D&D General Perception vs Investigation

[AlViking]

Well, we need stats for physical abilities, to resolve physical tasks through game mechanics.

No, but you can only think of things you can think of, so in a game about making decisions as you imagine your character would, your character can’t make smart decisions if you can’t. That’s just the reality of the medium.

Sure, but we don’t actually need stats for that. At least not stats for “intelligence” and “wisdom.” That really has more to do with the character’s background and experiences, which skills have covered.

There’s no issue to playing someone you’re not. I agree that’s at least half the point of the game, arguably the whole point. We don’t need to be constraining roleplay with numerical stats for mental abilities. Just roleplay.

I just disagree, in a game where spells are dependent on a stat, we need numbers. It's not about making decisions, nobody expects the player of a genius to actually be a genius any more than they expect a player with a character with high dex to suddenly start juggling chainsaws.

It's no different to me than strength or charisma so we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[TorgoTheWhite]

I think maybe I use them a bit differently. With the Investigate skill pertaining to 'how things work'.. 'Study' action vs. 'Search' helps me sort them.

The way I DM them often; feels like one is about finding an unknown. The other (investigation) is working more with known commodities... so finding the hidden scrolls rack. OK, the scroll rack has been found, does one of these scrolls pertain to us? (Investigate).... The script is there, in plain sight, but what is it saying?(inv). I see the monster already, what can this monster do? (Inv). Found the trap already.. how does it disarm/work? (Inv), honestly, I feel like many cases, perc should come up front, then comes investigation. Though in my game I involve many situations where the scene is thoroughly described and what you see is what you get-so investigation is actually more useful to actually gain useful info from a scene... I've had many magic items in plain sight get passed over now due to many a player not-programmed to investigate

 

[TorgoTheWhite]

The scene is littered with plain-sight items, you perceive the non-scorched boots... and with an active perception roll in the 20's... you still perceive the same boots, they were never hidden... now synthesize the information (intelligence) with investigation and you deduce they are some magic flameproof deal.

This is the way I picture the difference anywho. But back in 3.5 and before, when you used it to search more, I'd say the differentiation was much more poor

 

[Hriston]

Okay... so, correct me if I am wrong here. I'm used to how the old D20 system handling perception. The perception skill was used for finding traps, secret doors, that journal hidden in the alchemists lab, whether you were being followed and spotting ambushes on the road ahead. D&D 5th adds the investigation skill which feels like it is used when asking questions around town, spending the day in the great library to find out the history of the mysterious tower or perusing the accounts ledges of the dodgy auction house.

A couple of players in one of my two 2024 campaigns have asked about using investigation to search rooms for secret doors, hidden treasure...etc, when they take their uninterrupted time rather than using perception. I get what they are saying, in that they have all the time they need to do so thus making investigation more appropriate, but my DM brain finds that clunky when perception already exists for that purpose. Even if I give them advantage for taking their time.

Thus far I have said yes, fine, but is this right and my brain is just stuck with concepts from an older edition?

I don't know about 5.2E (or d20 for that matter), but in 5.0E/5.1E the DM doesn't ask for a "skill check". They ask for an ability check to which a skill proficiency might apply, so this question is fundamentally about the difference between Intelligence and Wisdom. Provided a check is appropriate because the player's action declaration puts something at stake, the DM calls for an Intelligence check when a character draws on their memory or reasoning ability, whereas they call for a Wisdom check when a character relies on their awareness of things that are "unseen" in their surroundings. So normally, searching an area for secret doors or other hidden things could be resolved with a Wisdom check because searching involves looking and/or other means of careful examination in order to gain an awareness of things which are otherwise hidden. For an Intelligence check to be used, rather than search an area, I would expect the character either to attempt to remember information about the locations of hidden things to which they had been exposed in the past such as "I think back to my reading of the castle blueprints in the library to recall the location of the secret door" or "I recall my studies of the culture of this ancient people to deduce where they may have built a secret door," or to try to reason from available information about where something might be located such as "Given what I know about the duke, I try to deduce where he would hide his treasure."

Eta: I don't think the amount of time taken is relevant to this distinction.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

You know with something like this, what's really interesting is the often unstated (or unexamined) motivations for how we each choose to interpret it.

For me, for instance, what I care most about is trying to get a balance between skill usefulness. Since Perception is hugely useful for spotting enemies--its probably the most used and useful skill in the game--I remove anything I can think of from it to try to balance the skills better.

People never use Investigation to try to puzzle out info about things they are looking at in my games, so that makes it useless if that's what it's for. Whereas if I revert to the 3e Spot/Search equivalence and make Perception about creatures and Investigation about traps, secret doors, searching areas for hidden things, now there is much better usefulness balance between the skills.

Now, I do care about how the books describe the skills and what their names should mean. I just care so much more about skill balance I will bend, stretch, and break any of that other stuff to get it.

 

[Charlaquin]

You know with something like this, what's really interesting is the often unstated (or unexamined) motivations for how we each choose to interpret it.

For me, for instance, what I care most about is trying to get a balance between skill usefulness. Since Perception is hugely useful for spotting enemies--its probably the most used and useful skill in the game--I remove anything I can think of from it to try to balance the skills better.

People never use Investigation to try to puzzle out info about things they are looking at in my games, so that makes it useless if that's what it's for. Whereas if I revert to the 3e Spot/Search equivalence and make Perception about creatures and Investigation about traps, secret doors, searching areas for hidden things, now there is much better usefulness balance between the skills.

Now, I do care about how the books describe the skills and what their names should mean. I just care so much more about skill balance I will bend, stretch, and break any of that other stuff to get it.

Makes sense. One thing I notice is that your phrasing, “People never use Investigation to try to puzzle out info about things they are looking at in my games” seems to imply that it’s primarily your players who are initiating checks. In that context, it makes sense that you would want to give each skill a function that players are likely to want to ask to utilize. Whereas, in my games it’s me asking the players to make checks as part of resolving their declared actions. In that context, a skill is not an action you take but an insurance policy against failing at a subset of tasks, and in that context, some skills having more niche applications than others is fine.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Makes sense. One thing I notice is that your phrasing, “People never use Investigation to try to puzzle out info about things they are looking at in my games” seems to imply that it’s primarily your players who are initiating checks. In that context, it makes sense that you would want to give each skill a function that players are likely to want to ask to utilize. Whereas, in my games it’s me asking the players to make checks as part of resolving their declared actions. In that context, a skill is not an action you take but an insurance policy against failing at a subset of tasks, and in that context, some skills having more niche applications than others is fine.

I actually tell my players not to ask to make a check in D&D, because I might just let them succeed without it. "Asking to roll is asking to fail." I just find there aren't a lot of times when they are asking questions that would require an Investigation check to interpret, if Investigation means looking at something and trying to figure out what's going on. They just talk amongst themselves and try to figure that stuff out. What I do see are things more like "Do I recognize this symbol?" In my game that would be more of an Arcana, History, or Religion check (depending on the symbol).

 

[Charlaquin]

I actually tell my players not to ask to make a check in D&D, because I might just let them succeed without it. "Asking to roll is asking to fail." I just find there aren't a lot of times when they are asking questions that would require an Investigation check to interpret, if Investigation means looking at something and trying to figure out what's going on. They just talk amongst themselves and try to figure that stuff out. What I do see are things more like "Do I recognize this symbol?" In my game that would be more of an Arcana, History, or Religion check (depending on the symbol).

Oh, ok, sorry for the misunderstanding. I do see what you mean, Investigation checks do get called for a lot less often than Perception checks at my table as well. One thing that they do get used for though is dealing with traps, secret doors, and other such mechanisms. Any time a player studies such a mechanism to try to figure out how it works, that generally requires an investigation check. And if your character knows how a mechanism works, they can try to disable it. It’s therefore useful particularly any time players want to disarm a trap but don’t have any ideas how to go about doing so. It’s kinda the “I don’t have a solution to this but I think my character should be able to figure one out” skill, at least in that sort of situation.

 

[Hriston]

You know with something like this, what's really interesting is the often unstated (or unexamined) motivations for how we each choose to interpret it.

For me, for instance, what I care most about is trying to get a balance between skill usefulness. Since Perception is hugely useful for spotting enemies--its probably the most used and useful skill in the game--I remove anything I can think of from it to try to balance the skills better.

People never use Investigation to try to puzzle out info about things they are looking at in my games, so that makes it useless if that's what it's for. Whereas if I revert to the 3e Spot/Search equivalence and make Perception about creatures and Investigation about traps, secret doors, searching areas for hidden things, now there is much better usefulness balance between the skills.

Now, I do care about how the books describe the skills and what their names should mean. I just care so much more about skill balance I will bend, stretch, and break any of that other stuff to get it.

For me, it's about the story told by each ability (and each skill) -- that the story of Intelligence is different from the story of Wisdom. Intelligence (Investigation) can be used to resolve attempts to deduce the locations of hidden things, but it has many more applications than that.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Oh, ok, sorry for the misunderstanding. I do see what you mean, Investigation checks do get called for a lot less often than Perception checks at my table as well. One thing that they do get used for though is dealing with traps, secret doors, and other such mechanisms. Any time a player studies such a mechanism to try to figure out how it works, that generally requires an investigation check. And if your character knows how a mechanism works, they can try to disable it. It’s therefore useful particularly any time players want to disarm a trap but don’t have any ideas how to go about doing so. It’s kinda the “I don’t have a solution to this but I think my character should be able to figure one out” skill, at least in that sort of situation.

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.