Does the investigation skill steal fun from the players?

[Spojaz]

Investigation is an int-based skill introduced in 5e that allows a character to figure things out.

eg. after the perception check find the tripwire, the dents in the floor or the basket of cannonballs, perception allows them to figure out how the trap works.

Isn't this something the players should be doing, rather than their characters? If you roll badly, but come up with the answer, are you allowed to say? I think it takes away a whole facet of the game and replaces it with a dice roll. Instead of having to figure out the BBEG's plan yourselves, just roll the dice! Decipher the secret code to solve the puzzle or roll the dice for the same result? I feel it's like having a skill called "combat tactics" where after you roll, the DM would choose where on the battlemat you moved to.

The only other interpretations I can find about this skill make it either useless unless it is trivializing mystery campaigns or entirely replaces the active perception roll. Is it just a "how well did you check the corpse's pockets" roll? Because of my confusion, I have never asked my players to roll this skill, making it yet another reason for them to dump stat intelligence.

What is your view or use of Investigation?

[Garimeth]

Investigation is an int-based skill introduced in 5e that allows a character to figure things out.

eg. after the perception check find the tripwire, the dents in the floor or the basket of cannonballs, perception allows them to figure out how the trap works.

Isn't this something the players should be doing, rather than their characters? If you roll badly, but come up with the answer, are you allowed to say? I think it takes away a whole facet of the game and replaces it with a dice roll. Instead of having to figure out the BBEG's plan yourselves, just roll the dice! Decipher the secret code to solve the puzzle or roll the dice for the same result? I feel it's like having a skill called "combat tactics" where after you roll, the DM would choose where on the battlemat you moved to.

The only other interpretations I can find about this skill make it either useless unless it is trivializing mystery campaigns or entirely replaces the active perception roll. Is it just a "how well did you check the corpse's pockets" roll? Because of my confusion, I have never asked my players to roll this skill, making it yet another reason for them to dump stat intelligence.

What is your view or use of Investigation?

I primarily use it to represent methodical "searching" of an area for details about the scene, or methodical information gathering. I use a degrees of success DC where I give more/better info the higher the roll. If the player figures it out for themselves, or its reasonable for their characters to simply notice or conclude something, I just tell them without a roll, but if they are stumped they can use it as a get out of jail free card to move the game along.

It can trivialize certain things in a game if over-used, but unless that's a feature of the game is that necessarily bad? If you have a combat heavy game full of bruisers that wanna fight stuff and they just "investigate" their mystery stuff to move along the campaign, then not broken. If you have a cloak and dagger game built off of mystery and intrigue then maybe default to the "get out of jail free card" approach, to be used when players just get stumped, but if you do this remember you decide what they learn on a success, and don't have the players roll the dice unless you are prepared for them to either succeed or fail.

My 2cp.

[Temperjoke]

I think it's just a way to help DMs and players quantify stuff better. I see the investigation check as more of "I look into the room and based off my roll, what do I see?" sort of thing, rather than "Hey, this roll says you have to tell me every trap in this room" kinda deal. Plus, it can be applied more specifically too. "I want to investigate this chest" *rolls a 1* "You see a nice, large chest."

[TopCheese]

I think it's just a way to help DMs and players quantify stuff better. I see the investigation check as more of "I look into the room and based off my roll, what do I see?" sort of thing, rather than "Hey, this roll says you have to tell me every trap in this room" kinda deal. Plus, it can be applied more specifically too. "I want to investigate this chest" *rolls a 1* "You see a nice, large chest."

I'm 5e it would work more like this...

Player: I want to search this room for *secret door, specific item, or whatever*.

DM: Give me a (Wisdom or Intelligence) ability check, if you have (Perception or Investigation) you may use that skill.

I've seen plenty of DM's almost ignore investigation and have players use perception. It really is up to DM choice by raw.

[Demonic Spoon]

If you roll badly, but come up with the answer, are you allowed to say? I think it takes away a whole facet of the game and replaces it with a dice roll. Instead of having to figure out the BBEG's plan yourselves, just roll the dice! Decipher the secret code to solve the puzzle or roll the dice for the same result? I feel it's like having a skill called "combat tactics" where after you roll, the DM would choose where on the battlemat you moved to.


