We've probably all heard the debate. For a long time I've run it as "perception is looking with your eyes" and "investigation is looking with your hands," but I'm starting to change my tune on that. I like the idea that perception is for trying to find something (like an object, a smell, an out of place brick, a sound, etc) while investigation is finding meaning in something you've already found (this object is trapped, this smell is a poisonous gas, this brick is a hidden button, etc). Though even that doesn't quite always help and would imply you need to make two rolls: one to find the brick, and the second to figure out what it does... but maybe that's a different discussion.
For this specific instance, my players were in a forest and came across a shallow pool of water. In reality, beneath the shallow water was quicksand, which would trap them if they stepped in. A player wanted to see if there was anything unusual about the water, and wanted to roll investigation. I said they could, if they'd be willing to interact with the water in some way, such as touching with a twig or something. They didn't want to, so I said they'd need to do perception then. Of course, this player had a higher intelligence, so it became a back and forth of "why not." When I asked what they wanted to determine, hoping it might help, their answer was "I don't know, just anything that feels wrong or isn't right/normal about the water."
I've dwelled on it for a while and, other than "let your player roll what they are good at so they have more fun," I haven't really come up with a satisfying mechanical answer to which would be the one to roll. They are checking out the pool of water to see if anything is unusual, so it could reasonably fall under either "looking for something new (perception)" or "intuiting the meaning behind the pool (investigation)."
I wouldn't use either perception or investigation (I would use Survival to recognize it as quicksand, and Nature to know that quicksand is a likely hazard in this type of terrain), but if I had to choose between perception and investigation:
Perception: the water looks odd. You're not sure why.
Investigation: you would need to interact with the water.
The way I usually divide it up is that Perception is related to the senses - what you can see, hear, taste, touch or smell.
Investigation on the other hand is related to what you can deduce, it is related to the mind and interpreting the information available to your senses.
Depending on the situation and what information is available, a situation could involve perception, investigation or rarely both. Most situations that would require both I usually decide whether perception or investigation would likely be more important and use that one.
Some examples:
Finding a hidden compartment in a desk would be investigation. Noticing that drawers have different sizes or that there is a part of a desk that appears inaccessible is not difficult to see but someone needs to know what those observations mean and the fact that they imply a hidden compartment - so use investigation.
A hidden door which might be noticed by disturbed dust, a slight breeze, faint marks on the floor - might be found using perception. On the other hand, a very well concealed hidden door might only be found by a character standing in the room and thinking "if I was going to install a secret door in this room, where would it be?". They then investigate separate sections of wall methodically pushing and prodding looking for a release mechanism. This would be an investigation check to find the secret door.
The difference in this case is the nature of the secret door and depending on what could be noticed, it might be either perception or investigation to discover it.
Something that has NO visible or sensory information attached to it, could not be found by perception.
---------------------------
In your example, as Pantagruel666 suggested, I would likely go with Survival to discover a patch of quick sand. Noticing and identifying the signs of quick sand would be a survival skill.
In addition, in this case, it sounds likely that the quicksand under some depth of water would simply not have anything that could be sensed to reveal its presence ... in which case, I'd tell a character taking a careful look at the water that "It looks like swamp water. The same as the patch behind you and on either side" .. unless I had previously decided that there WOULD be some noticeable sign that this patch of water was different from the other patches (perhaps quick sand gives a slightly gray tinge to the water requiring a DC15 perception check to notice). However, in general, I'd probably rule that the patch of water was indistinguishable from any other.
Would investigation apply? Only if there was something relevant that was already noticeable. For example, there might be game trails through the swamp that noticeably avoid that patch of water. The game trails are easy to see so it isn't a perception check BUT realizing that the game trails avoid that part of the water due to some reason (ie no trails enter or leave that area of the swamp - or perhaps there are just no trails leaving) would be an investigation check. The result of the investigation check could be just that animals appear to avoid that pool in the swamp - it could be due to a natural hazard like quicksand or it might be due to a predator with a lair in that pond.
Anyway, the key as a DM is deciding what sensory or logical information is available to the characters so that you can choose an appropriate skill to resolve the interaction.
Remember, Chapter 7 does offer some guidance about which types of checks to use in which situations. From the 2014 Basic Rules:
Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason.
Intelligence Checks
An Intelligence check comes into play when you need to draw on logic, education, memory, or deductive reasoning.
Investigation
When you look around for clues and make deductions based on those clues
Nature
Your Intelligence (Nature) check measures your ability to recall lore about terrain, plants and animals, the weather, and natural cycles.
Other Intelligence Checks
The DM might call for an Intelligence check when you try to accomplish tasks like the following:
Communicate with a creature without using words
Estimate the value of a precious item
Pull together a disguise to pass as a city guard
Forge a document
Recall lore about a craft or trade
Win a game of skill
and also:
Wisdom reflects how attuned you are to the world around you and represents perceptiveness and intuition.
Wisdom Checks
A Wisdom check might reflect an effort to read body language, understand someone’s feelings, notice things about the environment, or care for an injured person.
Perception
Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something. It measures your general awareness of your surroundings and the keenness of your senses.
Survival
The DM might ask you to make a Wisdom (Survival) check to follow tracks, hunt wild game, guide your group through frozen wastelands, identify signs that owlbears live nearby, predict the weather, or avoid quicksand and other natural hazards.
Other Wisdom Checks
The DM might call for a Wisdom check when you try to accomplish tasks like the following:
Get a gut feeling about what course of action to follow
Discern whether a seemingly dead or living creature is undead
How i see them is Perception relates to 5 physical senses (sight, hearing, smell, touch, taste) and Investigation relates to the mental sense of deduction, resolution, or dicernment.
Sometimes there's a fine line between them and even published adventures sometimes use them interchangeably, right or wrong.
For more concrete examples, when encountering a
Secret door: Perception will notice tiny contour line in the wall, Investigation will deduce it's a secret door and how it can be opened.
Hidden trap: Perception will notice small holes in the floor, Investigation will deduce it's a dart trap and how it can be triggered and disarmed.
Dead body: Perception will notice small puncture marks in the neck area, Investigation will deduce it's a vampire bite and it's been blood drained.
I wouldn't use either perception or investigation (I would use Survival to recognize it as quicksand, and Nature to know that quicksand is a likely hazard in this type of terrain), but if I had to choose between perception and investigation:
Perception: the water looks odd. You're not sure why.
Investigation: you would need to interact with the water.
I was leaning toward survival as well as an option, but my player was pushing for Investigation because they had the highest bonuses toward it. But the fact they wanted to keep their distance and not interact with the water was what pushed me away from investigation.
The way I usually divide it up is that Perception is related to the senses - what you can see, hear, taste, touch or smell.
Investigation on the other hand is related to what you can deduce, it is related to the mind and interpreting the information available to your senses.
Depending on the situation and what information is available, a situation could involve perception, investigation or rarely both. Most situations that would require both I usually decide whether perception or investigation would likely be more important and use that one.
---------------------------
In your example, as Pantagruel666 suggested, I would likely go with Survival to discover a patch of quick sand. Noticing and identifying the signs of quick sand would be a survival skill.
In addition, in this case, it sounds likely that the quicksand under some depth of water would simply not have anything that could be sensed to reveal its presence ... in which case, I'd tell a character taking a careful look at the water that "It looks like swamp water. The same as the patch behind you and on either side" .. unless I had previously decided that there WOULD be some noticeable sign that this patch of water was different from the other patches (perhaps quick sand gives a slightly gray tinge to the water requiring a DC15 perception check to notice). However, in general, I'd probably rule that the patch of water was indistinguishable from any other.
Would investigation apply? Only if there was something relevant that was already noticeable. For example, there might be game trails through the swamp that noticeably avoid that patch of water. The game trails are easy to see so it isn't a perception check BUT realizing that the game trails avoid that part of the water due to some reason (ie no trails enter or leave that area of the swamp - or perhaps there are just no trails leaving) would be an investigation check. The result of the investigation check could be just that animals appear to avoid that pool in the swamp - it could be due to a natural hazard like quicksand or it might be due to a predator with a lair in that pond.
Anyway, the key as a DM is deciding what sensory or logical information is available to the characters so that you can choose an appropriate skill to resolve the interaction.
The deducing aspect of Investigation still eludes me somewhat, as it feels like it would be telling a player to roll twice for everything: Roll perception to notice the lines on the wall. Okay, now roll Investigation to figure out what they mean. It feels a bit clunky, but might be the correct way to do it.
And yeah, survival might have made more sense, but the player was still pushing for investigation since they had a bigger bonus for it. I guess the question could be opened to the wider discussion of what rolls should a player be allowed to make for a certain topic (can they roll religion instead of nature on a fruit, for example) but this situation felt closer to the perception/investigation debate. And yeah as for specific details they could find, it would depend on the nature of that specific part of forest, which I didn't really get into.
