D&D 5E Perception vs. Investigation in UA Traps Revisited - A problem again?!

[doctorbadwolf]

Except that investigation really isn't equivalent to search. At least not the way it's presented in the PHB. It's drawing conclusions about things you already know, not finding new things. (Although the skill description does allow for reading tomes or scrolls to find things to be done with an investigate check - an inconsistency on their part. I'd probably allow a perception (int) check instead if a player requested it).

Wait, why on earth would you use Perception to do research?

Also, I said similar, not the same as. As in, the relationship between the two skills is similar.

Anyway, Investigation, per the PHB, is perfectly consistent. It isn't just making deductions, it is the process of searching for and interpreting clues, or researching. the two primary actions one undertakes with it are "examine", and "research", which are very similar activities, and at least in my games, interpreting clues found in examination often requires research. Not for simple stuff, but to drive the story from one place to another, and the like.

Perception, on the other hand, measures the keenness of your physical sense, and is used to detect the presence of something using those senses.

Finding a dagger hidden in a bureau drawer is perception, while examining it for clues about its owner and purpose is investigation.

Obviously there is overlap, and the need for discretion in some situations. That is a feature.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Taking an example from a Sherlock Holmes story: Perception is noticing the fish tattoo on someone's wrist. Investigation is knowing that the particular colour is only done in Shanghai docks, so the man must have been a sailor once.

Investigation is tied to Intelligence, which means it covers knowledge, trivia, history, learning, memory, deduction, research - the things needed to make connections between seemingly unconnected facts and to come up with conclusions that follow from the evidence.

 

[jaelis]

Taking an example from a Sherlock Holmes story: Perception is noticing the fish tattoo on someone's wrist. Investigation is knowing that the particular colour is only done in Shanghai docks, so the man must have been a sailor once.

Investigation is tied to Intelligence, which means it covers knowledge, trivia, history, learning, memory, deduction, research - the things needed to make connections between seemingly unconnected facts and to come up with conclusions that follow from the evidence.

I agree, except that if the person hasn't made an effort to hide or disguise the tattoo, I wouldn't normally expect a perception check to be required.

 

[Caliban]

Wait, why on earth would you use Perception to do research?

Not research - finding a specific bit of text, or a name, or specific word in a text.

Also, I said similar, not the same as. As in, the relationship between the two skills is similar.

Anyway, Investigation, per the PHB, is perfectly consistent. It isn't just making deductions, it is the process of searching for and interpreting clues, or researching. the two primary actions one undertakes with it are "examine", and "research", which are very similar activities, and at least in my games, interpreting clues found in examination often requires research. Not for simple stuff, but to drive the story from one place to another, and the like.

Where does it talk about "examining", "searching", or even "research" in the Investigate skill? (Not that I'm going to argue about using it for research - it makes sense.)

From what I see it mainly talks about "finding clues" and "making deductions from them". You could probably stretch "finding clues" into "searching for things" but I think that's a real stretch - I see it more as 'realizing thing you already know are clues'. It's main purpose is drawing conclusions from things you already know, not finding new things.

[Edit] I'm aware that I could be overthinking this - the skill descriptions in 5e are pretty short and vague. So I'm not declaring myself the authority on this or anything. I just don't think that Investigate equates to the 3e Search skill in any meaningful way.

 

[Gradine]

From what I see it mainly talks about "finding clues" and "making deductions from them". You could probably stretch "finding clues" into "searching for things" but I think that's a real stretch - I see it more as 'realizing thing you already know are clues'. It's main purpose is drawing conclusions from things you already know, not finding new things..

When you look around for clues and make deductions based on those clues, you make an Intelligence (Investigation) check. You might deduce the location of a hidden object, discern from the appearance of a wound what kind of weapon dealt it, or determine the weakest point in a tunnel that could cause it to collapse. Poring through ancient scrolls in search of a hidden fragment of knowledge might also call for an Intelligence (Investigation) check.

Emphasis added.

I don't know... that sounds a heck of a lot like searching, examining and researching to me.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Not research - finding a specific bit of text, or a name, or specific word in a text.




Where does it talk about "examining", "searching", or even "research" in the Investigate skill? (Not that I'm going to argue about using it for research - it makes sense.)

From what I see it mainly talks about "finding clues" and "making deductions from them". You could probably stretch "finding clues" into "searching for things" but I think that's a real stretch - I see it more as 'realizing thing you already know are clues'. It's main purpose is drawing conclusions from things you already know, not finding new things.