Figuring out the BBEG's plan I don't think is a great use of investigation, but I think the others are. I personally hate logic puzzles like that in an RPG - the character has nothing to do with it; it feels like you just stopped playing D&D and gave everyone a logic puzzle to solve before getting back to the game because it's about whether the players, not the characters, can solve the puzzle.

[Nifft]

I use it as "Detect Relevant Clue" and also as "Confirm Viable Theory".

Detect Relevant Clue - I throw in fewer red herrings with a higher Investigate roll.

Confirm Viable Theory - With a high Investigate roll, I'll give stronger hints about the viability of a player's theory. NOT about the correctness -- just whether their character would already know something that contradicts the player's theory.

[Kryx]

I recently switched back from enforcing Investigation for search (ala 3.5) to the PF's mindset of search being in perception. It strengthens perception, but really it is just a sense like the others.

I've completely removed Investigation - made any spells based on it Int saves (trippling the amount of Int saves, lulz).

[Demonic Spoon]

I use it as "Detect Relevant Clue" and also as "Confirm Viable Theory".

Detect Relevant Clue - I throw in fewer red herrings with a higher Investigate roll.

Confirm Viable Theory - With a high Investigate roll, I'll give stronger hints about the viability of a player's theory. NOT about the correctness -- just whether their character would already know something that contradicts the player's theory.

This is a good way of doing it. It's not a mechanism to give the players all the information ever, it's a mechanism to allow intelligent characters to figure out a few more nuggets of information.

[Garimeth]

I'm 5e it would work more like this...

Player: I want to search this room for *secret door, specific item, or whatever*.

DM: Give me a (Wisdom or Intelligence) ability check, if you have (Perception or Investigation) you may use that skill.

I've seen plenty of DM's almost ignore investigation and have players use perception. It really is up to DM choice by raw.

I feel like Perception is the new Spot/Listen and Investigation is the new Search/Gather Information for our table.

[TopCheese]

I recently switched back from enforcing Investigation for search (ala 3.5) to the PF's mindset of search being in perception. It strengthens perception, but really it is just a sense like the others.

I've completely removed Investigation - made any spells based on it Int saves (trippling the amount of Int saves, lulz).

My old DM made perception be based on one of three ability scores.

Int and Wis As normal but also...

Constitution: Those with training and physically better eyes can spot or see things better. If you have worse eyesight then it won't matter how smart or wise you are, you ain't seeing anything.

Perception ability modified was something like... Middle value of your Int, Wis, and Con modifiers.

[Kryx]

Gather Information
Gather Information is a generic Charisma check:


Find the best person to talk to for news, rumors, and gossip
Blend into a crowd to get the sense of key topics of conversation

[Spojaz]

I feel like Perception is the new Spot/Listen and Investigation is the new Search/Gather Information for our table.


Gather Information is a generic Charisma check:

Heavens to Betsy, this is getting convoluted. I guess the designers tried to split up the "hey DM, give me more information" skill, since it is the most used skill in every system, and ended up putting it everywhere and nowhere.

[Kryx]

Heavens to Betsy, this is getting convoluted. I guess the designers tried to split up the "hey DM, give me more information" skill, since it is the most used skill in every system, and ended up putting it everywhere and nowhere.
Investigation does not do what his group uses it for:

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

Gather Information has always been a Charisma based skill. Investigation is for deduction which is not the same thing.

[MrStabby]

To me investigation is looking for something specified. Perception is something not specified.

If you are searching for a text on Golems then its investigation. If you are looking round the room generally it is perception. For borderline cases i tend to find they cane be wisdom (investigation) or intelligence (perception) checks.

[Human Paragon 3]

I agree with the above poster.

Perception could let you notice a lever hidden in a niche in the wall.

Player 1: Do I think it was made by goblins?
Player 2: What does it look like the lever does?
Player 3: Has it been pulled recently?

