tonight a player and i got into an argument over using perception vs. investigation.
the player walked into a room and asked for a perception check, his roll was too low to notice anything. Therefore he starts walking around the room asking for more perception checks.
I saw this as him searching the room for a hidden creature he assumed (as a player, not his character) was there, so after a few checks i told him he would need to make an investigation check.
He got upset because his character has a low intelligence score and tried arguing that he was trying to perceive the room, even though from his initial perception check he could perceive the whole room.
i would appreciate insight from more experienced DM's on how they would have ruled this.
As soon as he asked for a second perception check, I would have asked for an Investigation check. Investigation is used for searching for something. Perception is used for your general awareness of your surroundings. This could have been used to determine if there was something hidden, listening, smelling, etc for its general area. Then investigation needs to be used for a more thorough search for the hidden object.
On another note, because he failed his first perception check, I actually likely wouldn't have allowed the investigation to continue because his character wouldn't have been able to detect the presence of something hidden in the first place.
the player was trying to get a sense of his surroundings to detect nearby creatures, but to me his actions were at least borderline metagaming.
the player was trying to see if there were possibly creatures waiting to ambush, since there had been a few in previous encounters, but since the initial perception check failed his character would have thought the room was fine.
this is why i felt an investigation check was necessary, the player was searching for hidden creatures even though his character wouldn't/shouldn't feel the need to based of the perception check
i initially let him do a few perception checks because i was trying to help the party since they were entering a rough spot and aren't very tactical players, they generally just run into fights or don't think of non-violent solutions.
but when he kept having his character move ten feet and then ask for another perception check i realized what he (the player) was really doing.
Perception is the skill you should be using to find Hidden creatures. That's part of what that skill is for. If he's actively trying to find Hidden creatures, he should be rolling Perception, not Investigation.
I really disagree how people view the idea of perception. Especially the idea that if you bomb 1 check you can't do more.
a Perception Check is like an attack roll, it's 6 seconds of looking. Not allowing further looking is like saying: I've lost my phone, I walk into a room and look for 6 seconds. If I don't find it I'm not allowed to keep looking. It's part of why I believe they included Passive Perception so that way the GM/Players have a mechanic to fall back on that isn't rolling rolling rolling.
Also, requiring Perception, Investigation, and Thieves Tools to disable a trap is insane. That's a HUGE resource sink. Most classes/races can get 4 skills and 2 tools. Requiring all of that to effectively "handle traps" is forcing players put a huge investment of their character into a very small thing, plus if you ask a player to consistently roll 3 times to do 1 task the player will statistically fail at that task.
Let the player do the thing they are good at, don't force the player's course of action. I'll use the lost phone in my bedroom. I walk into the room and spent 6 seconds looking for the phone. roll 1d20+Perception, and fail. If I roll investigation to search for my phone I'll be asking questions like "If I were to leave a phone somewhere, where would it be?" Then start looking in the pants pockets in the hamper, under the bed, on the desk but underneath something." If I roll another perception check to search for my phone I'll just be looking around the room further, moving things and searching without any real thought to drive the investigation.
the player was trying to see if there were possibly creatures waiting to ambush, since there had been a few in previous encounters, but since the initial perception check failed his character would have thought the room was fine.
Perception is for detecting things with your senses, not for feeling out the situation. A perception check doesn't change what the character is thinking.
this is why i felt an investigation check was necessary, the player was searching for hidden creatures even though his character wouldn't/shouldn't feel the need to based of the perception check
Investigation is used to interpret clues. The player hadn't found anything; there's nothing to investigate.
but when he kept having his character move ten feet and then ask for another perception check i realized what he (the player) was really doing.
Simple solution:
Tell them moving 10 feet doesn't change what they can/can't notice in this situation.
Ask them where they're looking.
Let them roll as many times as they want. No rule says you're limited to taking the Search action one time.
Side note: the player's behavior is perfectly rational. From their point of view, they got sucker punched. You can't expect them not to be paranoid of future ambushes. If you prefer to handle Perception checks a different way, that's your choice, but tell the players how you think they can avoid the situation in the future. That's all they're trying to do.
I think there's a very simple way to differentiate between Perception and Investigation, and it mostly has to do with the ability scores those skills use.
