So one of my players (whose old character died recently) rolled out his fresh character. Its a Inquisitive Rogue based around being a detective of sorts. With a combination of his Mark of Detection Half Elf feature "Deductive Intuition" and "Eye for Detail" from the rogue (and expertise obviously), he consistently rolls 20+ investigation checks.
The problem is from Eye for Detail. It states "make an Intelligence (Investigation) check to uncover or decipher clues." So he's under the impression that if he rolls well (easy to do) I need to tell him the answer to the puzzle/mystery. But that just seems way to anti fun for everyone else if he can solve all noncombat problems with one roll. But I also dont want to cheat him out of his class feature.
I know I can add some clues to give out to satiate his checks, but thats not always possible. Where they've been exploring recently, there are numerous puzzles designed for the players themselves to solve (logic puzzles and the like), so any clues would immediately give away the answer.
Also its not just investigation, he's got good/great skill bonuses for most skills. The party all hit level 9 at the end of last session.
So TL:DR- How do you deal with a player trying to beat all noncombat with a super high skill character (especially investigation checks)? Also, any advice for how you have/would deal(t) with the Rogues Eye for Detail ability.
To me, Eye for Detail is a combat / time sensitive encounter utility feature. It's a thing used only when initiative is being tracked. For reference:
Eye for Detail: Starting at 3rd level, you can use a bonus action to make a Wisdom (Perception) check to spot a hidden creature or object or to make an Intelligence (Investigation) check to uncover or decipher clues.
In essence this feature gives a bonus action which the Inquisitive can use to take the Search action specifically for spotting a hidden creature/object or for checking clues.
Example 1. The players are trapped in a room with two locked doors and a Stone Golem. Roll Initiative. The Inquisitive Rogue could engage to fight the golem, use its action to make attack rolls, and then spend a bonus action to search for clues on how to unlock the doors. Meanwhile, the Fighter and Wizard can use an action to either attack the golem or to search for a way out, not both.
Example 2. The group needs to cross a cavern, but a group of goblins keep popping in, shooting them with arrows, and then hiding. The party Fighter and Wizard need to take the Search action if they want to spot one of the goblins, however, the Rogue Inquisitive can use a bonus action to Search for a goblin, and then use an action to take a shot at it with their hand crossbow or w/e.
Out of combat, Eye for Detail doesn't really do anything. I guess it could give the Inquisitive two Investigation checks on one turn, but what does that matter if you're not in an encounter? Remember that the success of an ability check doesn't increase just because you rolled high. If the DC of an Intelligence (investigation) roll is 14, and the Fighter rolls 3, the Wizard rolls 14, and the Rogue rolls a natural 20 -- technically, the fighter fails the roll, but the Wizard and the Rogue should learn the exact same information.
"So he's under the impression that if he rolls well (easy to do) I need to tell him the answer to the puzzle/mystery." You kind of answer your own question about this. That skill gives clues, not answers. I understand that you're saying if you give a clue it would give the answer away but, not trying to be harsh, that sounds like an issue with the puzzle itself. Could you provide an example so I have a better understanding of the kind of puzzle?
Also, Investigation isn't the be all end all for every puzzle. Is every puzzle about finding a hidden object? You could base puzzles on nature, magic, history...
So one of the puzzles they faced was a trap halway. Upon entering the empty alway through a door, they walk to the other end only to find a dead end with the words "keep your eyes on the wall" written. Upon walking back to the entrance, they discover the door is now gone. The solution is to watch the wall that used to have the door, and walk backwards into the hidden room.
I agree that the best solution is probably to just come up with better puzzles that can safely integrate clues. I just wanted to see if anyone had encountered a similar issue and how they dealt with it.
Most importantly, I want to make the rogue to feel like his skills are applicable and valuable, while keeping the game fun and engaging for everyone.
Thanks to those who offered some insight into my dilemma. I feel most of the blame for the situation falls on me, as best solution is simply to make the game more detailed and fleshed out. Hopefully with more layers of detail there'll be enough to move the story along while still having plenty of extra info to dig up for those that are looking.