DM: Roll investigation. Easy, medium, and hard checks respectively. Roll with advantage since you have goblins as favored enemy.

[gullveig]

The Old School D&D does not have those skills.


I feel like Perception is the new Spot/Listen and Investigation is the new Search/Gather Information for our table.

As a DM, I use that way too. But with minor tricks because calling a Wisdom (Perception) check makes the players suspicious, failing a Intelligence (Investigation) check makes some players want to retry the check or even let the player roll the ability check because he is not as clever as his character...

So I deal with it in those ways....
- Being old school and using the role play instead of skill checks. "You see some smashed body parts on the ground."
- Changing to a Passive check. *look at the player's Passive Perception of 9* "you see a boring corridor with there nothing important"
- Let the player roll dices. *player roll a natural 20* "You see kobolds plastered on the ground. They were killed by the falling floor trap."
- Retry with harder consequences. *player roll fail* "you spent an hour searching an found nothing" "I wanna search more!" "will be evening when you finish your search, even if you not find anything. still want to search again?"

[Vogonjeltz]

Investigation is an int-based skill introduced in 5e that allows a character to figure things out.

eg. after the perception check find the tripwire, the dents in the floor or the basket of cannonballs, perception allows them to figure out how the trap works.

Isn't this something the players should be doing, rather than their characters? If you roll badly, but come up with the answer, are you allowed to say? I think it takes away a whole facet of the game and replaces it with a dice roll. Instead of having to figure out the BBEG's plan yourselves, just roll the dice! Decipher the secret code to solve the puzzle or roll the dice for the same result? I feel it's like having a skill called "combat tactics" where after you roll, the DM would choose where on the battlemat you moved to.

The only other interpretations I can find about this skill make it either useless unless it is trivializing mystery campaigns or entirely replaces the active perception roll. Is it just a "how well did you check the corpse's pockets" roll? Because of my confusion, I have never asked my players to roll this skill, making it yet another reason for them to dump stat intelligence.

What is your view or use of Investigation?

No. Part of this is roleplaying, your character often can do things you the player could never do. Investigation is simply one more thing. You don't require players who want to have a good performance as Bards to compose songs, don't compel players who want to employ investigation to have to actually just figure things out either.

Think of Investigation as the Sherlock Holmes skill. It provides leaps in logic that the players can't realistically be expected to make, but that the skilled fictional investigator character can: "I note from the slight lilt of your accent, and the stain on the carpet that you're actually a shapechanger who murdered the real prof. Boffo with that letter opener you furtively stashed in the draw as we entered!"

Investigation is best suited for answering specific questions: What kind of weapon could have made this wound? Where is the weak point in this wall? Does this lengthy contract with the devil have an escape clause?
etc...

One could also make the argument that perception checks are ridiculousl because it involves 'seeing things'. It's also incorrect, but it also follows the same train of thought. It's easier to avoid the meta-gaming from players with theater of the mind perception because they only really see what you tell them they see. Rather than, for example, if this were a video-game and an NPC walks through a room, you're relying on the player being perceptive, not the character.


I'm 5e it would work more like this...

Player: I want to search this room for *secret door, specific item, or whatever*.

DM: Give me a (Wisdom or Intelligence) ability check, if you have (Perception or Investigation) you may use that skill.

I've seen plenty of DM's almost ignore investigation and have players use perception. It really is up to DM choice by raw.

Eh, Perception is about the character's observational capability, investigation is about the character's deduction/induction capabilities. Related, but totally different. I'd imagine many DMs would prefer to cut to the chase sometimes because...reasons?

[snacksmoto]

I am of the mind that a successful Perception/Investigation/Gather Information roll does not give the players all of the relevant information. I am also of the mind that Success/Failure isn't a binary outcome but more of a sliding scale. Generally, Perception to spot clues, Investigation to determine what they can make of the clues, Gather Information for social interation clue gathering.

