D&D General Perception vs Investigation

[TorgoTheWhite]

Yeah, it's one of the issues I have with mental ability scores in general. At what point do you draw the line from what the numbers seem to be implying and the player's own abilities? I used to have a guy in my group who was very good at solving puzzles, and any time an adventure included one, it was rare that he didn't instantly clue in on the answer.

Given that many puzzles and riddles are intended to test the player (and many DM's take a dim view of "rolling" to solve such), it's hard to say "hang on, would your character be able to solve things that quickly?", especially since "Intelligence 13" doesn't really mean anything beyond "+1 on Int based rolls".

I mean, how could anyone say "well, Int 13 isn't enough to solve this puzzle but Int 15 is" without having to admit that they're being completely arbitrary about it? DM's don't want you playing your character as being smarter than their ability scores would imply, but are equally loathe to give players a free pass when playing characters smarter or wiser than they are, a sort of "ability score paradox".

I frequently have those mental "loremaster" types of abilities as a contingency on game stallout situations... I do like challenging players, but it can be very nice to also let the 'intel' character move things forward with smart rolls when they want to sip a cocktail but still be the "brains"... nice little last-ditch option for DM intervention, I still make them connect very rudimentary dots though unless they are critical success

 

[DavyGreenwind]

Also important, the skills aren't mutually exclusive. There's some things that either work for; different people solving the same problem with different skills. Using deduction to solve something others use intuition or awareness for, and vice versa.

 

[Charlaquin]

Ah, that makes sense.

I just assume an Investigation check that finds the trap also determines how it works. Then a thieves' tools check can be used to disarm it. If it's more of a hidden puzzle that can't be disarmed with thieves's tools, I'd probably try to give them the info they need with the check, and if thats not the case then its probably a more complex puzzle that is for the players. to have fun with rather than to overcome with a roll. I might allow an additional Investigation check to get clues as to specific components of a complex puzzle, but that gets into the while other topic of how to keep skills useful while still allowing puzzles for players, not just their characters.

In general I try not to require multiple rolls for the same simple challenge or task, because it greatly reduces the chance of success. In fact, both an Investigation and then thieves' tools check is already pushing it to the limit of my double jeopardy tolerance, but I don't want to eliminate either of those components. Prepending a Perception check is reducing the likelihood of success even more, in addition to leaving too much functionality inside Perception.

I fundamentally agree that it’s best not to have multiple successful rolls required for a single task. I just consider “find the trap,” “figure out how the trap works” and “disable the trap” to all be separate tasks. It’s also worth noting that none of these tasks actually require a successful roll to complete. If I’m doing my job as DM well, it should be entirely possible to do all of them without needing a single roll. Again, the skills exist as insurance against failure, in the event that you’re not able to eliminate the possibility of failure through your approach.