To be fair though, when you designed the desk (in this hypothetical example), one of the handles may be a bit more worn from repeated use, which pings to perception, which leads to that particular drawer. My design of the desk had no outward clues. (In my mind) Both examples lead back to my point of having to properly design the exploration encounter so that you know beforehand which skill works. It avoids guessing in the moment, which leads to confusion on which skill to ask your players for.
To be fair though, when you designed the desk (in this hypothetical example), one of the handles may be a bit more worn from repeated use, which pings to perception, which leads to that particular drawer.
Maybe. There's a difference between knowing something is different, and knowing the difference matters.
To be fair though, when you designed the desk (in this hypothetical example), one of the handles may be a bit more worn from repeated use, which pings to perception, which leads to that particular drawer. My design of the desk had no outward clues. (In my mind) Both examples lead back to my point of having to properly design the exploration encounter so that you know beforehand which skill works. It avoids guessing in the moment, which leads to confusion on which skill to ask your players for.
How much must a desk be used to show that kind of wear and tear? I have a dresser that was my grandfathers that I have used since I was 10. And there’s not something like that I could point out to you.
now, if you asked for a “less dusty” part. Absolutely could point that out. Agree with your overall point just want to nitpick the detail as, that small detail does seem more investigate/history (knowledge of desks wear and tear) vs the dust one which would be perception.
To be fair though, when you designed the desk (in this hypothetical example), one of the handles may be a bit more worn from repeated use, which pings to perception, which leads to that particular drawer. My design of the desk had no outward clues. (In my mind) Both examples lead back to my point of having to properly design the exploration encounter so that you know beforehand which skill works. It avoids guessing in the moment, which leads to confusion on which skill to ask your players for.
How much must a desk be used to show that kind of wear and tear? I have a dresser that was my grandfathers that I have used since I was 10. And there’s not something like that I could point out to you.
now, if you asked for a “less dusty” part. Absolutely could point that out. Agree with your overall point just want to nitpick the detail as, that small detail does seem more investigate/history (knowledge of desks wear and tear) vs the dust one which would be perception.
I don't see it as nitpicking at all. If you're drilling down to that kind of detail when you, as a DM, create a room for your players to explore, then you probably know what roll is going to give the needed info to your players, and don't have to worry about perception vs investigation. But if you haven't thought dust, scratches, etc beforehand, then you'll be trying to guess the right one in the moment. (Like I did with the wear and tear comment.)
I don't particularly feel the need to preplan in quite so fine detail, I find that I am more flexible a DM if I leave room for myself to improvise. I also am fine with telling a player who makes a sufficient Perception check that "something is different about that one drawer, but you don't know why" and let them decide what to do further about it. they might look it over and try to decipher what their Perception is telling them, which would trigger an Investigation roll, or they might just try and smash it open with a Strength check.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
And the fact that such a minor detail, could throw the search into a different skill set in such a way, is precisely the overall issue at hand.
It's an issue IF the DM designs it that way. When I put a desk in a room that has a secret compartment in it, I generally don't bother to put anything "perceptable" on the outside of it. My players go through the room, and if they don't decide to search it (investigation), then so be it. Now. If it's a very plot relevant thing hidden in that compartment, and I want them to have a higher chance of finding it, I might use the dust/scratches/something they can see device to ensure that they don't miss a plot point. If the players say "We want to look around the room for anything out of the ordinary." I'll ask for a perception roll. If they say "We want to search the room." I'll ask "What do you mean? For how long?" They might say "We spend 5 minutes, and want to move stuff/check drawers/etc" Then I'll ask for an investigation. Either way, before the players even step foot in the room, I know the DCs and applicable skills needed to find anything. Even in a room with nothing to find, I stick to those questions and skills so the players know the process.
I don't particularly feel the need to preplan in quite so fine detail, I find that I am more flexible a DM if I leave room for myself to improvise. I also am fine with telling a player who makes a sufficient Perception check that "something is different about that one drawer, but you don't know why" and let them decide what to do further about it. they might look it over and try to decipher what their Perception is telling them, which would trigger an Investigation roll, or they might just try and smash it open with a Strength check.