Well unfortunately as a DM pretty much everything falls on you :) lol... I don't think there's anything wrong with that puzzle. Something like that to conceal the secret door unless you walk backwards through it, I would think, would need some kind of magical means so maybe that could be given away as a clue even though it doesn't really reveal anything. For strict investigation I'd probably say something like "On close inspection of the floor it looks like there are more footprints going in one direction than the other" or maybe even "Through your keen sense of insight you notice there are odd scuffmarks on the floor" You could even elaborate saying "it looks like they go toe to heel" again not giving a whole lot away but indicating that there's something that needs to be done with your feet.
So one of the puzzles they faced was a trap halway. Upon entering the empty alway through a door, they walk to the other end only to find a dead end with the words "keep your eyes on the wall" written. Upon walking back to the entrance, they discover the door is now gone. The solution is to watch the wall that used to have the door, and walk backwards into the hidden room.
The writing on the dead end is a clue to the puzzle. The solution to the problem though may be to use fewer puzzles and more challenges of other sorts. There are plenty of non-combat challenges that can't be solved by knowing or interpreting information. Or create situations where knowing what needs to be done is only the first half of the puzzle, the second half is actually doing it.
The Player needs to accept that they're getting extra clues; that's it. They don't get answers, but they do pick out more details and clue than anyone else would. Clues are not conclusions. Sure - his eagle-eyed character is going to notice that the Sassanian ambassador is looking distinctly uncomfortable when then issue of the recent uptick in pirate activity off the Nessian Coast comes up in court - but that doesn't tell them why he's looking uncomfortable.
You - as a DM - actually have a really good opportunity for designing leading and enticing clues ( which you're pretty sure the Party is going to notice ) to point the Party at possible avenues to investigate and explore: the ambassador looks uncomfortable about this topic; there are faint scrape marks one the floor that lead to this wall and stop; there are fresh spatters of blood on this rock; a drop of water falls on the character from the ceiling ( odd, for a desert cave ); etc.
I agree with Lightspeed that Eye For Detail should really only be a combat utility - because outside of combat, this should be happening anyways. Player walks into a room, they'll likely just spot the clue. The only advantage they have here is the ability to notice things in high-action, high-stress, environments.
The DM needs to accept that the Player has a right to these clues. This is not an "Oh no, the Players are ruining my surprise!" moment - because I believe that the DM shouldn't have a vested interest in how things unfold.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
So one of the puzzles they faced was a trap halway. Upon entering the empty alway through a door, they walk to the other end only to find a dead end with the words "keep your eyes on the wall" written. Upon walking back to the entrance, they discover the door is now gone. The solution is to watch the wall that used to have the door, and walk backwards into the hidden room.
I agree that the best solution is probably to just come up with better puzzles that can safely integrate clues. I just wanted to see if anyone had encountered a similar issue and how they dealt with it.
Most importantly, I want to make the rogue to feel like his skills are applicable and valuable, while keeping the game fun and engaging for everyone.
You could potentially have dust from foot prints in an area where the PCs hadn't been, perhaps have the inquisitive feel like he's being watched by the wall that they're supposed to see and he notices that the door has be replaced by an eye. The super high investigation doesn't mean they discover everything immediately either. Sometimes, a person can be so hyper focused on something that they miss something obvious. Ask what kind of details they are looking for, where they are looking for them, and keep in mind that lighting can play tricks on the mind. When in doubt, make a table that you can roll on to determine the quality of the clue that they are looking for. This can include false clues (ah that looks like a trigger for a secret door! Here we go! Wait nothing happened.), things that nobody else picks up on but they aren't the actual answer. You could try an escape room to get ideas about how hard it can be to get all the answers even when they are all in the same room with you, though ymmv with that.
Your clues don't even need to be fully fleshed out, since as DxJxC said, the PCs can solve things that the players can't. Say that there are 12 clues in the room and that the party needs to find 8 of them. Have 3 of them booby trapped so that a trap is triggered (gas starts entering the room, a wall or the ceiling starts closing in, with or without a clear switch that would reset the trap). This would allow eye for detail to come into play, and you could give advantage to the inquisitives rolls to help them feel uber vigilant in finding the clues if the party triggers a trap before they have half of the needed clues.
A lot of people have posted this in various words but, to me, it boils down to a very simple thought process:
You are able to find clues with great ease, how to use those clues is still up to the player.
I disagree that this is better confined to combat situations. We've recently had a few threads that talk about high passive Perception and the Observant feat, this seems to fall into that category of making your responses nuanced to the situation.
The hallway with the door, one I've used before as well, you handled well. For this player, as others have noted, he'd notice clues that would point to something with the wear on the floor, tracks in the dust, maybe he'd notice a shimmer on the wall where the door is/was as he's pacing around. Perhaps he'd notice that there's something peculiar about the stones that have replaced the door, he may not understand the arcane nature, but he'd notice that the stone aren't "normal".
If we take the ever popular Sherlock Holmes and use it as an analogy here. When he looks at Watson for the first time he notices a great many clues about Watson. He deduces many things about Watson from these clues. However, as we learn later on, some of the deductions made from the clues that he saw were incorrect. It could be said that his Eye for Detail worked very well, but his deductions are a whole different skill set. The player can have all the pieces/clues to a puzzle because of Eye for Detail, but it is still up to the player as to how those pieces/clues are used.
The reason I think it's restricted to combat situations is that is otherwise giving the Player something - at cost - that I think they have anyway.
Eye for Detail: Starting at 3rd level, you can use a bonus action to make a Wisdom (Perception) check to spot a hidden creature or object or to make an Intelligence (Investigation) check to uncover or decipher clues.
A Character walks into a room - no matter whether you use automatic Passive Perception, or make them roll - they are making "a Wisdom (Perception) check to spot a hidden creature or object".
If outside of combat, why does it suddenly cost a bonus action to do something that is normally automatic, and how is this a gained benefit?
In the middle of combat, your attention is being used by other things! I would argue that a regular character isn't going to gain the benefits of noticing things they might with perception rolls - but hey, a super-super alert character - one with an Eye For Detail - might, with the expenditure of a little effort ( bonus action ).
I'm not trying to hobble Characters with an Eye for Detail outside of combat situations; I think that outside of those situations, everyone has that ability.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
If outside of combat, why does it suddenly cost a bonus action to do something that is normally automatic, and how is this a gained benefit?
I'm not trying to hobble Characters with an Eye for Detail outside of combat situations; I think that outside of those situations, everyone has that ability.
I don't think it's hobbling them in the least, I simply feel that ascribing "Bonus action" to something done outside of combat is a bit superfluous. There's no initiative, no reason to slow down game play with action economy. As you said it's automatic in a sense if you equate it to passive abilities however I don't see it as such. I see it as amplifying the active Investigation giving the player a leg up in regards to others similar to how Observant gives a leg up with passives.
So one of my players (whose old character died recently) rolled out his fresh character. Its a Inquisitive Rogue based around being a detective of sorts. With a combination of his Mark of Detection Half Elf feature "Deductive Intuition" and "Eye for Detail" from the rogue (and expertise obviously), he consistently rolls 20+ investigation checks.
The problem is from Eye for Detail. It states "make an Intelligence (Investigation) check to uncover or decipher clues." So he's under the impression that if he rolls well (easy to do) I need to tell him the answer to the puzzle/mystery. But that just seems way to anti fun for everyone else if he can solve all noncombat problems with one roll. But I also dont want to cheat him out of his class feature.
I know I can add some clues to give out to satiate his checks, but thats not always possible. Where they've been exploring recently, there are numerous puzzles designed for the players themselves to solve (logic puzzles and the like), so any clues would immediately give away the answer.
Also its not just investigation, he's got good/great skill bonuses for most skills. The party all hit level 9 at the end of last session.
So TL:DR- How do you deal with a player trying to beat all noncombat with a super high skill character (especially investigation checks)? Also, any advice for how you have/would deal(t) with the Rogues Eye for Detail ability.
Well, technically the characters could be able to solve puzzles the players can't.
As for the eye for detail, that aught to be able to have the clues/hints spelled out, but not necessarily give the answer.
To me, Eye for Detail is a combat / time sensitive encounter utility feature. It's a thing used only when initiative is being tracked.
For reference:
In essence this feature gives a bonus action which the Inquisitive can use to take the Search action specifically for spotting a hidden creature/object or for checking clues.
