D&D 5E Perception vs Investigate

[JonnyP71]

I use Investigation, a lot.

Woe-betide any party who as a whole dump Int in my games.

For me:
Perception is general awareness, mostly from a distance - it tells you that *something is out of place*. A creature moving in the shadows, a statue slightly crooked in an otherwise perfect arrangement.
Investigation gets you the specific facts, it tells you *what* is out of place. "That statue is about 5 degrees off perpendicular, the shadow cast by the spear point aligns with a button on the wall". It gives you more precise info about a mechanism or situation.

Perception - 'This is a library, there are books here, they appear to be arranged by subject.'
Investigation - 'Aaaah, here it is, the passage on 'Ascension to Lichdom' written by Xyzlax the Maggot himself.'

 

[akr71]

As others have stated up-thread, but paraphrasing for how I explain it to my players
Perception is for observing (not just with you eyes)
Investigation is for examination.

Though I use Investigation for navigating/asking for directions in an urban setting. In these situations there is no real failure, but the higher the roll the faster you find your destination or someone who can provide clear directions.

 

[pdzoch]

I use perception as an observational (all five senses) skill. This is why passive perception is an important number for the DM to keep track of.
Investigation is a problem solving skill, and it must be deliberately executed to find solutions.

Both could be roll played providing that the DM provides adequate descriptions and logical clues and the players are good at solving these puzzles. I like the skill check aspect because it allows my younger player and those who do not role play much to achieve the success that their character should.

Regarding traps and hidden items. I view these items as having two characteristics: one is their concealment, and the other is their complication. Perception checks address the concealment nature. Is the trap well camouflaged, invisible, or simply screams "Look at me! I'm a trap!" The investigation check defeats the complication. Is the trap a simple, common, complex, or Gordian design?

The perception skill allows pretty much anyone to discover a trap or secret door. But the investigation skill, which is hardly employed, allows for a designated "Thelma" in the Scooby Doo gang to solve the problem.

While a secret door may be opened after a successful check (found the secret button, pulled the right rope, tilted the right book, etc), a locked and trap chest is a different story.

Then the thieves tools enables a character to employ a bonus (if proficient) to disarm the trap if it is complicated, while a simple mechanism could be simple turned off by anyone once it is discovered.

 

[Redthistle]

Character class has a role to play in the Investigation vs. Perception choice, and a PC's relative levels of Int vs. Wis.

Not everyone is going to have high stats in both of those. Many PCs are going to have one of them that's better than the other. Even untrained, such characters will simply be inclined to go with their strong suits.

Here's some comparison/contrasts between the two skills that, imo, display their respective "flavor":

Investigation is bookish; Perception is outside playing sports.

Investigation is analytic; Perception is the mental equivalent of fast-twitch muscles.

Investigation is the still surface of the stream with the current running deep; Perception is white-water rapids.

Investigation is the House; Perception is the card-counter playing the hand dealt.

Investigation includes time spent outside the present moment, contemplating possible connections between seemingly unconnected things, that paves the way for that momentary flash of genius when the linkages become apparent; Perception is more about "what you see is what you get".

Investigation is relatively slower than Perception.

Insight gained from experience informs both Investigation and Perception.

Where Investigation is the Aged and Perception is the Young, ironically, Investigation is seemingly the child of Insight and Perception.

Investigation is going over game films to prepare for the next game; Perception is "Game On!"

Perception asks, "What?" Investigation asks, "What, and why?"

Investigation is downtime put to work; Perception is downtime spent back at the casino.

 

[MrHotter]

I've found that players will want to use perception for everything that someone may think would be an investigation check. Unless of course they trained in investigation, and then they will want to use that instead of perception.

I've simplified my life by removing the investigation skill and having perception be based on intelligence or wisdom. Sometimes it's players choice and other times I'm more specific on when the perception check is part of an intelligence or wisdom check.

I don't want my Sherlock Holmes type of players to need to use wisdom/perception much more often than their intelligence/investigation.