[Edit] I'm aware that I could be overthinking this - the skill descriptions in 5e are pretty short and vague. So I'm not declaring myself the authority on this or anything. I just don't think that Investigate equates to the 3e Search skill in any meaningful way.

The text says "look around for clues". Linguistically, in English, that can't mean simply realizing things about clues you've already found. That is searching. It's pretty close to a dictionary definition of the word "search".

"Poring through ancient scrolls in search of a hidden fragment of knowledge" is research. Pretty unequivocally.

"discern from the appearance of a wound what kind of weapon dealt it, or determine the weakest point in a tunnel that could cause it to collapse"
That is examination. Those could be used as italicized examples of examination in a dictionary, under the definition.


And again, "is similar to" does not mean the same thing as "equates to".


The distinction between the two skills seems to primarily be the Perception is directly about your physical senses and applying them to notice and detect things in the world, while Investigation is about your mental skill of observation, examination, study, and reasoning from those.

 

[Caliban]

The text says "look around for clues". Linguistically, in English...

Eh, anytime you have to start your argument with "Linguistically" you lose points. Especially when you go on to say it's "pretty close" to a dictionary definition. Close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades. If they meant Investigation to mean "searching and examination and research" why didn't they use any of those terms?

Since the text of the skill doesn't actually include any of the terms you are using (examine, search, or research) you can choose assign those words to it and use whatever definition of them you want. Does it really do anything to bring clarity though? It seems like you are just confusing the issue by adding more words instead of just using the actual text.

Still, despite stooping to semantics and the dictionary, you made some good points. As I said earlier - the explanation is short and vague enough that you can read quite a bit extra into it if you want.

I actually use Investigate much the way you describe at the end of your post when I'm DM'ing. I just don't use the terms you added to the skill description. (Most often I have players use Investigation as a kind of "give me a clue" skill when they are stuck on something, or after they have a made a History/Nature/Arcana check to help them fill in the blanks in the lore.)

I think my main problem with using Investigate to find things instead of Perception (other than the fact that finding stuff is what perception IS FOR) is that I've had bad experiences with DM's who used the skills incorrectly. They decided that Perception was visual and sound, and Investigation involved physically touching whatever you were touching, and some traps could only be found by using the correct skill, and if you used the wrong one you either didn't find the trap (using investigate instead of perception), or you set it off (using investigate instead of perception). Not your problem, but I found the "gotcha" nature of it very annoying and now I do not like using Investigate for finding traps in any way.

 

[Springheel]

Where does it talk about "examining", "searching", or even "research" in the Investigate skill?

The Player's Handbook clearly specifies that you might use Investigation when using the "Search" action:

"When you take the Search action, you devote your attention to finding something. Depending on the nature of your search, the DM might have you make a Wisdom (Perception) check or an Intelligence (Investigation) check." (PHB p.192)

 

[Caliban]

The Player's Handbook clearly specifies that you might use Investigation when using the "Search" action:

"When you take the Search action, you devote your attention to finding something. Depending on the nature of your search, the DM might have you make a Wisdom (Perception) check or an Intelligence (Investigation) check." (PHB p.192)

Be nice if they mentioned something like that in the skill itself. I'll continue using it as I have been, since there haven't been any problems with it.

 

[ThePolarBear]

I think my main problem with using Investigate to find things instead of Perception (other than the fact that finding stuff is what perception IS FOR)

Perception is about perceiving things, not finding them. If there's a dagger hidden inside a drawer, you are not going to perceive it unless you are actively investigating the place. You do not need to find something that is perceivable, but you still might not be able to perceive it.

On traps, you might be able to see the tripwire, smell that the air has a distinct scent of ash and that the temperature of the room is quite clearly hotter, or that there's the sound of water running. All of this is perceivable. Unless you look closer or take your time looking for something more, that's all you can perceive.

On hiding, you are actually either looking for something or happen to perceive said something in some way. (too much of a possible discussion...)
Following tracks is NOT perception, because it's not ONLY actually seeing the tracks. It's more about knowing how and what to look for said tracks by experience, mostly, with a bit of intuition on following the right "track" to where the next footprint / broken twig / whatever might be and interpret them to extract informations.

Perception is, simply, how sharp your senses are and how much you are aware of what's happening around you/how many eyes on your back you have. Investigation is putting those informations your senses have gathered to good use in finding answers to specific questions.

It's not about "do i see a rogue?" but "Who was that rogue i saw?"