Example 1. The players are trapped in a room with two locked doors and a Stone Golem. Roll Initiative. The Inquisitive Rogue could engage to fight the golem, use its action to make attack rolls, and then spend a bonus action to search for clues on how to unlock the doors. Meanwhile, the Fighter and Wizard can use an action to either attack the golem or to search for a way out, not both.
Example 2. The group needs to cross a cavern, but a group of goblins keep popping in, shooting them with arrows, and then hiding. The party Fighter and Wizard need to take the Search action if they want to spot one of the goblins, however, the Rogue Inquisitive can use a bonus action to Search for a goblin, and then use an action to take a shot at it with their hand crossbow or w/e.
Out of combat, Eye for Detail doesn't really do anything. I guess it could give the Inquisitive two Investigation checks on one turn, but what does that matter if you're not in an encounter? Remember that the success of an ability check doesn't increase just because you rolled high. If the DC of an Intelligence (investigation) roll is 14, and the Fighter rolls 3, the Wizard rolls 14, and the Rogue rolls a natural 20 -- technically, the fighter fails the roll, but the Wizard and the Rogue should learn the exact same information.
Hope this was helpful.
"So he's under the impression that if he rolls well (easy to do) I need to tell him the answer to the puzzle/mystery." You kind of answer your own question about this. That skill gives clues, not answers. I understand that you're saying if you give a clue it would give the answer away but, not trying to be harsh, that sounds like an issue with the puzzle itself. Could you provide an example so I have a better understanding of the kind of puzzle?
Also, Investigation isn't the be all end all for every puzzle. Is every puzzle about finding a hidden object? You could base puzzles on nature, magic, history...
That's what happens when you wear a helmet your whole life!
My house rules
So one of the puzzles they faced was a trap halway. Upon entering the empty alway through a door, they walk to the other end only to find a dead end with the words "keep your eyes on the wall" written. Upon walking back to the entrance, they discover the door is now gone. The solution is to watch the wall that used to have the door, and walk backwards into the hidden room.
I agree that the best solution is probably to just come up with better puzzles that can safely integrate clues. I just wanted to see if anyone had encountered a similar issue and how they dealt with it.
Most importantly, I want to make the rogue to feel like his skills are applicable and valuable, while keeping the game fun and engaging for everyone.
Thanks to those who offered some insight into my dilemma. I feel most of the blame for the situation falls on me, as best solution is simply to make the game more detailed and fleshed out. Hopefully with more layers of detail there'll be enough to move the story along while still having plenty of extra info to dig up for those that are looking.
Well unfortunately as a DM pretty much everything falls on you :) lol... I don't think there's anything wrong with that puzzle. Something like that to conceal the secret door unless you walk backwards through it, I would think, would need some kind of magical means so maybe that could be given away as a clue even though it doesn't really reveal anything. For strict investigation I'd probably say something like "On close inspection of the floor it looks like there are more footprints going in one direction than the other" or maybe even "Through your keen sense of insight you notice there are odd scuffmarks on the floor" You could even elaborate saying "it looks like they go toe to heel" again not giving a whole lot away but indicating that there's something that needs to be done with your feet.
Hope that's helpful.
That's what happens when you wear a helmet your whole life!
My house rules
The writing on the dead end is a clue to the puzzle. The solution to the problem though may be to use fewer puzzles and more challenges of other sorts. There are plenty of non-combat challenges that can't be solved by knowing or interpreting information. Or create situations where knowing what needs to be done is only the first half of the puzzle, the second half is actually doing it.
The Player needs to accept that they're getting extra clues; that's it. They don't get answers, but they do pick out more details and clue than anyone else would. Clues are not conclusions. Sure - his eagle-eyed character is going to notice that the Sassanian ambassador is looking distinctly uncomfortable when then issue of the recent uptick in pirate activity off the Nessian Coast comes up in court - but that doesn't tell them why he's looking uncomfortable.
You - as a DM - actually have a really good opportunity for designing leading and enticing clues ( which you're pretty sure the Party is going to notice ) to point the Party at possible avenues to investigate and explore: the ambassador looks uncomfortable about this topic; there are faint scrape marks one the floor that lead to this wall and stop; there are fresh spatters of blood on this rock; a drop of water falls on the character from the ceiling ( odd, for a desert cave ); etc.