Perception is a Wisdom skill, meaning it uses your character's senses and intuition. It is for physically being able to see, hear, taste, or feel something. It doesn't give you any knowledge about what you detect, only that what you detect is there.
Investigation is an Intelligence skill, meaning it deals with information and knowledge. Investigation relies on thinking and deduction rather than detecting with your senses. It is used to gain knowledge about something, rather than to detect something.
Here's an example.
DM: You enter the ancient ruin, and find yourself in a sort of central chamber. Cracked stone bricks make up the walls and flooring, with lively vines running throughout the chamber. A faint light shines in through a hole in the ceiling of the chamber, allowing you to see as if it is bright light in the very center of the chamber, and dim light throughout the rest. The light falls off into complete darkness a few feet into the tunnels.
Both of you stand at the main entrance, and hear a faint echo of water falling from the tunnel directly ahead.
John: I feel like there could be something hidden in here, I want to search around the chamber for anything that stands out.
DM: Ok, Perception check (DC 15).
John: (rolls 11+6)
DM: John, you find some odd markings scratched into the stone floor in the center of the chamber. You can't quite make out what it means though.
John: I tell Jane's character about it and ask her to help out.
Jane: I walk over and attempt to decipher any meaning out of the markings.
DM: Alright, Investigation check (DC 15).
Jane: (rolls 14+6)
DM: After about a minute of studying the markings, you realize that they resemble a sort of crude map. You recognize the entrance chamber on the map. Down the tunnel ahead, the map shows some sort of wave or flow of water.
Excuse my long example, but I think it accurately demonstrates the difference between the two skills. Obviously, this is just how I run the game, and others may do things differently. I do think there are some cases where the skills may overlap, and in those cases I suggest you allow the player to use what they are best at. Sometimes it can be hard as a DM to give a reason for why you choose a specific skill.
As for repeating checks, I usually only allow for a player to do it if they explain to me how their character is doing it differently. For example, a player may just make a general perception check for what their character can see from standing at the entrance of a room. If they fail, they may still suspect something is there and want to try again. I wouldn't let them just roll again, I would ask them to tell me how they can search in a different way. Perhaps they say they want to look over the walls for any odd markings or incisions, I would then allow them to roll Perception for that, even though they didn't see it in their first glance over the room. Of course, there's a certain point where I wouldn't allow them to make any more checks, but I can't quite give a solid reasoning for how I reach that point.
In the case of something like footprints in mud, could a survival check be applied in some circumstances?
For tracking purposes, of course. I would still use either perception or investigation to find these footprints if they weren't actively known of prior. Survival for tracking them further through woods, etc.
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. For example, you might try to hear a conversation through a closed door, eavesdrop under an open window, or hear monsters moving stealthily in the forest. Or you might try to spot things that are obscured or easy to miss, whether they are orcs lying in ambush on a road, thugs hiding in the shadows of an alley, or candlelight under a closed secret door.
Investigation:
When you look around for clues and make deductions based on those clues, you make an Intelligence (Investigation) check. You might deduce the location of a hidden object, discern from the appearance of a wound what kind of weapon dealt it, or determine the weakest point in a tunnel that could cause it to collapse. Poring through ancient scrolls in search of a hidden fragment of knowledge might also call for an Intelligence (Investigation) check.
Retracting my previous statement, there are a few reasons for using solely perception:
Maybe there is some dust settling around it, but not where it's resting. (In this particular case, no further investigation would be necessary)
Maybe you can hear an invisible creature breathing in a certain part of the room. In this case, further perception checks to listen again would make sense.
The perception would have given him an indication that there was something present that is unseen, but not necessarily its location.
If the user failed their perception check, and didn't notice anything out of the ordinary at first glance/listen, then I would require the player to use Investigation to do a more thorough inspection assuming he still has a reason to believe there is something hidden.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
I'm going to come at this from a slightly different angle: There is no such thing as a perception check.
There are only Ability Checks.
A Wisdom check is for something relating to sight, sound, smell, and so on - the senses characters use to perceive the world around them. An Intelligence check is for something relating to deduction or calculation, or for something where prior knowledge applies.
For example, in the case of a secret door a Wisdom check might find scrapes on the floor indicating the door but an Intelligence check might tell you that there is a suspiciously large wall space between two rooms or that Dwarves commonly indicated concealed doors with carvings of griffons.