To be honest, I don't generally go into that much detail anymore either. But for situations like the OP talks about with having two "situation X" that have different skills prompted and is creating confusion for the players, I would recommend a decent amount of detail to start with. It's like anything a DM deals with... it always gets better/faster with experience, and you can improvise better. Having consistency/detail in the early stages of DMing will help get to that point quicker I feel.
Based on published examples, investigation is almost useless, so it may be preferable to just come up with your own house rules for what it means. A decent rule of thumb would be "Could a dog figure this out?". If the answer is 'yes', it's perception, 'no', it's investigation.
In the case of a secret door, that sounds like perception to know the door is there, but investigation to figure out how to open it.
I'm going to take a guess and say that you've never met a Border Collie, then. Or a Poodle. It's more hit or miss with German Shepherds or Beagles. Certain individual Labs or Goldens, but not the general population. I've also met plenty of humans that can't figure out things a dog would. Like how to open a motion activated door. Or how to use a crosswalk.
My point is that this is a very risky litmus test, and your results will vary pretty wildly from situation to situation.
To the OP's point, my take is that Investigation requires some intention behind it, where there's already an idea that the character has in their mind, where as Perception is more observing to see if anything stands out, things that can be noticed without looking for them specifically. Perception shows you the section of bookcase that is lacking cobwebs, where as Investigation lets you determine there's a secret door there.
To the OP's point, my take is that Investigation requires some intention behind it, where there's already an idea that the character has in their mind, where as Perception is more observing to see if anything stands out, things that can be noticed without looking for them specifically.
Er, but that sounds kinda like the difference between an active Perception check and your passive Perception score.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
To the OP's point, my take is that Investigation requires some intention behind it, where there's already an idea that the character has in their mind, where as Perception is more observing to see if anything stands out, things that can be noticed without looking for them specifically.
Er, but that sounds kinda like the difference between an active Perception check and your passive Perception score.
Passive Perception is when you're not looking for anything at all. The skill Perception is when you are looking to see what's there.
I'm going to take a guess and say that you've never met a Border Collie, then. Or a Poodle. It's more hit or miss with German Shepherds or Beagles.
I have. I've yet to see a dog figure something out that's actually complicated by human standards, though I've seen humans be very stupid. In any case, mechanically, a [monster}Mastiff[/monster] in D&D has perception +3 (with advantage on hearing and smell), investigation -4, so it's certainly a valid example of 'good at perception, bad at investigation'.
To the OP's point, my take is that Investigation requires some intention behind it, where there's already an idea that the character has in their mind, where as Perception is more observing to see if anything stands out, things that can be noticed without looking for them specifically.
Er, but that sounds kinda like the difference between an active Perception check and your passive Perception score.
You also have passive investigation and passive insight. But they rarely get the same attention and focus as passive perception.
how do you “passively” have an intention behind what you’re doing for investigation? You can’t passively take apart the puzzle and put it back together a different way in 16 moves to uncover a picture of a lady.
maybe you just look at it and just know that it’s a scrambled picture of a lady. But 99/100 DMs, would run that as a passive perception thing instead of investigation.
We keep it simple at my table. If you're not already aware of something, use perception. If you are checking out something you are aware of, use investigation
We keep it simple at my table. If you're not already aware of something, use perception. If you are checking out something you are aware of, use investigation
So hypothetically if you were to try and count the number of soldiers manning the far off ramparts of a castle, far enough that they're kind of hard to make out, you'd use ... ?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
We keep it simple at my table. If you're not already aware of something, use perception. If you are checking out something you are aware of, use investigation
So hypothetically if you were to try and count the number of soldiers manning the far off ramparts of a castle, far enough that they're kind of hard to make out, you'd use ... ?
Based on his rule... to see that there are soldiers manning the ramparts, you'd use perception. To count how many are there, you'd use investigation.
So... "I look up at the ramparts. Do I see anything?"
DM: Roll perception. (Player succeeds). You see soldiers walking about.
Player: How many do I see?
DM: Roll investigation. (Player fails). You see several but they are shuffling about and it is too far away so you can't get an accurate count.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
We keep it simple at my table. If you're not already aware of something, use perception. If you are checking out something you are aware of, use investigation
So hypothetically if you were to try and count the number of soldiers manning the far off ramparts of a castle, far enough that they're kind of hard to make out, you'd use ... ?