I agree with Lightspeed that Eye For Detail should really only be a combat utility - because outside of combat, this should be happening anyways. Player walks into a room, they'll likely just spot the clue. The only advantage they have here is the ability to notice things in high-action, high-stress, environments.
The DM needs to accept that the Player has a right to these clues. This is not an "Oh no, the Players are ruining my surprise!" moment - because I believe that the DM shouldn't have a vested interest in how things unfold.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
You could potentially have dust from foot prints in an area where the PCs hadn't been, perhaps have the inquisitive feel like he's being watched by the wall that they're supposed to see and he notices that the door has be replaced by an eye. The super high investigation doesn't mean they discover everything immediately either. Sometimes, a person can be so hyper focused on something that they miss something obvious. Ask what kind of details they are looking for, where they are looking for them, and keep in mind that lighting can play tricks on the mind. When in doubt, make a table that you can roll on to determine the quality of the clue that they are looking for. This can include false clues (ah that looks like a trigger for a secret door! Here we go! Wait nothing happened.), things that nobody else picks up on but they aren't the actual answer. You could try an escape room to get ideas about how hard it can be to get all the answers even when they are all in the same room with you, though ymmv with that.
Your clues don't even need to be fully fleshed out, since as DxJxC said, the PCs can solve things that the players can't. Say that there are 12 clues in the room and that the party needs to find 8 of them. Have 3 of them booby trapped so that a trap is triggered (gas starts entering the room, a wall or the ceiling starts closing in, with or without a clear switch that would reset the trap). This would allow eye for detail to come into play, and you could give advantage to the inquisitives rolls to help them feel uber vigilant in finding the clues if the party triggers a trap before they have half of the needed clues.
A lot of people have posted this in various words but, to me, it boils down to a very simple thought process:
You are able to find clues with great ease, how to use those clues is still up to the player.
I disagree that this is better confined to combat situations. We've recently had a few threads that talk about high passive Perception and the Observant feat, this seems to fall into that category of making your responses nuanced to the situation.
The hallway with the door, one I've used before as well, you handled well. For this player, as others have noted, he'd notice clues that would point to something with the wear on the floor, tracks in the dust, maybe he'd notice a shimmer on the wall where the door is/was as he's pacing around. Perhaps he'd notice that there's something peculiar about the stones that have replaced the door, he may not understand the arcane nature, but he'd notice that the stone aren't "normal".
If we take the ever popular Sherlock Holmes and use it as an analogy here. When he looks at Watson for the first time he notices a great many clues about Watson. He deduces many things about Watson from these clues. However, as we learn later on, some of the deductions made from the clues that he saw were incorrect. It could be said that his Eye for Detail worked very well, but his deductions are a whole different skill set. The player can have all the pieces/clues to a puzzle because of Eye for Detail, but it is still up to the player as to how those pieces/clues are used.
The reason I think it's restricted to combat situations is that is otherwise giving the Player something - at cost - that I think they have anyway.
Eye for Detail: Starting at 3rd level, you can use a bonus action to make a Wisdom (Perception) check to spot a hidden creature or object or to make an Intelligence (Investigation) check to uncover or decipher clues.
A Character walks into a room - no matter whether you use automatic Passive Perception, or make them roll - they are making "a Wisdom (Perception) check to spot a hidden creature or object".
If outside of combat, why does it suddenly cost a bonus action to do something that is normally automatic, and how is this a gained benefit?
In the middle of combat, your attention is being used by other things! I would argue that a regular character isn't going to gain the benefits of noticing things they might with perception rolls - but hey, a super-super alert character - one with an Eye For Detail - might, with the expenditure of a little effort ( bonus action ).
I'm not trying to hobble Characters with an Eye for Detail outside of combat situations; I think that outside of those situations, everyone has that ability.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I don't think it's hobbling them in the least, I simply feel that ascribing "Bonus action" to something done outside of combat is a bit superfluous. There's no initiative, no reason to slow down game play with action economy. As you said it's automatic in a sense if you equate it to passive abilities however I don't see it as such. I see it as amplifying the active Investigation giving the player a leg up in regards to others similar to how Observant gives a leg up with passives.