For example, in the case of a door guard a Wisdom check might tell you that her uniform doesn't fit right but an Intelligence check might tell you that her rank is a lot higher than the duty requires.
All skills do is allow you to add your proficiency bonus to ability checks in some situations. For example, deducing the presence of the concealed door by calculating the size of the wall space might be Intelligence (Investigation) but deducing its presence by the griffon carving might be Intelligence (History).
Additionally, an optional rule says that skills are not necessarily tied to a particular ability score. Sometimes you might make a Charisma (Intimidation) roll, another time it might be a Strength (Intimidation) roll.
Short answer: Don't think of "skill checks"; think of "Ability Checks". First determine the ability score required and then determine what skill proficiencies, if any, might apply (it might be one, many, or even none).
the player walked into a room and asked for a perception check, his roll was too low to notice anything. Therefore he starts walking around the room asking for more perception checks.
I saw this as him searching the room for a hidden creature he assumed (as a player, not his character) was there, so after a few checks i told him he would need to make an investigation check.
You were more generous than I am. I only allow one roll to find something (two if you have advantage, like from someone assisting). Repeated attempts re-use that roll. I even apply this to the whole group (i.e. other PC's that search also use those two rolls, with their own modifiers, or a passive roll if that's better). None of this meta-game 'trying until someone finally rolls well'.
I understand your player wanting to search until he rolls well (that's only logical), but that shouldn't be allowed. It's Passive checks that "represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the GM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed ".
I think there's a very simple way to differentiate between Perception and Investigation, and it mostly has to do with the ability scores those skills use.
Perception is a Wisdom skill, meaning it uses your character's senses and intuition. It is for physically being able to see, hear, taste, or feel something. It doesn't give you any knowledge about what you detect, only that what you detect is there.
Investigation is an Intelligence skill, meaning it deals with information and knowledge. Investigation relies on thinking and deduction rather than detecting with your senses. It is used to gain knowledge about something, rather than to detect something.
Here's an example.
DM: You enter the ancient ruin, and find yourself in a sort of central chamber. Cracked stone bricks make up the walls and flooring, with lively vines running throughout the chamber. A faint light shines in through a hole in the ceiling of the chamber, allowing you to see as if it is bright light in the very center of the chamber, and dim light throughout the rest. The light falls off into complete darkness a few feet into the tunnels.
Both of you stand at the main entrance, and hear a faint echo of water falling from the tunnel directly ahead.
John: I feel like there could be something hidden in here, I want to search around the chamber for anything that stands out.
DM: Ok, Perception check (DC 15).
John: (rolls 11+6)
DM: John, you find some odd markings scratched into the stone floor in the center of the chamber. You can't quite make out what it means though.
John: I tell Jane's character about it and ask her to help out.
Jane: I walk over and attempt to decipher any meaning out of the markings.
DM: Alright, Investigation check (DC 15).
Jane: (rolls 14+6)
DM: After about a minute of studying the markings, you realize that they resemble a sort of crude map. You recognize the entrance chamber on the map. Down the tunnel ahead, the map shows some sort of wave or flow of water.
Excuse my long example, but I think it accurately demonstrates the difference between the two skills. Obviously, this is just how I run the game, and others may do things differently. I do think there are some cases where the skills may overlap, and in those cases I suggest you allow the player to use what they are best at. Sometimes it can be hard as a DM to give a reason for why you choose a specific skill.
As for repeating checks, I usually only allow for a player to do it if they explain to me how their character is doing it differently. For example, a player may just make a general perception check for what their character can see from standing at the entrance of a room. If they fail, they may still suspect something is there and want to try again. I wouldn't let them just roll again, I would ask them to tell me how they can search in a different way. Perhaps they say they want to look over the walls for any odd markings or incisions, I would then allow them to roll Perception for that, even though they didn't see it in their first glance over the room. Of course, there's a certain point where I wouldn't allow them to make any more checks, but I can't quite give a solid reasoning for how I reach that point.
The only thing I would suggest doing differently in your example would be to check the passive perception and passive investigation values FIRST. If these are not sufficient to succeed in the check then I would ask for a roll (the characters are spending multiple rounds searching and looking around in the chamber trying to pick out anomalies or figure something out ... in my opinion, in a situation like this, the average result for a task done repeatedly should be checked first). The players never see the DC, if their passive succeeds they never even know that there was a possibility of missing what they find. In addition, if the DC is such that only some of the players can notice it then only those players get told first and have the option of sharing what they noticed with the party.
