D&D 5E Perception/Investigation/Medicine?

[Kid Charlemagne]

The info to be gained is pretty much:

1) Arrows are goblin-made.
2) The horses have been dead for a day.

Additionally, there's some tracking info that could be gained through Survival.

I'm pretty liberal in how I adjudicate these kinds of things. I'd say Perception could get you the info that the arrows are crude, of non-human make (and if the PC's have run into goblins in the past, or have any reason to know anything about goblin handiwork, I'd give them that additional info for free). Medicine could tell you how the long the horses have been dead. Investigation could potentially get both 1) and 2).

Perception will reveal the tracks, and probably the direction. Survival will tell you that, plus what made them. Depending on circumstances, Investigation could tell you that as well.

And of course, as we used to say in our GURPS campaigns, everything defaults to Brawling.

 

[jrowland]

This was prompted by somebody who asked me "what's the difference between Investigation and Perception"?

What are your personal guidelines on the difference between a Perception and an Investigation check? What about Medicine when the target is a dead body? How have you handled it so far?

I'll say it only because it hasn't been:

Perception is like Spot
Investigation is like Search
Medicine is like Heal
in older editions.

(notice I said "is like" not "is")

Good place to start when answering players who want to know and are familiar with older editions

It would be a easy (DC 5) perception check to notice the horses (I believe they are off the road in the bushes iirc). Here is a good case where DC 5 Perception matters: I'd rule somebody actively looking around (making a perception check as an action) might not see them, but probably should see/hear buzzing flies, smell something, and notice the flattened and battered bushes leading to them. Likely this bit of information will happen even if they don't spot the goblins. But if not, Passive perception should reveal them once combat is over.

Investigation: Nature of the arrows, tracks (small feet but a set of medium, ie more goblins and a prisoner...let survival tell how many and where to) etc

Medicine: How long the horses have been dead (roughly), what likely killed them (throat cut or blood loss from arrows, eg). While it might sound gruesome, I played with a medical student once upon a time who would autopsy monsters to find out what they ate last...so in this case, maybe fish from the pool in the hideout might be in their guts. Not sure it would help the PCs any, but players have a way of surprising you.

 

[Jer]

What are your personal guidelines on the difference between a Perception and an Investigation check? What about Medicine when the target is a dead body? How have you handled it so far?

Eh - I tend to prefer to have my players pick a skill and justify to me how they want to use it, rather than me asking for a specific skill and telling them what to roll. If a player trained in Medicine and wants to use it to search a body for clues, I'm going to allow it with minimal justification. If its Survival, I'm going to allow it if he can explain to me why Survival might be applicable. And so on. Give me a good story and I'll let you get away with quite a bit on a skill check.

 

[jgsugden]

The line I draw is this: Are the PCs trying to notice something or understand something?

If the question is whether the PCs will notice something, them it is a perception check. If the question is whether, once noticed, they understand the significance, then it is another type of check.

If the PCs were to ask how the horses died while they're still far away on the trail, I might ask them to make a perception check to see the arrows. If they examine them close up, I would likely have them do a survival, nature or medicine roll to determine how long the horses have been dead. Recognizing that the arrows are goblin made would likely be an investigation roll, but I'd let people suggest how they could use other skills to determine it.

 

[mcbobbo]

The underlying stats probably factor in -

Wisdom: Easy - Horses are dead due to arrows. Harder - This happened about a day ago.

Intelligence: Easy - The arrows aren't like the ones in your quiver. Harder - Goblins make arrows that look just like that.

The latter might be Wisdom if you're a Goblin, though.

 

[Henrix]

In my game we do our exploration free-form, but it seems reasonably clear to me the designers intended the DM to choose the best-sounding skill based on the player's narration.

"I'm giving the scene a good once-over looking for clues." Investigation.
"Does anything pop out at me as being out of place?" Perception.
"I'm looking over the horse's body. Can I tell how it died?" Medicine.

This is my take as well. In what manner are the characters going about it?
That decides what skill to roll.

And that enforces the roleplaying bits - a character with investigation will try to investigate things carefully.
The elf will just try to take it all in with his senses.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I view the perception and investigation as having a lot of overlap. I tend to wing it and often let the players choose either.

I like the idea of perception as a kind of instinctive alertness/dangersense, and investigation more as purposefully searching with a bit of time. So if it happens suddenly, I tend to use perception, and if they have time to check more thoroughly, I use investigation.

For the OP's example, I'd auto notice dead horses, blood and arrows. Medicine to confirm that yep, as you suspected, the arrows killed the horses, not poison or anything else. Investigation or Survival to notice the tracks, survival to follow them. Investigation (or just auto if players say they specifically look at the arrows) to notice the special arrow markings. History to recall those arrows belong to kobold tribe xxxx. Perception to notice the kobold ambush.