It seemed like this was a point of confusion for a lot of people during the playtest, but after reading through several time in the playtest packets, I thought it made sense and was very easy to understand and use once you got the idea down. INT was more for specific searches and WIS was for general searching/listening when you were trying to notice something.
The Starter Set rules seem to have blurred this even more and, unless I'm just misunderstanding something, there seems to be a little bit of a contradiction.
On page 6 of the SS rulebook, under Intelligence Checks > Investigation, it states:
"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 would what kind of weapon dealt it...."
Then, in a sidebar on page 7 that is titled "Finding a Hidden Object," is says:
"When your character searches for a hidden object such as a secret door or trap, the DM typically asks you to make a Wisdome (Perception) check."
One seems to indicate that Investigation (INT) is the correct check for finding a hidden object, while the other indicates that it is Perception (WIS). The rest of the wording in the "Finding a HIdden Object" sidebar that describes using WIS even sounds more like the INT check description from the playtest, talking about searching in specific drawers in a bureau and such.
What am I missing here? How is everyone else interpreting this in the SS rules?
See pages 61-62 of the Basic PDF. It's a little hard to parse there as well. I think we need a Cyber-Dave level of understanding the written word to get it right.
I took it that Investigation requires deduction, whereas perception was for those items that might not require a high level of knowledge to find but could be found if one was just carefully searching and using some basic logic.
So, you can find a trap or secret passage by basically just rooting around enough for it and performing a careful search using some basic logic for where such a hidden thing might be, and that's perception.
But, finding a powerful magical totem baked into a crude clay idol might be harder because you had to realize that the idol was unusual in some way, and would take investigation.
That was my take, anyway.
jonwes wrote:
I was asked to take a look at this with a PM. As far as I can tell, these are the important lines of text relating to this matter in the Basic document.
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…
Thanks for taking the time to break that down. I was looking for where they are concretely different and it seems like, as you say, there is some overlap depending on context. I think your ruling sounds correct to me as well for what it's worth and I agree that would make Investigation superior. Perhaps that's balanced by how often Perception comes up with regard to determining things like surprise.
I always considered that Perception would allow you to notice the crack, investigation of that crack leads to the bookcase that pulls outward to reveal a secret door.
Perception, you notice something; investigation lets you figure out what that means.
You notice the wire, which leads to the trap.
You see a depression which leads to a secret door.
You notice a loop that opens a false bottom.
etc...
We ran into similar issues discerning whether to make WIS/Perception or INT/Investigation checks during our first session with the Starter Set. My wife, who is playing the pregen Rogue, asked a simple question.. "How can I be expected to avoid or disarm traps when I can't even see they are there? I'm a rogue! It's my job to detect and disarm traps!" The pregenerated Rogue has a +0 WIS, along with +0 Perception, but a +1 INT and +3 Investigation.
If, as you note, Perception allows you to spot the crack/tripwire/pit/pressure plate/etc., how could they expect to notice something that warranted further Investigation?
Until clarification comes, I'm allowing her to make Investigation checks to search for traps and the like.... after all, I do have to live with her... 
Just because you didn't see a clue doesn't mean you can't investigate anyway.
Think about it like this....
The high wis low int character may see the scrape marks on the floor, but not investigate as they are just some scrapes.
The high int low wis character may never see the scrapes on the floor, but decides to investigate the floor anyway discovering that one stone is loose and slides up over the other.
I've got a different opinion from Cyber-Dave. Deducing means you arrive at a certain fact through reasoning. Reasoning is often a multi-step process, and certainly not a quick affair. To say that investigation would be better for broad, sweeping searches not aimed at a certain place is to imply that the character is going to go through several steps of reasoning at each element they pass by, looking for something while not really knowing what they're looking for. It's hard to use reason based upon unknowns. Perception, on the other hand, doesn't require any sort of knowledge beforehand. You just sort of stumble upon the answer; therefore it seems much more appropriate for broad searches, where you have no details to base your reasonings upon.
I also find it odd to point out the usage of the words "might" and "typically", but then not point out the disparity between frequency implied therein. Typically means usually, or "in most cases". I'd say the most common case in a game of D&D is the kind of search where you're not certain where you're looking, or what you're looking for. "I search the room for loot and hidden passages!" is a common example, and the player really has nothing to go on at that point. This also aligns with an interpretation that is opposite of Cyber-Dave's.
An example in play:
Investigation:
- You know the culprit must have left the room through a different way than the door or the windows. Following this reasoning, you specifically start looking for alternative ways out, looking at pieces of the scene for this express purpose. Based upon a different level of wear and tear of the carpet, you deduce that a certain bookcase must be able to move, and eventually find the switch.