I think there's a very simple way to differentiate between Perception and Investigation, and it mostly has to do with the ability scores those skills use.
Perception is a Wisdom skill, meaning it uses your character's senses and intuition. It is for physically being able to see, hear, taste, or feel something. It doesn't give you any knowledge about what you detect, only that what you detect is there.
Investigation is an Intelligence skill, meaning it deals with information and knowledge. Investigation relies on thinking and deduction rather than detecting with your senses. It is used to gain knowledge about something, rather than to detect something.
Here's an example.
DM: You enter the ancient ruin, and find yourself in a sort of central chamber. Cracked stone bricks make up the walls and flooring, with lively vines running throughout the chamber. A faint light shines in through a hole in the ceiling of the chamber, allowing you to see as if it is bright light in the very center of the chamber, and dim light throughout the rest. The light falls off into complete darkness a few feet into the tunnels.
Both of you stand at the main entrance, and hear a faint echo of water falling from the tunnel directly ahead.
John: I feel like there could be something hidden in here, I want to search around the chamber for anything that stands out.
DM: Ok, Perception check (DC 15).
John: (rolls 11+6)
DM: John, you find some odd markings scratched into the stone floor in the center of the chamber. You can't quite make out what it means though.
John: I tell Jane's character about it and ask her to help out.
Jane: I walk over and attempt to decipher any meaning out of the markings.
DM: Alright, Investigation check (DC 15).
Jane: (rolls 14+6)
DM: After about a minute of studying the markings, you realize that they resemble a sort of crude map. You recognize the entrance chamber on the map. Down the tunnel ahead, the map shows some sort of wave or flow of water.
Excuse my long example, but I think it accurately demonstrates the difference between the two skills. Obviously, this is just how I run the game, and others may do things differently. I do think there are some cases where the skills may overlap, and in those cases I suggest you allow the player to use what they are best at. Sometimes it can be hard as a DM to give a reason for why you choose a specific skill.
As for repeating checks, I usually only allow for a player to do it if they explain to me how their character is doing it differently. For example, a player may just make a general perception check for what their character can see from standing at the entrance of a room. If they fail, they may still suspect something is there and want to try again. I wouldn't let them just roll again, I would ask them to tell me how they can search in a different way. Perhaps they say they want to look over the walls for any odd markings or incisions, I would then allow them to roll Perception for that, even though they didn't see it in their first glance over the room. Of course, there's a certain point where I wouldn't allow them to make any more checks, but I can't quite give a solid reasoning for how I reach that point.
The only thing I would suggest doing differently in your example would be to check the passive perception and passive investigation values FIRST. If these are not sufficient to succeed in the check then I would ask for a roll (the characters are spending multiple rounds searching and looking around in the chamber trying to pick out anomalies or figure something out ... in my opinion, in a situation like this, the average result for a task done repeatedly should be checked first). The players never see the DC, if their passive succeeds they never even know that there was a possibility of missing what they find. In addition, if the DC is such that only some of the players can notice it then only those players get told first and have the option of sharing what they noticed with the party.
I agree. For the most part, I do actually do it the way you say, my example was only written to show different potential uses for the two skills, given that the skill check is required. I don't actually tell my players the DC for most checks, I just wrote it in the example.
the player walked into a room and asked for a perception check, his roll was too low to notice anything. Therefore he starts walking around the room asking for more perception checks.
I saw this as him searching the room for a hidden creature he assumed (as a player, not his character) was there, so after a few checks i told him he would need to make an investigation check.
You were more generous than I am. I only allow one roll to find something (two if you have advantage, like from someone assisting). Repeated attempts re-use that roll. I even apply this to the whole group (i.e. other PC's that search also use those two rolls, with their own modifiers, or a passive roll if that's better). None of this meta-game 'trying until someone finally rolls well'.
