Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Shadowdweller00" data-source="post: 7072295" data-attributes="member: 6778479">Ill-considered presumption that accurate and expansive information regarding deadly and/or obscure monsters is readily available on your part.  Check is relevant because it might inform the players that they can and maybe SHOULD avert their eyes before they start needing to save vs petrification.Ignorant presumption that they know who the BBEG is or have other leads.  Or that there is no opportunity cost to making use of alternatives.Intended meaning - one single check to differentiate the possibilities made per character.  No locking involved.  Perception/wisdom implies noticing hidden details, not differentiating or inferring information based on function.Wrong, as listed in both PHB and DMG.  Perception = notice new details; Investigation = drawing conclusions based on existing / already noticed details.Presumes items present and/or already made which was NOT stated.  Intended implication was that they were not - that the character is gathering information based purely on ingredients, retorts, glassware, and other tools or intermediary products.Flat-out wrong.  Checks in combat may be useful because they potentially affect tactics - use of particular weapons and/or attacks.  Most parties aren't so loaded down with magic items that everyone possesses both magical melee and ranged weapons.  Out of combat, you're making an idiotic presumption that 1) research is realistically feasible and that information is available (e.g. DM might decide that research is ineffective outside a library), 2) that research by anyone else would yield the same information.Evidently you missed the subtext.  Insight doesn't decipher codes.Just like all of us here in the US would recognize all the state flags?  Or those in the EU would recognize region-specific flags?  Travelers from far off and exotic locations?  Yeah...no.  Both "vital" and its lesser cousin, "solidly useful," are dependent on the specific information - which was not provided.  Making this yet another baseless presumption on your part.  Noticing a theme here?Subjective value-judgments aside, there are clear differences in the skill descriptions in spite of some overlap and/or inconsistent use of the two skills in assorted adventures.  Naturally YMMV, but how I personally run things would be to give different information based on what check was used.  Perception might discern a draught of air, an oily smudge on the wall, or a suspicious joint/seam in the surroundings.  Investigation would identify that as a secret door rather than a trap or mere sign of disturbance.Might or might not depending on whether the watch feels the need to inspect every single individual entering the town, whether the PCs have any familiarity with the area, how long they may have been there, whether the PCs know enough about the local culture to be aware of where laws are posted, and/or how inherently reasonable local law enforcement happens to be.As well as what resistances the creature has.  And how the creature behaves.  Yes, I'm sure the PCs have prepared properly for dealing with all possible energy types and that an unresisted dragon's breath makes no difference <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/ponder.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":hmm:" title="Hmmm    :hmm:" data-shortname=":hmm:" />  Arbitrary?  Do you imagine that most lawyers would be able to describe how a loudspeaker works?  That your average chef would be able to elaborate on the specifics of lung parenchyma?  Do you imagine that a fantasy-medieval world with feuding magical wizards, powerful magical beings with vested interests in outsiders NOT learning their secrets, high average mortality rates, and even more complicated physical realities (due to magic) would be any different?Degree of failure.  Obviously, we know the device is unimportant because the PCs can't identify it, right?  And surely if the device is magic or partly magic the PCs can just wave their fingers and completely know its entire function without any possible adverse effects because the that's the way most divination spells work and because device is obviously harmless, yes?  Or they could just pool their thoughts together, because after losing fingers and suffering other unpleasant effects after repeatedly prodding the device they surely know which of them REALLY understands the thing, right?  Did you actually bother thinking...any...of that through?Hey, you know what?  You're free to DM games as you see fit and interpret the rules as you prefer at your table.  And that's fine.  But a person doesn't have any business proclaiming that the system is broken when they personally choose to make intelligence-based checks worthless at their own table.</blockquote>

Verification