D&D 5E Perception vs Investigate

[77IM]

I'm going to come out and say I allow both to work and I actually like overlapping skills.

1) Allowing skills to overlap makes it more likely for a PC to use their good modifier, which makes them more likely to succeed, which generally moves the story forward better.

2) Allowing two different skills to achieve the same task lets different PCs highlight their different approaches (even if the end result is largely the same) which can help differentiate PCs and avoid cookie-cutter builds.

3) Allowing overlap means I don't have to spend as much time thinking about whether the skill is appropriate or explaining why the skill the player wants to use won't work in this case.

I mean I obviously draw the line somewhere and don't allow a PC to use a skill that doesn't make any sense for the task they are attempting. But if it does make sense, I don't sweat the possibility that some other skill might also make sense.

(Examples of overlaps I've seen: Perception vs. Investigation; Nature vs. Survival; Athletics vs. Acrobatics; Arcana vs. History vs. Religion, depending on the subject; Animal Handling vs. Vehicles(land); Deception vs. Intimidation, if your threat is a bluff; Investigation vs. Medicine for examining a body)

 

[Olive]

I'm going to come out and say I allow both to work and I actually like overlapping skills.

I think this is how I think about it as well... although in te trap case it's pretty clear cut: perception for some, investigation for others and arcana for magical.

 

[thalmin]

I tend to fall back on the 3E skills, Spot (Perception) vs Search (Investigate), even though the skill descriptions don't really match up. In 3E, search (which was Intelligence based) was used when you actively looked for something. Spot (Wisdom based) helped you notice something out of place; or see something almost too small or far away for the average person to detect.
But, yes it does mean that the rogue needs intelligence, too. No stat should be just a dump stat, so I am fine with this.

 

[Prakriti]

3) Allowing overlap means I don't have to spend as much time thinking about whether the skill is appropriate or explaining why the skill the player wants to use won't work in this case.

I agree with this. If I ever need to decide between Perception and Investigation, my rule is that Perception is for five-senses stuff (looking and listening), while Investigation is for tactile searching (touching and moving things). So it depends on what the character is doing: merely observing or actively searching.

 

[iserith]

It sounds like some of you have players that ask to make ability checks or say something like "I want to make an Investigate check to..." at which point you have to decide whether the skill the player wants to use applies to the goal they are trying to achieve. Rather than the player describing what he or she wants to do and the DM deciding whether or not that calls for an ability check and which skill proficiency, if any, applies.

 

[Sunseeker]

I typically use investigate to find detailed information, while perception notices more general things. Sure, you might use your perception to see the trap, but you'll use investigate to figure out how the trap works.

 

[flametitan]

According to the DMG, perception finds doors, investigation opens them.

In context to traps, I would translate this to be "certain tiles seem to be dustier than others, while numerous small holes open down the side of the left wall."

Investigation would be: "Judging by how ever so slightly uneven the dusty tiles are relative to the others, and the soot looking stains on the wall opposite the holes, you suspect that the tiles are pressure plates, presumably from the now long defunct ACME corporation, which when press sets fire to the poor fool who dared to walk across."

Both tell you to be careful, but one tells you the nature of why you should be careful.

I also tend to use their passive versions a lot outside of combat, so that the game can keep moving forward without having people roll.

 

[Jester David]

I use Perception for being able to physically see something that is hard to spot.
I use Investigation for connecting details and noticing the visible.

It's seeing versus noticing. It's Robin Hood versus Sherlock Holmes. Daredevil versus Batman.

Hearing whispers, seeing distant figures, smelling faint smoke, sensing fine changes in the rock are all Perception.
Deducing scratch marks point to a hidden door, noticing the footprints move around a spot in the floor or skip a step, detecting a patern in the motions of swinging blades are all Investigation.

 

[robus]

It sounds like some of you have players that ask to make ability checks or say something like "I want to make an Investigate check to..." at which point you have to decide whether the skill the player wants to use applies to the goal they are trying to achieve. Rather than the player describing what he or she wants to do and the DM deciding whether or not that calls for an ability check and which skill proficiency, if any, applies.

Right, the approach determines the appropriate ability/skill.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

It sounds like some of you have players that ask to make ability checks or say something like "I want to make an Investigate check to..." at which point you have to decide whether the skill the player wants to use applies to the goal they are trying to achieve. Rather than the player describing what he or she wants to do and the DM deciding whether or not that calls for an ability check and which skill proficiency, if any, applies.

It sounds like you think this is an important distinction, and that there's a right way and a wrong way to approach skill checks.

It isn't, and there isn't. No need to navel-gaze about the fine points of roleplaying protocol. It doesn't answer the question of "What's up with Investigate and Perception?", anyway.