I understand your player wanting to search until he rolls well (that's only logical), but that shouldn't be allowed. It's Passive checks that "represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the GM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed ".
yeah, this was my first campaign and the third session. They got a tpk on the second so i think i was trying to be extra helpful. turns out i should have been having them roll with disadvantage since they were in a dark room. I told the party i am stepping down as DM until i learn more of the basic stuff, i just don't know enough yet to fairly manage the game
Sorry for the bad English and for reliving the post, but for me there is no overlap in the two skills since the description of both are very clear especially considering their attributes. Perception is always the skill that must be requested when the player wants to find or detect something in the environment. Investigation should be requested only when the player is trying to analyze what he has found or understand how it works. The best example does not come from RPG tables, but from the Batman Arkhan game series .... when you (Batman) enter a crime scene and activate the detective mode you are looking for clues ( Perception test), after finding all of them you do the analysis of the crime scene and deduce what and how it happened (investigation test).
Basically you have to first find something (Perception) to then be able to analyze and deduce (Investigation). This serves as an example: someone in the group is able to disarm a trap when the rogue is not close after a successful Investigation test on how the trap works even without having the appropriate tools for the job.
I agree with this. A lot of people basically use Investigation as "Perception, but on purpose." That really guts the utility of Perception IMO. A Perception check is not passively looking - there is literally a Passive Perception stat for that.
If Perception is collecting sensory information and Investigation is deducing things from that information, both can be useful on their own and they are even better when combined.
If a party is only good at Investigation, you can still feed them some clues through Passive Perception and let them make big deductive leaps. If they're good at Perception, they can find so many clues that Passive Investigation can likely fill in any remaining blanks.
The greatest issue is that a lot of players are used to handling the deduction part themselves - it's actually pretty hard not to make those leaps when the information is available. So people tend to push Investigation into Perception's realm because they're essentially metagaming their Investigation rolls.
Not that I'm blaming players. A skill so involved with the line between player knowledge and character knowledge should have a lot more clarification around it. As it is, the wording of both skills are unclear and even contradict each other in places. However you run it, I'd urge to make sure that you don't let one completely eclipse the other.
I agree with this. A lot of people basically use Investigation as "Perception, but on purpose." That really guts the utility of Perception IMO. A Perception check is not passively looking - there is literally a Passive Perception stat for that.
If Perception is collecting sensory information and Investigation is deducing things from that information, both can be useful on their own and they are even better when combined.
If a party is only good at Investigation, you can still feed them some clues through Passive Perception and let them make big deductive leaps. If they're good at Perception, they can find so many clues that Passive Investigation can likely fill in any remaining blanks.
The greatest issue is that a lot of players are used to handling the deduction part themselves - it's actually pretty hard not to make those leaps when the information is available. So people tend to push Investigation into Perception's realm because they're essentially metagaming their Investigation rolls.
Not that I'm blaming players. A skill so involved with the line between player knowledge and character knowledge should have a lot more clarification around it. As it is, the wording of both skills are unclear and even contradict each other in places. However you run it, I'd urge to make sure that you don't let one completely eclipse the other.
I use perception when a character is looking or using their senses (sight, hearing, touch, smell)for something that might be difficult to perceive. I use investigation when things can fairly readily be seen/detected but what they mean might not be obvious. Occasionally, I will use both if it is difficult to detect the clues and their meaning is also difficult to determine.
Finding a secret door is usually perception. Figuring out how to open a secret door likely investigation.
Checking a door for traps could be either perception or investigation depending on the nature of the trap. If the oddities in the lock can be readily perceived if you look for them then I wouldn't have a character roll perception. They would do an investigation check to figure out the meaning of what they are looking at.
Checking a door for traps could be either perception or investigation depending on the nature of the trap. If the oddities in the lock can be readily perceived if you look for them then I wouldn't have a character roll perception. They would do an investigation check to figure out the meaning of what they are looking at.
I've seen either in a published campaign book or an Event Of the Week where Perception was used to discover the trap and then Investigation to determine how the trap works which gives the player roll a dexterity check to disarm it.
If it's muddy, I think it can come down to this: general vs specific, and/or question vs. statement, where general/specific supersedes question/statement. Investigation involves intent or purpose, perception covers about anything else.
"Do I seeanything of interest in this room?" Question, general: perception check
"I'd like to lookalong the wall for anything of interest" Statement, specific: Investigation check
"I'm looking for traps in here." Statement, General: perception
"Can I look for traps in that doorway?" question, specific: Investigation
I think it's fair that the DM can open up the conversation with the player.
Player: "Do I see anything of interest in here?"