Based on his rule... to see that there are soldiers manning the ramparts, you'd use perception. To count how many are there, you'd use investigation.
So... "I look up at the ramparts. Do I see anything?"
DM: Roll perception. (Player succeeds). You see soldiers walking about.
Player: How many do I see?
DM: Roll investigation. (Player fails). You see several but they are shuffling about and it is too far away so you can't get an accurate count.
Hmm .. I can see how this is a consistent way to run it, but I'm not sure I exactly like it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
We keep it simple at my table. If you're not already aware of something, use perception. If you are checking out something you are aware of, use investigation
So hypothetically if you were to try and count the number of soldiers manning the far off ramparts of a castle, far enough that they're kind of hard to make out, you'd use ... ?
Based on his rule... to see that there are soldiers manning the ramparts, you'd use perception. To count how many are there, you'd use investigation.
So... "I look up at the ramparts. Do I see anything?"
DM: Roll perception. (Player succeeds). You see soldiers walking about.
Player: How many do I see?
DM: Roll investigation. (Player fails). You see several but they are shuffling about and it is too far away so you can't get an accurate count.
How would I know from perception if they are soldiers vs some soldiers and some pages? Or a servant bringing a meal, or a statue being moved about by a set of pulleys a la home alone? (Or even a thief/assassin sneaking around killing the rampart guards)
the detail of “soldiers” seems harder to ascertain than a count of how many.
(I know I am nitpicking the small details)
brings up again the core problem with how WoTC didn’t do a good enough job separating the 2 skills.
I draw a very simple distinction: if you’re sensing, it’s perception; if you’re thinking, it’s investigation.
Similarly, if you’re making an active and methodical effort, it’s intelligence; if you’re relying on intuition and reaction, it’s wisdom.
I tend not to allow wisdom checks with investigation except for specific characters who rely on that kind of intuition for interesting story reasons (for example, the ranger with the Mark of Finding). But intelligence with perception is what I generally call for for searching rooms and other areas.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
To be fair though, when you designed the desk (in this hypothetical example), one of the handles may be a bit more worn from repeated use, which pings to perception, which leads to that particular drawer. My design of the desk had no outward clues. (In my mind) Both examples lead back to my point of having to properly design the exploration encounter so that you know beforehand which skill works. It avoids guessing in the moment, which leads to confusion on which skill to ask your players for.
Maybe. There's a difference between knowing something is different, and knowing the difference matters.
How much must a desk be used to show that kind of wear and tear? I have a dresser that was my grandfathers that I have used since I was 10. And there’s not something like that I could point out to you.
now, if you asked for a “less dusty” part. Absolutely could point that out. Agree with your overall point just want to nitpick the detail as, that small detail does seem more investigate/history (knowledge of desks wear and tear) vs the dust one which would be perception.
Watch me on twitch
And the fact that such a minor detail, could throw the search into a different skill set in such a way, is precisely the overall issue at hand.
Watch me on twitch
I don't see it as nitpicking at all. If you're drilling down to that kind of detail when you, as a DM, create a room for your players to explore, then you probably know what roll is going to give the needed info to your players, and don't have to worry about perception vs investigation. But if you haven't thought dust, scratches, etc beforehand, then you'll be trying to guess the right one in the moment. (Like I did with the wear and tear comment.)
I don't particularly feel the need to preplan in quite so fine detail, I find that I am more flexible a DM if I leave room for myself to improvise. I also am fine with telling a player who makes a sufficient Perception check that "something is different about that one drawer, but you don't know why" and let them decide what to do further about it. they might look it over and try to decipher what their Perception is telling them, which would trigger an Investigation roll, or they might just try and smash it open with a Strength check.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
It's an issue IF the DM designs it that way. When I put a desk in a room that has a secret compartment in it, I generally don't bother to put anything "perceptable" on the outside of it. My players go through the room, and if they don't decide to search it (investigation), then so be it. Now. If it's a very plot relevant thing hidden in that compartment, and I want them to have a higher chance of finding it, I might use the dust/scratches/something they can see device to ensure that they don't miss a plot point. If the players say "We want to look around the room for anything out of the ordinary." I'll ask for a perception roll. If they say "We want to search the room." I'll ask "What do you mean? For how long?" They might say "We spend 5 minutes, and want to move stuff/check drawers/etc" Then I'll ask for an investigation. Either way, before the players even step foot in the room, I know the DCs and applicable skills needed to find anything. Even in a room with nothing to find, I stick to those questions and skills so the players know the process.