I found some interesting comments in here, which mostly fall in line with the interpretation I'm leaning towards adopting: Perception (wisdom) is to find something you don't already know about, and Investigation (intelligence) is to learn more about something you do know about. With that interpretation, it still does get a little tricky. For example, the player clearly saw the pool of water, it's an obvious feature of the environment. However, they hadn't yet seen the soft, silty looking sand and the bottom of the pool. Since they are examining something they already know about (the pool), it stands to reason they should be able to make an investigation check, even though they haven't yet seen all the details of the pool. One comment in that thread gave a similar example: looking in a desk drawer, and not yet knowing of the secret compartment; they know about the drawer, but not the compartment, so which do they roll? in his example, he said either would work.
In any case, it seems Now given that intelligence is the proper stat to use now (considering it's something the player already knows about), which intelligence check should they use? Is there a case to be made that Investigation is the catch all for all intelligence checks, since it's a closer examination of something? why do a survival or religion check when you just want to investigate it closer? I know my answer personally would be leaning into the specific nature of the check, vs the generality of investigation. For example, if they pushed for investigation on the pool instead of survival, I might describe how the bottom of the pool looks soft and silty, but had they rolled survival, I might tell them more specifically how it resembles quicksand pits they've seen elsewhere.
I think this new text from the 2024 DMG is helpful for the thread and future visitors (emphasis mine):
Using the Investigation Skill. The Investigation skill applies to situations where a character is using reason and deduction to arrive at a conclusion about something under examination. Investigation applies when characters are trying to figure out how a thing works—how to open a trick door, how to get into a secret compartment, and so on.
Don’t use the Investigation skill to determine if a character notices something—that’s the purview of Perception. For example, a successful Wisdom (Perception) check allows a character to find a secret door or something that betrays its presence, such as thin seams marking the edges of the door. If the secret door is locked, a successful Intelligence (Investigation) check would allow a character to figure out the trick to opening it—by turning a nearby statue so it faces the door, for example.
My general rule of thumb is "if it's a close call between using perception and using a different skill... use the other skill, perception is good enough just based on what clearly does".
I kind of think investigation should just be removed based on these comments. Its not a skill its just the DM giving you hints when the players aren't figuring things out.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey all,
We've probably all heard the debate. For a long time I've run it as "perception is looking with your eyes" and "investigation is looking with your hands," but I'm starting to change my tune on that. I like the idea that perception is for trying to find something (like an object, a smell, an out of place brick, a sound, etc) while investigation is finding meaning in something you've already found (this object is trapped, this smell is a poisonous gas, this brick is a hidden button, etc). Though even that doesn't quite always help and would imply you need to make two rolls: one to find the brick, and the second to figure out what it does... but maybe that's a different discussion.
For this specific instance, my players were in a forest and came across a shallow pool of water. In reality, beneath the shallow water was quicksand, which would trap them if they stepped in. A player wanted to see if there was anything unusual about the water, and wanted to roll investigation. I said they could, if they'd be willing to interact with the water in some way, such as touching with a twig or something. They didn't want to, so I said they'd need to do perception then. Of course, this player had a higher intelligence, so it became a back and forth of "why not." When I asked what they wanted to determine, hoping it might help, their answer was "I don't know, just anything that feels wrong or isn't right/normal about the water."
I've dwelled on it for a while and, other than "let your player roll what they are good at so they have more fun," I haven't really come up with a satisfying mechanical answer to which would be the one to roll. They are checking out the pool of water to see if anything is unusual, so it could reasonably fall under either "looking for something new (perception)" or "intuiting the meaning behind the pool (investigation)."
What do you think?
I wouldn't use either perception or investigation (I would use Survival to recognize it as quicksand, and Nature to know that quicksand is a likely hazard in this type of terrain), but if I had to choose between perception and investigation:
The way I usually divide it up is that Perception is related to the senses - what you can see, hear, taste, touch or smell.
Investigation on the other hand is related to what you can deduce, it is related to the mind and interpreting the information available to your senses.
Depending on the situation and what information is available, a situation could involve perception, investigation or rarely both. Most situations that would require both I usually decide whether perception or investigation would likely be more important and use that one.
Some examples:
Finding a hidden compartment in a desk would be investigation. Noticing that drawers have different sizes or that there is a part of a desk that appears inaccessible is not difficult to see but someone needs to know what those observations mean and the fact that they imply a hidden compartment - so use investigation.
A hidden door which might be noticed by disturbed dust, a slight breeze, faint marks on the floor - might be found using perception. On the other hand, a very well concealed hidden door might only be found by a character standing in the room and thinking "if I was going to install a secret door in this room, where would it be?". They then investigate separate sections of wall methodically pushing and prodding looking for a release mechanism. This would be an investigation check to find the secret door.
The difference in this case is the nature of the secret door and depending on what could be noticed, it might be either perception or investigation to discover it.
Something that has NO visible or sensory information attached to it, could not be found by perception.
---------------------------
In your example, as Pantagruel666 suggested, I would likely go with Survival to discover a patch of quick sand. Noticing and identifying the signs of quick sand would be a survival skill.
In addition, in this case, it sounds likely that the quicksand under some depth of water would simply not have anything that could be sensed to reveal its presence ... in which case, I'd tell a character taking a careful look at the water that "It looks like swamp water. The same as the patch behind you and on either side" .. unless I had previously decided that there WOULD be some noticeable sign that this patch of water was different from the other patches (perhaps quick sand gives a slightly gray tinge to the water requiring a DC15 perception check to notice). However, in general, I'd probably rule that the patch of water was indistinguishable from any other.
Would investigation apply? Only if there was something relevant that was already noticeable. For example, there might be game trails through the swamp that noticeably avoid that patch of water. The game trails are easy to see so it isn't a perception check BUT realizing that the game trails avoid that part of the water due to some reason (ie no trails enter or leave that area of the swamp - or perhaps there are just no trails leaving) would be an investigation check. The result of the investigation check could be just that animals appear to avoid that pool in the swamp - it could be due to a natural hazard like quicksand or it might be due to a predator with a lair in that pond.
Anyway, the key as a DM is deciding what sensory or logical information is available to the characters so that you can choose an appropriate skill to resolve the interaction.
Remember, Chapter 7 does offer some guidance about which types of checks to use in which situations. From the 2014 Basic Rules:
and also:
The following post came to my mind. It might be useful for you too, @Game_Bird: Finding Hidden Objects -- Investigation vs Perception
How i see them is Perception relates to 5 physical senses (sight, hearing, smell, touch, taste) and Investigation relates to the mental sense of deduction, resolution, or dicernment.
Sometimes there's a fine line between them and even published adventures sometimes use them interchangeably, right or wrong.
For more concrete examples, when encountering a
Secret door: Perception will notice tiny contour line in the wall, Investigation will deduce it's a secret door and how it can be opened.
Hidden trap: Perception will notice small holes in the floor, Investigation will deduce it's a dart trap and how it can be triggered and disarmed.
Dead body: Perception will notice small puncture marks in the neck area, Investigation will deduce it's a vampire bite and it's been blood drained.
I was leaning toward survival as well as an option, but my player was pushing for Investigation because they had the highest bonuses toward it. But the fact they wanted to keep their distance and not interact with the water was what pushed me away from investigation.
The deducing aspect of Investigation still eludes me somewhat, as it feels like it would be telling a player to roll twice for everything: Roll perception to notice the lines on the wall. Okay, now roll Investigation to figure out what they mean. It feels a bit clunky, but might be the correct way to do it.
And yeah, survival might have made more sense, but the player was still pushing for investigation since they had a bigger bonus for it. I guess the question could be opened to the wider discussion of what rolls should a player be allowed to make for a certain topic (can they roll religion instead of nature on a fruit, for example) but this situation felt closer to the perception/investigation debate. And yeah as for specific details they could find, it would depend on the nature of that specific part of forest, which I didn't really get into.
I found some interesting comments in here, which mostly fall in line with the interpretation I'm leaning towards adopting: Perception (wisdom) is to find something you don't already know about, and Investigation (intelligence) is to learn more about something you do know about. With that interpretation, it still does get a little tricky. For example, the player clearly saw the pool of water, it's an obvious feature of the environment. However, they hadn't yet seen the soft, silty looking sand and the bottom of the pool. Since they are examining something they already know about (the pool), it stands to reason they should be able to make an investigation check, even though they haven't yet seen all the details of the pool. One comment in that thread gave a similar example: looking in a desk drawer, and not yet knowing of the secret compartment; they know about the drawer, but not the compartment, so which do they roll? in his example, he said either would work.
In any case, it seems Now given that intelligence is the proper stat to use now (considering it's something the player already knows about), which intelligence check should they use? Is there a case to be made that Investigation is the catch all for all intelligence checks, since it's a closer examination of something? why do a survival or religion check when you just want to investigate it closer? I know my answer personally would be leaning into the specific nature of the check, vs the generality of investigation. For example, if they pushed for investigation on the pool instead of survival, I might describe how the bottom of the pool looks soft and silty, but had they rolled survival, I might tell them more specifically how it resembles quicksand pits they've seen elsewhere.
I think this new text from the 2024 DMG is helpful for the thread and future visitors (emphasis mine):
My general rule of thumb is "if it's a close call between using perception and using a different skill... use the other skill, perception is good enough just based on what clearly does".
I kind of think investigation should just be removed based on these comments. Its not a skill its just the DM giving you hints when the players aren't figuring things out.