DM: Are you looking for something specific? (hint, hint)
If yes, Investigation. If no, perception. If the player is going off of a hunch or a clue gathered previously, it's up to the player to communicate that. DM discretion is advised.
I consider any active check to show intent. What are passive values if not checks without intent?
I think officially, Perception is supposed to find things and Investigation is to deduce information from those things. However, when you're just searching a room you do need to make some deductions as to which things you see are important. If you notice a crack in the wall, the DM tells you this because it looked like a secret door - they are not going to narrate the 18 cracks in the wall you noticed that weren't secret doors. Somehow you knew this one crack was relevant. So I'd argue that Perception does begin to step on Investigation when it's used as intended to find things, but I don't think completely allowing Investigation to replace Perception checks is really fair either.
Since Investigation can also be used to make deductions from people's actions or events witnessed or any other information you've gathered, making Perception the "finding things" skill is the best way to keep them both relevant in my opinion.
As soon as he asked for a second perception check, I would have asked for an Investigation check. Investigation is used for searching for something. Perception is used for your general awareness of your surroundings. This could have been used to determine if there was something hidden, listening, smelling, etc for its general area. Then investigation needs to be used for a more thorough search for the hidden object.
On another note, because he failed his first perception check, I actually likely wouldn't have allowed the investigation to continue because his character wouldn't have been able to detect the presence of something hidden in the first place.
Feature Requests || Homebrew FAQ || Pricing FAQ || Hardcovers FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources
thanks sillvva
the player was trying to get a sense of his surroundings to detect nearby creatures, but to me his actions were at least borderline metagaming.
the player was trying to see if there were possibly creatures waiting to ambush, since there had been a few in previous encounters, but since the initial perception check failed his character would have thought the room was fine.
this is why i felt an investigation check was necessary, the player was searching for hidden creatures even though his character wouldn't/shouldn't feel the need to based of the perception check
i initially let him do a few perception checks because i was trying to help the party since they were entering a rough spot and aren't very tactical players, they generally just run into fights or don't think of non-violent solutions.
but when he kept having his character move ten feet and then ask for another perception check i realized what he (the player) was really doing.
Perception is the skill you should be using to find Hidden creatures. That's part of what that skill is for. If he's actively trying to find Hidden creatures, he should be rolling Perception, not Investigation.
I really disagree how people view the idea of perception. Especially the idea that if you bomb 1 check you can't do more.
a Perception Check is like an attack roll, it's 6 seconds of looking. Not allowing further looking is like saying:
I've lost my phone, I walk into a room and look for 6 seconds. If I don't find it I'm not allowed to keep looking. It's part of why I believe they included Passive Perception so that way the GM/Players have a mechanic to fall back on that isn't rolling rolling rolling.
Also, requiring Perception, Investigation, and Thieves Tools to disable a trap is insane. That's a HUGE resource sink. Most classes/races can get 4 skills and 2 tools. Requiring all of that to effectively "handle traps" is forcing players put a huge investment of their character into a very small thing, plus if you ask a player to consistently roll 3 times to do 1 task the player will statistically fail at that task.
Let the player do the thing they are good at, don't force the player's course of action.
I'll use the lost phone in my bedroom.
I walk into the room and spent 6 seconds looking for the phone. roll 1d20+Perception, and fail.
If I roll investigation to search for my phone I'll be asking questions like "If I were to leave a phone somewhere, where would it be?" Then start looking in the pants pockets in the hamper, under the bed, on the desk but underneath something."
If I roll another perception check to search for my phone I'll just be looking around the room further, moving things and searching without any real thought to drive the investigation.
Perception is for detecting things with your senses, not for feeling out the situation. A perception check doesn't change what the character is thinking.
Investigation is used to interpret clues. The player hadn't found anything; there's nothing to investigate.
Simple solution:
Side note: the player's behavior is perfectly rational. From their point of view, they got sucker punched. You can't expect them not to be paranoid of future ambushes. If you prefer to handle Perception checks a different way, that's your choice, but tell the players how you think they can avoid the situation in the future. That's all they're trying to do.
I think there's a very simple way to differentiate between Perception and Investigation, and it mostly has to do with the ability scores those skills use.
Perception is a Wisdom skill, meaning it uses your character's senses and intuition. It is for physically being able to see, hear, taste, or feel something. It doesn't give you any knowledge about what you detect, only that what you detect is there.