- There's muddy footprints all over an indoor room. Based upon this knowledge, you realize there must be a passage connecting between this room and a muddy outdoor area.
- A wizard is a renowed illusionist. Based upon this knowledge, you use a discrepancy in cast shadows to find a hidden chest.
Perception:
- During a search of a room, you feel a draft. This leads to the discovery of a secret passage behind a bookcase.
- You notice a certain stone doesn't fit into the floor completely. Removing it opens a passage onto an area outside.
- You scrutiny the area, and realize the texture of one of the walls is off. It's an illusion.
Being perceptive is a good way to stumble across all sorts of things you weren't necessarily looking for, and a great many that you were. Being good at investigating is a good way to find one specific answer to a specific question based upon knowledge you already have or which is readily available. Perception is faster and more universal, but Investigation is more potent once you're on the trail. Someone can disguise a hidden object in such a way as to be nigh impossible to be percieved as strange by a routine search, but if someone has some evidence giving clues as to its location, logic and reasoning can determine that, hey, out of all these places it could be, this one makes the most sense. Then it's just a matter of acting upon that.
Investigation for traps is a good idea. After all, the rogue knows what signs to look for. He has something to base his reasoning upon, and can limit his thinking to a very specific subset of things that he has to keep in mind. He already has the "clue" he needs, due to an understanding of traps. To notice a trap you weren't looking for just before you trigger it, however, is the purview of perception. I'd let Perception be used to find traps too. That's more a character keepign their eyes upon for any dangers and oddness, then, rather than a charaacter specifically lookign into the possibility of traps.
I recommend my fellow DMs to use 2 sets of DCs, one for Investigating, one for Perception. An object that has no underlying logic attached to its placement will have a high Investigation DC. One that has a logical placement or one where the possible locations are logically limited has a low one. An obvious discrepancy has a low Perception DC. A very well hidden object has a high perception DC. You can then make all sorts of combinations: randomly placed objects with minimal attempt at hiding (high invest, low percep), well-hidden but logically placed (high percep, low invest), shoddily disguised and palcement logically restricted (low percep and low invest), etc...
Coupled with Perception being appropriate for passive usage + active, but investigation only active, I'd say the skills are sufficiently different with their own niches.
Unahim wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Unahim wrote:
If you say "As a DM, based on all these lines of text, I might say..." then for me that means that that is the way you think it should be handled, as it is the way you are thinking of handeling it. One would imagine that you're not going to propose the use of a rule when you think it is the opposite of how it should be done. I, however, do think that some of the rules proposed there are opposite of how it should be.
So I disagree that the way you proposed is the way it should be done. Even when you do indeed note other ways are possible, as I've said, I imagine that being the one that holds your favour. It does not hold my favour, hence our opinions are different. I do not think I need to be in disagreement with you about fundamental game rules in order to have a different opinion. If you said you thought rogues were fun to play I could say I disagree without quarelling over the mechanics of the rogue and how they work. In this case, when you say you'd probably prefer doing it the way you described, I can disagree about liking that way without quarreling over the mechanics used, too.
Sorry if I triggered one of your peevees, but you are simply taking a small part of my post and trying to give it a bigger impact and more importance than was ever intended by it.
On the topic of "might" and "typically": you did touch upon it, but you never mentioned the difference between the two explicitly. For "might" you sayd that the DM does not have to allow it, and for "typically" you said "not always". Then you said that it is thus to the DM to decide which one is used. Nowhere there did you mention that the way it is worded makes Perception out to be the more common scenario. Consider that part of my post to be an addendum for the sake of readers with a less complete grasp of the language than you do, who might not grasp the difference from your post. I personally found it odd to omit specific mention of this, but you obviously disagree with this and that is fine. Better safe than sorry, if you ask me.
I hope you are slightly less peeveed after this explanation.
Unahim wrote:
alienux wrote:
Archon007 wrote:
Unahim wrote:
Archon007 wrote:
iserith wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
iserith wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
RadperT wrote:
Is clarification really needed? Basically Intelligence (Investigation) lets a character figure out good places to search, while Wisdom (Perception) lets a character use their five senses.
Really you would need both, but the game usually models it as one or the other.
A DM could allow both, for example, the wizard’s investigation check might allow the cleric to make a perception check with a chance of succeeding (I’ve had enough of typing the stat every time).
Overpromises wrote:
Dethangels_Shadow wrote: