Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="lkwpeter" data-source="post: 7053034" data-attributes="member: 6804713">Hey all,there were times, where a lot of players had problems to differ between Perception and Investigation (maybe some people still do). But after some time it was quite clear:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Perception means noticing things (through senses like spotting, hearing, tasting, etc.)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">while Investigation means deduction based on evidence.</li> </ul>So much so far.A couple of weeks ago, WotC released <a href="http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/traps-revisited" target="_blank">Unearthed Arcana Traps Revisited</a> that includes playtest rules for traps. Reading it, I realized that they call for either a Perception check or an Investigation check to avoid the trap. The rules state:For the moment, this sounds plausible, but wouldn't an Investigation check require noticing those hints at first? What if a character doesn't see the evidence? Then it wouldn't be able to make deductions from it. And "scuff marks on a doorknob" are not so obvious that they doesn't require a Perception check, because they are an "auto success", are they? It's even getting more confusing by the following example, given on page 2 (and there are more example like this within the rules):The descriptions speaks of "faint burn marks". So why is there no Perception check required to notice them? Usually "faint" indicates that something is "hard to see", isn't it? Contrary to this, "a DC 15 Intelligence (Investigation) check reveals ash and faint burn marks", although revealing requires Perception, not deduction (Investigation)!So, it seems like WotC somehow handles those checks as if there would only be either one of them valid. But wouldn't it be much more plausible to require both checks for <ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">noticing a trap (by senses) and</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">make deductions from those clues (if they are not obvious).</li> </ol>In my view, deduction can only be made, if the evidence has already been noticed/spotted!I like the new rules about traps, but I think WotC should overthink this point. It seems like their intention of keeping the game simple is actually making it confusing (again). Why not setting two DCs for each trap - one for perception and one for investigation. If things are really obvious (e.g. a pit trap with spears inside it), the DC for Investigation/Perception is low. But at least, that would be consistent.Would be interested in your opinions.RegardsPeter</blockquote>

Verification