Investigation is an Intelligence skill, meaning it deals with information and knowledge. Investigation relies on thinking and deduction rather than detecting with your senses. It is used to gain knowledge about something, rather than to detect something.
Here's an example.
Excuse my long example, but I think it accurately demonstrates the difference between the two skills. Obviously, this is just how I run the game, and others may do things differently. I do think there are some cases where the skills may overlap, and in those cases I suggest you allow the player to use what they are best at. Sometimes it can be hard as a DM to give a reason for why you choose a specific skill.
As for repeating checks, I usually only allow for a player to do it if they explain to me how their character is doing it differently. For example, a player may just make a general perception check for what their character can see from standing at the entrance of a room. If they fail, they may still suspect something is there and want to try again. I wouldn't let them just roll again, I would ask them to tell me how they can search in a different way. Perhaps they say they want to look over the walls for any odd markings or incisions, I would then allow them to roll Perception for that, even though they didn't see it in their first glance over the room. Of course, there's a certain point where I wouldn't allow them to make any more checks, but I can't quite give a solid reasoning for how I reach that point.
A surprise, to be sure, but a welcome one.
In the case of something like footprints in mud, could a survival check be applied in some circumstances?
For tracking purposes, of course. I would still use either perception or investigation to find these footprints if they weren't actively known of prior. Survival for tracking them further through woods, etc.
[ Site Rules & Guidelines ] --- [ Homebrew Rules & Guidelines ]
Send me a message with any questions or concerns
Perception:
Investigation:
Retracting my previous statement, there are a few reasons for using solely perception:
The perception would have given him an indication that there was something present that is unseen, but not necessarily its location.
If the user failed their perception check, and didn't notice anything out of the ordinary at first glance/listen, then I would require the player to use Investigation to do a more thorough inspection assuming he still has a reason to believe there is something hidden.
Feature Requests || Homebrew FAQ || Pricing FAQ || Hardcovers FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources
I'm going to come at this from a slightly different angle: There is no such thing as a perception check.
There are only Ability Checks.
A Wisdom check is for something relating to sight, sound, smell, and so on - the senses characters use to perceive the world around them. An Intelligence check is for something relating to deduction or calculation, or for something where prior knowledge applies.
For example, in the case of a secret door a Wisdom check might find scrapes on the floor indicating the door but an Intelligence check might tell you that there is a suspiciously large wall space between two rooms or that Dwarves commonly indicated concealed doors with carvings of griffons.
For example, in the case of a door guard a Wisdom check might tell you that her uniform doesn't fit right but an Intelligence check might tell you that her rank is a lot higher than the duty requires.
All skills do is allow you to add your proficiency bonus to ability checks in some situations. For example, deducing the presence of the concealed door by calculating the size of the wall space might be Intelligence (Investigation) but deducing its presence by the griffon carving might be Intelligence (History).
Additionally, an optional rule says that skills are not necessarily tied to a particular ability score. Sometimes you might make a Charisma (Intimidation) roll, another time it might be a Strength (Intimidation) roll.
Short answer: Don't think of "skill checks"; think of "Ability Checks". First determine the ability score required and then determine what skill proficiencies, if any, might apply (it might be one, many, or even none).
You were more generous than I am. I only allow one roll to find something (two if you have advantage, like from someone assisting). Repeated attempts re-use that roll. I even apply this to the whole group (i.e. other PC's that search also use those two rolls, with their own modifiers, or a passive roll if that's better). None of this meta-game 'trying until someone finally rolls well'.
I understand your player wanting to search until he rolls well (that's only logical), but that shouldn't be allowed. It's Passive checks that "represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the GM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed ".
The only thing I would suggest doing differently in your example would be to check the passive perception and passive investigation values FIRST. If these are not sufficient to succeed in the check then I would ask for a roll (the characters are spending multiple rounds searching and looking around in the chamber trying to pick out anomalies or figure something out ... in my opinion, in a situation like this, the average result for a task done repeatedly should be checked first). The players never see the DC, if their passive succeeds they never even know that there was a possibility of missing what they find. In addition, if the DC is such that only some of the players can notice it then only those players get told first and have the option of sharing what they noticed with the party.
I agree. For the most part, I do actually do it the way you say, my example was only written to show different potential uses for the two skills, given that the skill check is required. I don't actually tell my players the DC for most checks, I just wrote it in the example.
