D&D General Perception vs Investigation

The way I think it should work is demonstrated in this quote from A Scandal in Bohemia.

“You see, but you do not observe.”​

Perception lets you notice things in your environment, but Investigation is what allows you to draw conclusions from what you're seeing. A high-Perception character may indeed see that there are two torch sconces on the wall flanking a seemingly empty alcove, and that one looks cleaner than the other.

The high-Investigation character, if their attention is drawn to this detail, may surmise that the cleaner torch is actually a switch and that there is a secret or concealed door present.

James Gasik said:

The way I think it should work is demonstrated in this quote from A Scandal in Bohemia.

“You see, but you do not observe.”​

Perception lets you notice things in your environment, but Investigation is what allows you to draw conclusions from what you're seeing. A high-Perception character may indeed see that there are two torch sconces on the wall flanking a seemingly empty alcove, and that one looks cleaner than the other.

The high-Investigation character, if their attention is drawn to this detail, may surmise that the cleaner torch is actually a switch and that there is a secret or concealed door present.

Click to expand...

The character who might not draw attention to the cleaner looking torch sconce and be all "I saw that but I did not think it was a big deal", but the player knows that they need to push it, pull it, turn it, whatever to find something like a secret door. Would the character know or do you make them roll an Investigation check when the player already knows.

This is kind of why I use both depending on what it is being looked for.

aco175 said:

The character who might not draw attention to the cleaner looking torch sconce and be all "I saw that but I did not think it was a big deal", but the player knows that they need to push it, pull it, turn it, whatever to find something like a secret door. Would the character know or do you make them roll an Investigation check when the player already knows.

This is kind of why I use both depending on what it is being looked for.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's one of the issues I have with mental ability scores in general. At what point do you draw the line from what the numbers seem to be implying and the player's own abilities? I used to have a guy in my group who was very good at solving puzzles, and any time an adventure included one, it was rare that he didn't instantly clue in on the answer.

Given that many puzzles and riddles are intended to test the player (and many DM's take a dim view of "rolling" to solve such), it's hard to say "hang on, would your character be able to solve things that quickly?", especially since "Intelligence 13" doesn't really mean anything beyond "+1 on Int based rolls".

I mean, how could anyone say "well, Int 13 isn't enough to solve this puzzle but Int 15 is" without having to admit that they're being completely arbitrary about it? DM's don't want you playing your character as being smarter than their ability scores would imply, but are equally loathe to give players a free pass when playing characters smarter or wiser than they are, a sort of "ability score paradox".

tombowings said:

If you're right, the dudes (and dudets) can't even name their terminology properly. Perhaps, the WotC posse needs to buy a thesaurus.

(Or have have supined themselves before lord Hasbro. How sweetly they kiss his plastic Marvel action figures! Guess that's why they make the big bucks.)*

Maybe...I'm also a fool, so don't listen to me.

*Other hypothesis may also apply. (Oh, the things we do for miniature green portraits for Andrew Jacksons! Numbers must rise.)

Click to expand...

Well, they didn’t name it, TSR did.

Charlaquin said:

Well, they didn’t name it, TSR did.

Click to expand...

Also, I don't have an issue with the split. Want an absent minded professor? That gal who is who is book smart but continues to make bad decisions and is oblivious when it comes to reading people? High intelligence, low wisdom. The janitor who gives fantastic advice to the kids in the school? The old farmer who speaks slowly but dispenses wisdom? The opposite.

We can never really model intellect accurately even if people have been trying to do so forever. But in many ways I think this is one TSR got close.

AlViking said:

Also, I don't have an issue with the split. Want an absent minded professor? That gal who is who is book smart but continues to make bad decisions and is oblivious when it comes to reading people? High intelligence, low wisdom. The janitor who gives fantastic advice to the kids in the school? The old farmer who speaks slowly but dispenses wisdom? The opposite.

We can never really model intellect accurately even if people have been trying to do so forever. But in many ways I think this is one TSR got close.

Click to expand...

I don’t think they were anywhere near close, and also, having stats for mental abilities in a game that’s played by imagining yourself as a character in a fictional scenario and making decisions as you imagine that character would causes a ton of problems. So many debates about how one should (or if one even can) play a character who’s smarter than one’s self all because Intelligence is a stat. I think refocusing one of those mental stats on perception was a wise (pun unintended, but appreciated) decision.

Charlaquin said:

I don’t think they were anywhere near close, and also, having stats for mental abilities in a game that’s played by imagining yourself as a character in a fictional scenario and making decisions as you imagine that character would causes a ton of problems. So many debates about how one should (or if one even can) play a character who’s smarter than one’s self all because Intelligence is a stat. I think refocusing one of those mental stats on perception was a wise (pun unintended, but appreciated) decision.

Click to expand...

We have to have stats to play the game so I don't see an issue with it. I also don't think we can accurately model intellect so this is as good as any. Just because my character can bench press a sofa does not mean I have to be able to do so, same with playing a character with high intelligence. If Kim is playing someone with a high intelligence and they aren't grasping something I think would be obvious to the character I'll just tell them what their character understands. If I think their character should know but it's not guaranteed, it's a roll.

We aren't sitting around assigning stats to other people at the table so I don't see the issue with people playing someone they are not. That's half the fun of the game.

AlViking said:

We have to have stats to play the game so I don't see an issue with it.

Click to expand...

Well, we need stats for physical abilities, to resolve physical tasks through game mechanics.

AlViking said:

I also don't think we can accurately model intellect so this is as good as any. Just because my character can bench press a sofa does not mean I have to be able to do so, same with playing a character with high intelligence.

Click to expand...

No, but you can only think of things you can think of, so in a game about making decisions as you imagine your character would, your character can’t make smart decisions if you can’t. That’s just the reality of the medium.

AlViking said:

If Kim is playing someone with a high intelligence and they aren't grasping something I think would be obvious to the character I'll just tell them what their character understands. If I think their character should know but it's not guaranteed, it's a roll.

Click to expand...

Sure, but we don’t actually need stats for that. At least not stats for “intelligence” and “wisdom.” That really has more to do with the character’s background and experiences, which skills have covered.

AlViking said:

We aren't sitting around assigning stats to other people at the table so I don't see the issue with people playing someone they are not. That's half the fun of the game.

Click to expand...

There’s no issue to playing someone you’re not. I agree that’s at least half the point of the game, arguably the whole point. We don’t need to be constraining roleplay with numerical stats for mental abilities. Just roleplay.

Anyway, this is getting way off topic. I’ll drop the subject.

Been following; everyone's broadening of the use of Perception or Investigation at their tables, or which in what kinds of situations, has been illuminating.

I appreciate ppls' riffs on what's been said and feel like this is something I can be mindful of at my table.