To be honest, I don't generally go into that much detail anymore either. But for situations like the OP talks about with having two "situation X" that have different skills prompted and is creating confusion for the players, I would recommend a decent amount of detail to start with. It's like anything a DM deals with... it always gets better/faster with experience, and you can improvise better. Having consistency/detail in the early stages of DMing will help get to that point quicker I feel.
I love this rule of thumb. This makes so much sense to me.
I'm going to take a guess and say that you've never met a Border Collie, then. Or a Poodle. It's more hit or miss with German Shepherds or Beagles. Certain individual Labs or Goldens, but not the general population. I've also met plenty of humans that can't figure out things a dog would. Like how to open a motion activated door. Or how to use a crosswalk.
My point is that this is a very risky litmus test, and your results will vary pretty wildly from situation to situation.
To the OP's point, my take is that Investigation requires some intention behind it, where there's already an idea that the character has in their mind, where as Perception is more observing to see if anything stands out, things that can be noticed without looking for them specifically. Perception shows you the section of bookcase that is lacking cobwebs, where as Investigation lets you determine there's a secret door there.
Er, but that sounds kinda like the difference between an active Perception check and your passive Perception score.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Passive Perception is when you're not looking for anything at all. The skill Perception is when you are looking to see what's there.
I have. I've yet to see a dog figure something out that's actually complicated by human standards, though I've seen humans be very stupid. In any case, mechanically, a [monster}Mastiff[/monster] in D&D has perception +3 (with advantage on hearing and smell), investigation -4, so it's certainly a valid example of 'good at perception, bad at investigation'.
You also have passive investigation and passive insight. But they rarely get the same attention and focus as passive perception.
how do you “passively” have an intention behind what you’re doing for investigation? You can’t passively take apart the puzzle and put it back together a different way in 16 moves to uncover a picture of a lady.
maybe you just look at it and just know that it’s a scrambled picture of a lady. But 99/100 DMs, would run that as a passive perception thing instead of investigation.
this is why I just try and keep it overly simple.
perception= general or vague
investigation= specific or details
Watch me on twitch
We keep it simple at my table. If you're not already aware of something, use perception. If you are checking out something you are aware of, use investigation
"Not all those who wander are lost"
So hypothetically if you were to try and count the number of soldiers manning the far off ramparts of a castle, far enough that they're kind of hard to make out, you'd use ... ?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Based on his rule... to see that there are soldiers manning the ramparts, you'd use perception. To count how many are there, you'd use investigation.
So... "I look up at the ramparts. Do I see anything?"
DM: Roll perception. (Player succeeds). You see soldiers walking about.
Player: How many do I see?
DM: Roll investigation. (Player fails). You see several but they are shuffling about and it is too far away so you can't get an accurate count.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Hmm .. I can see how this is a consistent way to run it, but I'm not sure I exactly like it.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
How would I know from perception if they are soldiers vs some soldiers and some pages? Or a servant bringing a meal, or a statue being moved about by a set of pulleys a la home alone? (Or even a thief/assassin sneaking around killing the rampart guards)
the detail of “soldiers” seems harder to ascertain than a count of how many.
(I know I am nitpicking the small details)
brings up again the core problem with how WoTC didn’t do a good enough job separating the 2 skills.
Watch me on twitch
I draw a very simple distinction: if you’re sensing, it’s perception; if you’re thinking, it’s investigation.
Similarly, if you’re making an active and methodical effort, it’s intelligence; if you’re relying on intuition and reaction, it’s wisdom.
I tend not to allow wisdom checks with investigation except for specific characters who rely on that kind of intuition for interesting story reasons (for example, the ranger with the Mark of Finding). But intelligence with perception is what I generally call for for searching rooms and other areas.