A surprise, to be sure, but a welcome one.
yeah, this was my first campaign and the third session. They got a tpk on the second so i think i was trying to be extra helpful. turns out i should have been having them roll with disadvantage since they were in a dark room. I told the party i am stepping down as DM until i learn more of the basic stuff, i just don't know enough yet to fairly manage the game
Sorry for the bad English and for reliving the post, but for me there is no overlap in the two skills since the description of both are very clear especially considering their attributes. Perception is always the skill that must be requested when the player wants to find or detect something in the environment. Investigation should be requested only when the player is trying to analyze what he has found or understand how it works.
The best example does not come from RPG tables, but from the Batman Arkhan game series .... when you (Batman) enter a crime scene and activate the detective mode you are looking for clues ( Perception test), after finding all of them you do the analysis of the crime scene and deduce what and how it happened (investigation test).
Basically you have to first find something (Perception) to then be able to analyze and deduce (Investigation).
This serves as an example: someone in the group is able to disarm a trap when the rogue is not close after a successful Investigation test on how the trap works even without having the appropriate tools for the job.
I agree with this. A lot of people basically use Investigation as "Perception, but on purpose." That really guts the utility of Perception IMO. A Perception check is not passively looking - there is literally a Passive Perception stat for that.
If Perception is collecting sensory information and Investigation is deducing things from that information, both can be useful on their own and they are even better when combined.
If a party is only good at Investigation, you can still feed them some clues through Passive Perception and let them make big deductive leaps. If they're good at Perception, they can find so many clues that Passive Investigation can likely fill in any remaining blanks.
The greatest issue is that a lot of players are used to handling the deduction part themselves - it's actually pretty hard not to make those leaps when the information is available. So people tend to push Investigation into Perception's realm because they're essentially metagaming their Investigation rolls.
Not that I'm blaming players. A skill so involved with the line between player knowledge and character knowledge should have a lot more clarification around it. As it is, the wording of both skills are unclear and even contradict each other in places. However you run it, I'd urge to make sure that you don't let one completely eclipse the other.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I use perception when a character is looking or using their senses (sight, hearing, touch, smell)for something that might be difficult to perceive. I use investigation when things can fairly readily be seen/detected but what they mean might not be obvious. Occasionally, I will use both if it is difficult to detect the clues and their meaning is also difficult to determine.
Finding a secret door is usually perception. Figuring out how to open a secret door likely investigation.
Checking a door for traps could be either perception or investigation depending on the nature of the trap. If the oddities in the lock can be readily perceived if you look for them then I wouldn't have a character roll perception. They would do an investigation check to figure out the meaning of what they are looking at.
I've seen either in a published campaign book or an Event Of the Week where Perception was used to discover the trap and then Investigation to determine how the trap works which gives the player roll a dexterity check to disarm it.
If it's muddy, I think it can come down to this: general vs specific, and/or question vs. statement, where general/specific supersedes question/statement. Investigation involves intent or purpose, perception covers about anything else.
"Do I see anything of interest in this room?" Question, general: perception check
"I'd like to look along the wall for anything of interest" Statement, specific: Investigation check
"I'm looking for traps in here." Statement, General: perception
"Can I look for traps in that doorway?" question, specific: Investigation
I think it's fair that the DM can open up the conversation with the player.
Player: "Do I see anything of interest in here?"
DM: Are you looking for something specific? (hint, hint)
If yes, Investigation. If no, perception. If the player is going off of a hunch or a clue gathered previously, it's up to the player to communicate that. DM discretion is advised.
I consider any active check to show intent. What are passive values if not checks without intent?
I think officially, Perception is supposed to find things and Investigation is to deduce information from those things. However, when you're just searching a room you do need to make some deductions as to which things you see are important. If you notice a crack in the wall, the DM tells you this because it looked like a secret door - they are not going to narrate the 18 cracks in the wall you noticed that weren't secret doors. Somehow you knew this one crack was relevant. So I'd argue that Perception does begin to step on Investigation when it's used as intended to find things, but I don't think completely allowing Investigation to replace Perception checks is really fair either.
Since Investigation can also be used to make deductions from people's actions or events witnessed or any other information you've gathered, making Perception the "finding things" skill is the best way to keep them both relevant in my opinion.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm