I wonder what an Intelligence (Athletics) check would look like?
Probably a lot like pounding a round peg into a square hole
I wonder what an Intelligence (Athletics) check would look like?
Yep, it's clear that I have failed, but that doesn't stop me from pretending like I know what I'm talking about.Nice example of failing an Int (Athletics) check.
That triple is crazy. I might require a Geometry check along with that!
While I agree that is how the rules operate, the fact is no one sitting around the table actually has many of the skills being used by the characters, or even really any relevant experience with them. Therefore it's hard to actually describe how things would appear or work. When you make a stealth roll you don't have to tell the DM where exactly you are placing your feet, or how you are moving, it is assumed that specific information is covered by the roll and the fact you have that skill. You can't fail to describe your attempt at stealth properly and therefore fail it. You don't have to describe your attempt at using Medicine to stabilize a dying target to get the result you're looking for, so why would Investigate be any different?
You or I could not properly role play Sherlock Holmes that way, because that character literally sees details that everyone else in the room misses, sees a different picture when he looks at a room than other less observant and informed people. We at the table are not Sherlock Holmes, we are the people he explains things to. So if I can't assume my +14 Investigate skill and the Observant feat provides me with more information to work with than everyone else at the table that doesn't have anything like that, what's the point in taking those skills and feats to make the fictional character you are playing? It may seem cheap for the DM to provide you with a given insight simply because you have the skill for it, but that is exactly what Investigation skill does. Not only to find things, but to make those seemingly often tenuous, not obvious connections between the information you have in front of you. This can of course be role played and is fun to do so, but sorta defeats the point of having that skill if that is the sole method of representing it in the game.
Long story short, I don't feel you should have to actually have the skills of your make believe character in order to roleplay that make believe character when they are using those skills. And that is where the DM comes in to provide the difference in observances from the perspective of the character in question. With most skills this doesn't come up, it is assumed and it is obvious why that is. For these two in particular however it seems to be considered a different type of skill.
I think that's a gret description of what Investigation is for and I'm going to start using it when I talk about it in my games.…Investigation allows you to … make the connections.
The shorthand I like to use at my table (we moved to 5E from 3.x):I think that's a gret description of what Investigation is for and I'm going to start using it when I talk about it in my games.
WIS notices a thing, INT makes connections between multiple things. If you haven't noticed a thing then you can't make connections, but just because you noticed it doesn't mean you'll make the connection.