 

[iserith]

If you are telegraphing your hidden dangers and objects when you describe the environment - and I highly recommend you do - then this becomes very easy to adjudicate. Telegraphing is when you include a clue in your description of the environment that suggests there may be a hidden danger or object present. If you're not already doing this, give it a try. In addition to setting up a fair challenge for the players, it makes it easy to figure out which ability checks to call for based on what your players describe they want to do.

So let's say in your description of a chamber in the dungeon, you telegraph the existence of a trap by mentioning a scorch mark on the wall opposite a locked wooden door. "What do you do?" you ask the players, prompting their 3rd-level characters to action. Player A says he wants to quickly examine the door for traps before attempting to open it. He's paranoid about door traps in dungeons, but doesn't want to spend much time on it as the party is in a hurry. Player B establishes that she wants her character to deduce what the scorch mark could mean given its position on the wall. The DM, knowing a carefully hidden fire trap exists on the stone door, figures that both actions by the characters have an uncertain outcome.

Because Player A trying to detect the presence of a hidden object (a trap), it is appropriate for the DM to call for a Wisdom (Perception) check. Player B is trying to deduce the meaning of a clue (the scorch mark) and this is a good place for an Intelligence (Investigation) check. The DM sets the DC based on the circumstances and the players' stated approaches to their goals: DC 15 for the Wisdom (Perception) check, DC 10 for the Intelligence (Investigation) check. Player A botches the roll and finds nothing - it's going to take more than a cursory examination to find this trap. Player B aces the check and the DM tells her that the scorch mark comes from flame likely ejected from the area of the door. Notice the difference here between searching (Perception) and deducing (Investigation).

Now the players have two pieces of information on which to base their next decision: (1) A cursory examination revealed no traps and (2) the scorch mark indicates fire having come from the area of the door sometime in the past. At this point they may decide to spend time as a resource (10x normal) to make an exhaustive search of the door to find the trap they suspect is there (auto-success). Or they may give their barbarian friend a potion of fire resistance and have him bash the door down to save time. Or the party's wizard might hit the door with a knock spell, then mage hand to open it up while everyone remains a safe distance away. Or...

Anyway, that's how I do it. Note also that the players did not ask to make ability checks - they simply described what they wanted to do (goal and approach) and the DM decided whether that called for an ability check or not.

 

[CHEMISTSDP]

I think this is an excellent articulation of the differentiation of the Perception/Investigation dichotomy. Well said!

 

[JonnyP71]

I've found that players will want to use perception for everything that someone may think would be an investigation check. Unless of course they trained in investigation, and then they will want to use that instead of perception.

That's where you need to be firm. The DM decides whether or not a roll is required, and what skill the roll is against - based on the problem in question and the players' actions. The player does not decide.

 

[Sacrosanct]

As others have said, I treat them differently for the same reasons. I also use the two very often in games. Perception allows you to notice that movement over there, or a trip wire here. It doesn't help you at all when trying to figure out a puzzle or riddle or how something functions. investigation (recollection) and insight (understanding) does that.

This reminds me of that old INT vs WIS debate, and how a lot of people overlapped the two. "Intelligence tells you it's raining. Wisdom tells you to find shelter from the rain."

"Perception tells you that the butler had a weird eye twitch. Investigation tells you that he's lying, and why his story is inconsistent." Insight is another that people might overlap, but it's different in that it gives you an intuitive understanding without needing evidence. So...

"Perception tells you that the butler had a weird eye twitch. Investigation tells you that he's lying, and why his story is inconsistent. Insight tells you that there may be an underlying reason why the butler is lying, such as being blackmailed or something."

Perception = environment
Investigation = facts
Insight = empathy and understanding of motives

 

[Einlanzer0]

I get the feeling it's supposed to be a little nebulous, in large part because "figuring things out" realistically would involve both Intelligence and Wisdom in a lot of situations. Even though it doesn't exactly seem to be what they were going for, I generally think of perception as more passive and investigation as more active, even to the point that I've almost decided to house-rule Perception out as an actual skill and replace it with something else, letting it just exist as a passive mechanic with racial and situational modifiers (I'm a big fan of a "composure" concept for Wisdom for social situations and to counter madness)