3.x was garbage, only made look good in comparison to 4 and 5 afterwords.