Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="lkwpeter" data-source="post: 7053750" data-attributes="member: 6804713">CAN WE PLEASE STOP DISCUSSING THE DEFINITIONS OF PERCEPTION AND INVESTIGATION?The skills are clear. And they are even clearer when reading the UA explanation I quoted. The problem is not the usage of any of those. The problem is that the <a href="http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/traps-revisited" target="_blank">Unearthed Arcana Traps Revisited</a> article only asks for either one check (Perception OR Investigation) depending of the type of trap (e.g. trip wire = Perception; faint smoke shape = Investigation). My intention was to point out that it is not consistent to ask for only one of those checks. Instead, any trap must usually include both checks:Examples:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Trip Wire: The wire is very hard to spot, so the Perception check might be around DC 20. After you have noticed it, it is quite clear that it's a piece of a trap. So investigating it would require a really low DC of 5.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Doorknob triggers trap: The scuffs and wear pattern require advanced deduction to find out this is a trap and how it works. So the Investigation check might be around DC 20. But realizing them is still no auto success, because a character doesn't realize any detail of its surroundings automatically. So it would require a medium DC of 10-15 to perceive those hints, before being able to deduce them via Investigation.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Fiery Trap: The Fiery trap's description speaks of "faint ash marks". Faint means "not obvious". So again, the outcome to spot is uncertain. And that means, it should require a Perception check at first, followed by an Investigation check to deduce those facts to realize, it's a trap.</li> </ul>AGAIN: I am not arguing the definition of those skills. I am arguing the point that any trap and any detail which is uncertain to perceive normally requires a Perception check. But these rules handle traps that require deduction (via Investigation) as if any of those details would automatically been perceived. And that is not consistent. In my view, ANY trap should require:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">a Perception check ranging from DC 1 to 30, depend of the level of concealment of trap details. These details are perceived via hearing, spotting, etc. This check reveals details, but doesn't tell the character it's a trap.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">In addition, there is a need of an Investigation check ranging from DC 1 to 30, depend of the level of deduction needed to interpret those details, hints, evidences as being a trap.</li> </ul>This also makes it possible to take circumstances into account that make perceiving more difficult. Because even a low DC can be hard to succeed, if the characters are distracted or exhausted, any trap should require a Perception check at first.Player knowledge vs. character knowledge It's only a guess, but maybe the real problem is a different: It seems like WotC wants to avoid that details perceived by Perception are automatically interpret by the Players. E.g. a character succeeds on a perception check and the DM tells the player: "Your character spots faint burn marks". I guess, most of the Players would realize, it's a trap and continue acting in great care. So they make the Investigation check for its Character obsolet by deducing informations as a Player. Maybe this is the real reason, why WotC doesn't ask for both checks. But that's not satisfying though. Regards.</blockquote>

Verification