D&D 5E Perception, Passive Perception, and Investigation

[steeldragons]

I'm afraid I really don't understand the need or desire for a distinction like "Perception=creatures. Investigation = objects."

It just doesn't make any kind of sense. You can easily "perceive" objects. You can certainly "investigate" creatures. I am kind of at a loss over this entire conversation and/or the confusion about these skills.

They use different abilities. They discern things about the characters' surroundings via different means. It's really not rocket science.

What am I missing here?

 

[iserith]

I'm afraid I really don't understand the need or desire for a distinction like "Perception=creatures. Investigation = objects."

It just doesn't make any kind of sense. You can easily "perceive" objects. You can certainly "investigate" creatures. I am kind of at a loss over this entire conversation and/or the confusion about these skills.

They use different abilities. They discern things about the characters' surroundings via different means. It's really not rocket science.

What am I missing here?

Probably influence from other games. In D&D 3.Xe, the Search skill was Intelligence-based and used to find traps, secret doors, and hidden objects. Spot and Listen were generally used to detect hidden creatures. As well, if I remember correctly, the D&D 5e playtest documents made the distinction that Perception is creatures and Investigation is objects.

Never underestimate the influence of other games on how people interpret this game. It is very common.

 

[Xetheral]

I'm afraid I really don't understand the need or desire for a distinction like "Perception=creatures. Investigation = objects."

It just doesn't make any kind of sense. You can easily "perceive" objects. You can certainly "investigate" creatures. I am kind of at a loss over this entire conversation and/or the confusion about these skills.

They use different abilities. They discern things about the characters' surroundings via different means. It's really not rocket science.

What am I missing here?

I think it largely has to do with DM's wanting to give players at their table more certainty regarding how Perception and Investigation will be adjudicated. Doing so makes it easier for players to make informed choices at character creation. If, when asked ahead of time, the DM simply says that the boundary between the skills is context-dependent, or that Perception is observation and Investigation is deduction, that doesn't help the player much until they learn that DM's style, since the boundary between observation and deduction can itself be fuzzy when applied to in-game situations.

This particularly affects players of Rogues or Bards who intend for their character to be trapmonkeys, because they need to decide not only how to allocate their proficiencies, but also their choices for Expertise. If Investigation is going to have a role in protecting the party from traps (or even completely obviate Perception), then putting Expertise into Investigation to help make up for a low Int may be crucial to mechanically realizing the character concept. Conversely, if Perception is all that is needed at a particular table to spot traps (combined with Thieves Tools to disarm them) and Investigation is only needed if one wants to make deductions about traps, then putting Expertise in Perception is a lot more attractive, particularly since that skill has so many other uses even when not trap-finding.

 

[clearstream]

It's really not about a planned path. It's just a tool for adjudicating failure in ways that don't create other problems.

But isn't it that other problems just means stymied progress along the planned path? Or to put it another way, what are the other, other problems you are thinking of?

 

[clearstream]

Probably influence from other games. In D&D 3.Xe, the Search skill was Intelligence-based and used to find traps, secret doors, and hidden objects. Spot and Listen were generally used to detect hidden creatures. As well, if I remember correctly, the D&D 5e playtest documents made the distinction that Perception is creatures and Investigation is objects.

Never underestimate the influence of other games on how people interpret this game. It is very common.

My personal route to perception for creatures, investigation for designs, was entirely within published 5th edition. I went through a lot of permutations until I landed on an effectively simple definition. But it is interesting that the gap in play - the need to differentiate - is something that can still make sense. It speaks to a persistent problem worth solving.

 

[Starfox]

I think it largely has to do with DM's wanting to give players at their table more certainty regarding how Perception and Investigation will be adjudicated...

This particularly affects players of Rogues or Bards who intend for their character to be trapmonkeys, because they need to decide not only how to allocate their proficiencies, but also their choices for Expertise. If Investigation is going to have a role in protecting the party from traps (or even completely obviate Perception), then putting Expertise into Investigation to help make up for a low Int may be crucial to mechanically realizing the character concept. Conversely, if Perception is all that is needed at a particular table to spot traps (combined with Thieves Tools to disarm them) and Investigation is only needed if one wants to make deductions about traps, then putting Expertise in Perception is a lot more attractive, particularly since that skill has so many other uses even when not trap-finding.

This is very true. The rogue archetypes lean towards Int over Wis which is very strange as perception is the go-to skill for rogues. But if traps are located using Investigation, Int suddenly has utility for rogues, and thus there are synergies with the rogue archetypes.

<anecdote> I have't actually played 5E a lot, but one of my characters was a hill dwarf rogue with 16 wisdom. I also had expertise in Perception, giving me a passive perception of 17. That felt like a very valid investment, and I felt the game was lacking in wis-based rogue archetypes. Where was the cleric-rogue, and why would I want to be a mage-rogue? </anecdote>

 

[clearstream]

I think it largely has to do with DM's wanting to give players at their table more certainty regarding how Perception and Investigation will be adjudicated. Doing so makes it easier for players to make informed choices at character creation. If, when asked ahead of time, the DM simply says that the boundary between the skills is context-dependent, or that Perception is observation and Investigation is deduction, that doesn't help the player much until they learn that DM's style, since the boundary between observation and deduction can itself be fuzzy when applied to in-game situations.

Exactly! The residual problem I experienced with more nuanced definitions of Perception versus Investigation, was communicating consistency in application. I felt that in the end, the player doubts weren't adding anything to play at the table. Whereas the clean separation and need for Int versus Wis does add something. For one thing, it lets an Arcane Trickster be good at finding traps and casting their spells.

 

[clearstream]

I'm afraid I really don't understand the need or desire for a distinction like "Perception=creatures. Investigation = objects."

I have moved to this formulation - Perception is to notice creatures while Investigation is to deduce the implications of designs.

The next step is probably to work on the "creatures" part of that.

 

[steeldragons]

I have moved to this formulation - Perception is to notice creatures while Investigation is to deduce the implications of designs.

The next step is probably to work on the "creatures" part of that.

Yes. I saw that. I don't see how that makes it any better/clearer/more useful...or any more necessary.

 

[iserith]

But isn't it that other problems just means stymied progress along the planned path? Or to put it another way, what are the other, other problems you are thinking of?

Another problem can be boring failure - nothing happens or changes. Then perhaps the DM has to use a kludge to say retries are impossible because reasons, even if spending more time on a problem might otherwise be feasible in context.

I don't have a "planned path" in my games. I don't generally run games that have a plot at all. What I do have is a lot of tension around dice rolls because something is going to happen. Sometimes that means progress combined with a setback. Sometimes it means time wasted in the face of time pressure. I also don't have a single care about valuing "simulation." Which is where I expect most disagreements are coming from.