If a character has a high passive WIS (Perception) then the GM might allow them to notice a secret door based on faint scratches on the floor, or on a faint breeze percieved by the character.
If another character has a high passive INT (Investigation) then the GM might allow them to notice the door based on an inconsistency with wall widths in this part of the dungeon, or on the behaviour of a foe they were following ("They went this way then disappeared, I deduce that there must be a secret door and it must be... there!").
It's confusing because it's described in the books differently in different places. Technically, Perception should be just noticing the scratches/breeze and Investigation is required to figure out that those clues indicate a hidden door. Perception is collecting sensory information, Investigation is making deductions based on that information - the two are supposed to work together. But many places elsewhere an example of Investigation is given that clearly involves collecting sensory information. This gives the impression that the two are interchangeable, or even that Investigation can basically do everything Perception can do and more. It's further complicated by the fact that something like deduction is often done naturally by the player before the character figures it out and it takes a lot of discipline to not let that affect your actions.
There's always going to be discussion and opinions on this because the source material itself is not consistent. Personally I try to keep Investigation from completely eclipsing Perception in usefulness by sticking to the technical definitions above. The party will generally do well in one or the other, so either they have a lot of clues that make it easier to figure something out, or they don't get many clues but are able to make that deductive leap.
It's confusing because it's described in the books differently in different places. Technically, Perception should be just noticing the scratches/breeze and Investigation is required to figure out that those clues indicate a hidden door. Perception is collecting sensory information, Investigation is making deductions based on that information - the two are supposed to work together.
Agreed. WIS is "noticing" and INT is "deducing" "adducing" and "remembering".
If a character has a high passive WIS (Perception) then the GM might allow them to notice a secret door based on faint scratches on the floor, or on a faint breeze percieved by the character.
If another character has a high passive INT (Investigation) then the GM might allow them to notice the door based on an inconsistency with wall widths in this part of the dungeon, or on the behaviour of a foe they were following ("They went this way then disappeared, I deduce that there must be a secret door and it must be... there!").
It's confusing because it's described in the books differently in different places. Technically, Perception should be just noticing the scratches/breeze and Investigation is required to figure out that those clues indicate a hidden door. Perception is collecting sensory information, Investigation is making deductions based on that information - the two are supposed to work together. But many places elsewhere an example of Investigation is given that clearly involves collecting sensory information. This gives the impression that the two are interchangeable, or even that Investigation can basically do everything Perception can do and more. It's further complicated by the fact that something like deduction is often done naturally by the player before the character figures it out and it takes a lot of discipline to not let that affect your actions.
There's always going to be discussion and opinions on this because the source material itself is not consistent. Personally I try to keep Investigation from completely eclipsing Perception in usefulness by sticking to the technical definitions above. The party will generally do well in one or the other, so either they have a lot of clues that make it easier to figure something out, or they don't get many clues but are able to make that deductive leap.
Perception is usually using senses to notice something while Investigation usually involves making deductions or inferences from clues.
However, there are four cases.
1) Details are hard to notice (perception) but once they are the meaning is obvious (investigation - but no roll required because just noticing the clue is sufficient to convey the meaning) (Example: some secret doors)
2) The details of the situation, the size and shape of the desk, the box - whatever you are looking at is obvious (perception - but no roll required because it is trivial to obtain the sensory information you need) however, figuring out what the information means is more challenging (investigation check required to figure out what the observations mean). (Example: searching a desk or perhaps checking for traps - traps could be either depending on whether it depends on noticing the trap or recognizing that the details you see mean that a trap is present).
3) The details are hard to notice (perception check required) and there is also a challenge to figure out what the details mean (investigation check required). In a circumstance like this the DM could require both perception and investigation checks to resolve the challenge.
4) Finally the trival case, both the details and what they mean are pretty obvious and the DM can just narrate the outcome. "As you break out of the jungle you see a 5' long three toed footprint in the sand in front of you. It looks fresh. You think whatever made it can not be far away." "Roll for initiative" :)
It's confusing because it's described in the books differently in different places. Technically, Perception should be just noticing the scratches/breeze and Investigation is required to figure out that those clues indicate a hidden door. Perception is collecting sensory information, Investigation is making deductions based on that information - the two are supposed to work together. But many places elsewhere an example of Investigation is given that clearly involves collecting sensory information. This gives the impression that the two are interchangeable, or even that Investigation can basically do everything Perception can do and more. It's further complicated by the fact that something like deduction is often done naturally by the player before the character figures it out and it takes a lot of discipline to not let that affect your actions.
There's always going to be discussion and opinions on this because the source material itself is not consistent. Personally I try to keep Investigation from completely eclipsing Perception in usefulness by sticking to the technical definitions above. The party will generally do well in one or the other, so either they have a lot of clues that make it easier to figure something out, or they don't get many clues but are able to make that deductive leap.
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
Agreed. WIS is "noticing" and INT is "deducing" "adducing" and "remembering".
Perception is usually using senses to notice something while Investigation usually involves making deductions or inferences from clues.
However, there are four cases.
1) Details are hard to notice (perception) but once they are the meaning is obvious (investigation - but no roll required because just noticing the clue is sufficient to convey the meaning) (Example: some secret doors)
2) The details of the situation, the size and shape of the desk, the box - whatever you are looking at is obvious (perception - but no roll required because it is trivial to obtain the sensory information you need) however, figuring out what the information means is more challenging (investigation check required to figure out what the observations mean). (Example: searching a desk or perhaps checking for traps - traps could be either depending on whether it depends on noticing the trap or recognizing that the details you see mean that a trap is present).
3) The details are hard to notice (perception check required) and there is also a challenge to figure out what the details mean (investigation check required). In a circumstance like this the DM could require both perception and investigation checks to resolve the challenge.
4) Finally the trival case, both the details and what they mean are pretty obvious and the DM can just narrate the outcome. "As you break out of the jungle you see a 5' long three toed footprint in the sand in front of you. It looks fresh. You think whatever made it can not be far away." "Roll for initiative" :)