Let's take the Secret Door for example:
Player: "I'm looking for secret doors."
- rolls a nat 1 - I'll give them clues to a total red herring.
- rolls a bad failure - The characters miss any clues but don't get a red herring.
- rolls just under a failure - The characters find a clue or two but nothing that leads them directly towards the Secret Door. "Seems odd that there are more bootprints leading in than out."
- rolls just over a success - The characters find a clue or two in the right direction. "You find some unusual scuff marks along the north wall."
- rolls a high success - "You notice unusual scuff marks along the north wall. You spot the back half of a bootprint against one area of the wall."
- rolls a nat 20 - They find the scuff marks, and the half-bootprint. They also get clues on how to get the door open, such as finding bootprints as if someone stood right in front of the torch sconce along the west wall.

All this would be trumped by the player's actions. If one of the players say that they are trying to yank around the torch sconce, the Secret Door will open.

Basically, the only auto-fail/success roll are the nat 1 and nat 20. Everything else may or may not lead them in the right direction.

For gathering information/mystery plot, a failure might give them more bribe expenses as they need to talk with a longer chain of people. A botch might have them talk with someone who will alert the BBEG, or just lead to a combat encounter with someone they inadvertently insulted or took offence to their questioning for whatever reason. A botch won't completely derail or lead them completely off the plot.
A regular success would keep them on the narrative path while a high success might lower their costs or be able to jump over links in the chain of people they need to talk to. A crit would lead them only to the people in the chain that they absolutely need to encounter, possibly gaining some information they wouldn't normally have gotten.

As for your tripwire trap example, I would lean towards the scenario that the characters would be able to determine the point of danger from the trap but not its internal workings. That is, unless the trap is really simple or something in the character's background would allow them to be familiar with traps of that nature.

[Atalas]

We've been using Investigation like 3.5's Gather Information, as well as for finding finer details after a Perception roll. Perception rolls gives us something to see, Investigation gives us its details. And then Insight tells us what it is if our own knowledge doesn't tell us. We have had a full group facepalm out-of-game after he tells us what it is.

[Garimeth]

We've been using Investigation like 3.5's Gather Information, as well as for finding finer details after a Perception roll. Perception rolls gives us something to see, Investigation gives us its details. And then Insight tells us what it is if our own knowledge doesn't tell us. We have had a full group facepalm out-of-game after he tells us what it is.

This is kind of more what I mean I still use a charisma based gather information, but investigation let's people deduce where they might find said information. Basically I don't like any of these types of skill except Perception, because they should all be RPed. I like using degrees of success, and just not having people roll things in the first place.


I am of the mind that a successful Perception/Investigation/Gather Information roll does not give the players all of the relevant information. I am also of the mind that Success/Failure isn't a binary outcome but more of a sliding scale. Generally, Perception to spot clues, Investigation to determine what they can make of the clues, Gather Information for social interation clue gathering.

Let's take the Secret Door for example:
Player: "I'm looking for secret doors."
- rolls a nat 1 - I'll give them clues to a total red herring.
- rolls a bad failure - The characters miss any clues but don't get a red herring.
- rolls just under a failure - The characters find a clue or two but nothing that leads them directly towards the Secret Door. "Seems odd that there are more bootprints leading in than out."
- rolls just over a success - The characters find a clue or two in the right direction. "You find some unusual scuff marks along the north wall."
- rolls a high success - "You notice unusual scuff marks along the north wall. You spot the back half of a bootprint against one area of the wall."
- rolls a nat 20 - They find the scuff marks, and the half-bootprint. They also get clues on how to get the door open, such as finding bootprints as if someone stood right in front of the torch sconce along the west wall.

All this would be trumped by the player's actions. If one of the players say that they are trying to yank around the torch sconce, the Secret Door will open.

Basically, the only auto-fail/success roll are the nat 1 and nat 20. Everything else may or may not lead them in the right direction.

For gathering information/mystery plot, a failure might give them more bribe expenses as they need to talk with a longer chain of people. A botch might have them talk with someone who will alert the BBEG, or just lead to a combat encounter with someone they inadvertently insulted or took offence to their questioning for whatever reason. A botch won't completely derail or lead them completely off the plot.
A regular success would keep them on the narrative path while a high success might lower their costs or be able to jump over links in the chain of people they need to talk to. A crit would lead them only to the people in the chain that they absolutely need to encounter, possibly gaining some information they wouldn't normally have gotten.

As for your tripwire trap example, I would lean towards the scenario that the characters would be able to determine the point of danger from the trap but not its internal workings. That is, unless the trap is really simple or something in the character's background would allow them to be familiar with traps of that nature.

This pretty much sums up how I feel.

[PoeticDwarf]

Investigation is an int-based skill introduced in 5e that allows a character to figure things out.

eg. after the perception check find the tripwire, the dents in the floor or the basket of cannonballs, perception allows them to figure out how the trap works.

Isn't this something the players should be doing, rather than their characters? If you roll badly, but come up with the answer, are you allowed to say? I think it takes away a whole facet of the game and replaces it with a dice roll. Instead of having to figure out the BBEG's plan yourselves, just roll the dice! Decipher the secret code to solve the puzzle or roll the dice for the same result? I feel it's like having a skill called "combat tactics" where after you roll, the DM would choose where on the battlemat you moved to.

The only other interpretations I can find about this skill make it either useless unless it is trivializing mystery campaigns or entirely replaces the active perception roll. Is it just a "how well did you check the corpse's pockets" roll? Because of my confusion, I have never asked my players to roll this skill, making it yet another reason for them to dump stat intelligence.

What is your view or use of Investigation?

I'd say that if a player has OOC an idea even if his character has 8 int and rolled a 1 he can just say it. Investigation is for situations like traps you can't figure out OOC so you have to do it IC.

[Nifft]

We've been using Investigation like 3.5's Gather Information, as well as for finding finer details after a Perception roll. Perception rolls gives us something to see, Investigation gives us its details. And then Insight tells us what it is if our own knowledge doesn't tell us. We have had a full group facepalm out-of-game after he tells us what it is.

I have also used Int-based Investigation in place of Gather Info.

Basically, if it's something that you could research, but the research is done in any unconventional way, then you can use Investigation. Generally it'll yield less info than you'd get from a visit to an appropriate library, but it's open to more use.

The way I get Cha to be relevant is Bluff or Diplomacy (or Intimidate) as a way to set up a social use of Gather Info. Like, you want to know what all the soldiers are talking about, you'd roll something social to hang out with a bunch of soldiers, then Investigate to figure out what they're NOT saying.

[JoeJ]

Investigation is not for directly solving mysteries or puzzles; that's for the player to do. It's for finding clues in the first place and making first-order deductions from them. For example, a successful Investigation roll would let a character determine that a victim was killed by a crossbow bolt rather than an arrow. It would still be up to the players to put that together with the victim's dying word, the stories told by the various suspects, and the strange behavior of the yellow cat to figure out who the murderer is.

If you look at the examples given in the PHB, they're all things that the players can't figure out because they're not able to actually look at the scene the way their characters can. The player, for example, can't see that one panel in the wall seems a little out of proportion to the others. The character can see that however, and on a successful Investigation roll they'll realize that it's important, at which point, the DM will mention the strange proportions to the player.

[djreynolds]

Investigation is an int-based skill introduced in 5e that allows a character to figure things out.

eg. after the perception check find the tripwire, the dents in the floor or the basket of cannonballs, perception allows them to figure out how the trap works.

Isn't this something the players should be doing, rather than their characters? If you roll badly, but come up with the answer, are you allowed to say? I think it takes away a whole facet of the game and replaces it with a dice roll. Instead of having to figure out the BBEG's plan yourselves, just roll the dice! Decipher the secret code to solve the puzzle or roll the dice for the same result? I feel it's like having a skill called "combat tactics" where after you roll, the DM would choose where on the battlemat you moved to.

The only other interpretations I can find about this skill make it either useless unless it is trivializing mystery campaigns or entirely replaces the active perception roll. Is it just a "how well did you check the corpse's pockets" roll? Because of my confusion, I have never asked my players to roll this skill, making it yet another reason for them to dump stat intelligence.

What is your view or use of Investigation?

Remember that barbarian who dumped intelligence? Neither do I. If you have an 8 intelligence, than play it. That's the roll playing aspect. Obviously its annoying when the wizard or worse sorcerer takes bad spells. But that's the game and that's fair. A fighter can't be dumb or considered dumb. He should be smart. But people should play the abilities and alignments the chose.

If that does not work, give everyone the skilled feat.

But my role playing changes with my character choice. A barbarian should act recklessly, not heeding his intelligence, if it is low. A wizard is cautious perhaps as is the fighter.

Tough choices

[Sigreid]

I see it this way, in addition to investigation being what you use when doing research:

Perception: The assassin you just stopped has mud on his boots

Investigation:
Easy: The mud's constancy implies a higher water content than you would expect to find in the city lately.
Moderate: The mud's composition matches the marsh land 2 miles north east of town.
Hard: This plant fragment is from a cattail common in the inner portion of marshes.
Very hard: These boots are made from snake skin from a type of rare snake that the yaun ti breed!

[illyrus]

Portals to the Abyss have begun opening in the realm. The party finds (and kills) the wizard that caused this and stand in his massive library. Roll investigation to search through his books to find out a method to reverse the process. If they succeed they find the information in 4 hours, if they fail it takes 3 days as they're unable to compile a significantly shorter list of books to check. More demons have entered the gates in 3 days time so it will be harder to deal with them now and they've caused more pain and suffering in the meantime. Capturing the wizard or using some spells may have circumvented the check entirely or else shifted it to a different check.

Failing the check doesn't stop the players from proceeding with their plan to close the gates, it just makes it more difficult and there are some consequences. There were also other methods that could have reached the same information or they might have come up with a different but effective solution.

[rollingForInit]

Remember that barbarian who dumped intelligence? Neither do I. If you have an 8 intelligence, than play it. That's the roll playing aspect. Obviously its annoying when the wizard or worse sorcerer takes bad spells. But that's the game and that's fair. A fighter can't be dumb or considered dumb. He should be smart. But people should play the abilities and alignments the chose.

If that does not work, give everyone the skilled feat.

But my role playing changes with my character choice. A barbarian should act recklessly, not heeding his intelligence, if it is low. A wizard is cautious perhaps as is the fighter.

Tough choices

8 Intelligence doesn't mean that someone is dumb, though. It can, but there's no good guidelines for how to roleplay the various ability scores. Having 8 in Intelligence might just represent a lack of formal education. Perhaps the character is lousy at maths, or has noticeable gaps in their general education. That is, they don't know things that someone of their age and social class should know. Or they might be forgetful and have difficulty memorising things by rote.

Doesn't have to mean that they can't figure out solutions to puzzles or that they cannot come up with brilliant strategies.

[Nifft]

8 Intelligence doesn't mean that someone is dumb, though.

Having a below-average strength score means being weak, right?

I think that having a below-average intelligence score does mean being dumb.

[Sigreid]

Having a below-average strength score means being weak, right?

I think that having a below-average intelligence score does mean being dumb.

I could see a low strength score meaning that you have a below average understanding of how to apply your strength. In any event a 8 strength is likely not that noticeable day to day, and neither is an 8 intelligence.

[JAL_1138]

The Old School D&D does not have those skills.



As a DM, I use that way too. But with minor tricks because calling a Wisdom (Perception) check makes the players suspicious, failing a Intelligence (Investigation) check makes some players want to retry the check or even let the player roll the ability check because he is not as clever as his character...

So I deal with it in those ways....
- Being old school and using the role play instead of skill checks. "You see some smashed body parts on the ground."
- Changing to a Passive check. *look at the player's Passive Perception of 9* "you see a boring corridor with there nothing important"
- Let the player roll dices. *player roll a natural 20* "You see kobolds plastered on the ground. They were killed by the falling floor trap."
- Retry with harder consequences. *player roll fail* "you spent an hour searching an found nothing" "I wanna search more!" "will be evening when you finish your search, even if you not find anything. still want to search again?"

I'd never have blatantly obvious things like numerous corpses in a presumably-otherwise-normal corridor be handled by Perception, Investigation, or any other skill check. That's something with a DC of "character isn't blinded and has either a light source or darkvision, yes/no?" and should just be part of the room description. Perception isn't for "not being blind," it's for noticing things that are hard to see.

Investigation might reveal that they were plastered simultaneously by something large and flat rather than multiple hammer-blows or being trampled by a large creature; Perception might reveal that part of the ceiling looks a little odd and there's a slightly-protruding floor tile underneath partly hidden by the dried gore; Investigation off THAT bit of Perception might tell you that it's a descending 10x10 pillar triggered by a pressure plate if you still can't figure out that it's a trap from that.

[Nifft]

I'd never have blatantly obvious things like numerous corpses in a presumably-otherwise-normal corridor be handled by Perception, Investigation, or any other skill check. That's something with a DC of "character isn't blinded and has either a light source or darkvision, yes/no?" and should just be part of the room description. Perception isn't for "not being blind," it's for noticing things that are hard to see. Totally agree.

You don't roll Perception to see an Orc standing in the doorway with a sword; you roll Perception to see a Goblin who is trying to hide, or to see a band of Orcs far off in the distance before they see you.


Investigation might reveal that they were plastered simultaneously by something large and flat rather than multiple hammer-blows or being trampled by a large creature; Perception might reveal that part of the ceiling looks a little odd and there's a slightly-protruding floor tile underneath partly hidden by the dried gore; Investigation off THAT bit of Perception might tell you that it's a descending 10x10 pillar triggered by a pressure plate if you still can't figure out that it's a trap from that.
The way I distinguish between Perception and Investigation (or Spot / Search in older editions) is basically:

- Wisdom (Perception) is always-on, it's instant information about the general environment, and about paying attention to the big picture in 360°*around yourself.

- Intelligence (Investigation) is only on when you ask, it's about looking for details and correlations over time, and about being able to ignore the big picture in favor of hyper-focus on details.

[Joe the Rat]

I've been using Perception and Investigation pretty willy-nilly, but typically once a player says "I'm looking for X", it's Investigation time.

Investigation is probably a good one to show off shifting the ability check the proficiency applies to. In the "Gather Information" category: Figuring out something by searching scriptoriums, or reviewing maps or plans is more Intelligence (Investigation). Hitting your contacts, asking the right urchins, or milling about and trading tales with the local barflies is more Charisma(Investigation) - Knowing who to ask, the right questions, or figuring out how some of the tidbits of info relate to the big picture. Or Persuasion, perhaps, but I'm also happy to let different proficiencies apply to the same problem. Relics and artifacts of divine origin tend to cross-list between History and Religion, for example.

[Cybren]

Investigation does not do what his group uses it for:


Gather Information has always been a Charisma based skill. Investigation is for deduction which is not the same thing.

I would just float Investigate to cha for that purpose.

[gullveig]

I'd never have blatantly obvious things like numerous corpses in a presumably-otherwise-normal corridor be handled by Perception, Investigation, or any other skill check. That's something with a DC of "character isn't blinded and has either a light source or darkvision, yes/no?" and should just be part of the room description. Perception isn't for "not being blind," it's for noticing things that are hard to see.

Yeah, you're right. When I said "you see a boring corridor with there nothing important", I do not meant to say "you see no corpse", what I meant was "You see some body parts here and there, but nothing you wouldn't expect"

[JAL_1138]

Yeah, you're right. When I said "you see a boring corridor with there nothing important", I do not meant to say "you see no corpse", what I meant was "You see some body parts here and there, but nothing you wouldn't expect"

Depending on the dungeon, I wouldn't necessarily expect body parts, particularly smashed-up ones. This sets up a disconnect between the scene the DM describes and the scene the player envisions, which is a recipe for frustration. Things you think a character might overlook would be things the player believes the character would find massively important, for instance, leading to a feeling of WTF when they get hit by it. I try to give every obvious detail I can and let the players decide what to do with it, reserving skill rolls for things that could not be otherwise noticed or pieced-together. I also let multiple abilities work whenever possible--Perception, Investigation, Survival, or Nature are all candidates to find a hidden path through the woods, for instance, because they overlap significantly, with only small differences in how the information would be presented.

I also let RP get around rolls much of the time--e.g., spread flour to find tripwires, prod the ground with a 10ft pole to find a pit trap, feel or knock along the walls to find a secret door, etc., etc. Perception might let you spot the pit trap concealed by a hinged floor section before you get to it, but a 10ft pole (and maybe a Str check depending) will let you knock it open and reveal it too.

Perception/Investigation do bug me in some ways, though, since to be honest I prefer old-school paranoia-based dungeoneering and thought Tomb of Horrors was actually really fun. And not, like, the Dwarf Fortress alternate meaning of "fun."
But at the same time I like rolls as a way to let, for instance, smart characters be smarter than the player: my 20-int wizard shouldn't have to suck at math because I do IRL.

[DemonSlayer6]

Investigation is two-fold in my groups' opinions.


The most obvious is in determining fine details. You may investigate a chest, and thus find it trapped. You may investigate a book shelf or table for specific texts and papers.
Alternatively, you may piece together bits of information. If we are stuck on a puzzle, then our DM at the time will often allow Investigation checks to get clues.


If we can piece together the puzzle without rolling investigation checks, that's always good. But our characters are obviously not us; and some of the puzzles we've experienced will have the most obscure details play a big role. (Old bent spikes need to be unbent to open a portal? Seriously?)

Also, I saw a comment about "It makes the players suspicious to roll Perception checks"...That's part of why 5e emphasizes Passive Perception.

[Pex]

Keep in mind that while a player should make some effort to say what he wants to do, he's not a real life detective during a search warrant. (Unless you are, Officer. :smallsmile:) To say he's knocking on a wall to look for secret doors is fine. Check the bookcase for anything interesting, ok. The player should not have to say: "I search the bed. I check the pillow. I cut it open and empty its contents. I turn the pillowcase inside out. I pull on the seem. I feel the bed for lumps. I examine the blanket. I take off the sheets. I look under the spread. I look on the springs. I examine the bed posts. Are they hollow? I look for secret panels." It's enough for the player to say "I search the bed." If there's something to find he shouldn't have to wreck the place, accepting for a unique incidence when that's exactly what the players want to or Honest True need to do.

Same thing looking for traps. The player saying he uses a pole to test for pit traps is fine. Perhaps give him Advantage to the roll whether a pit trap is actually there or not. However, it's enough for the player to say he's looking for traps. He doesn't have to say "I search the floor. I search the walls. I look for trip wires. I look for holes in the wall where needles, darts, or arrows might come out, perhaps a hinge door. I use the quarterstaff to test for pit traps, illusion floor areas, etc.," then you as DM clap with glee as a large slab of granite falls on the character, roll a Dex save with Disadvantage because the player hadn't said one word about looking at the ceiling.

[JAL_1138]

While I generally agree that they shouldn't need to get too fiddly about it, I probably would bust someone for not checking the ceiling, especially if they specifically say they're searching for pit traps in the floor rather than generally looking for traps. That's how, for instance, Lurkers, Piercers, and Green Slime get you--nobody thinks to look at ceilings until something drops on them.

Then again, that comes from AD&D dungeoneering habits. I got in a habit of pantomiming up/down/left/right when I said I was prodding around with a 10ft pole pretty quick after losing a character to green slime...

EDIT: I wouldn't give Disadvantage for it, though.

[steppedonad4]

I think people look at Investigation as a poor man's Perception and I think that's a poor way of utilising it. Investigation can be used to spur imaginative immersion in the environment by helping describe how the character, not the player, figured something out and rewarding the player, and not the character, for doing so by including them in it via a roll of the dice.

Describing a trap to someone will never help them figure out how to disable it. People aren't their characters and description is through the eye of the beholder and gets lost in translation. Therefore the player, even if they were expert locksmiths, wouldn't have the tools, by way of information and the ability to visualise, to figure it out. Plus it's just boring when you're constantly demanding players figure out every trap as if it were a puzzle.

[Vogonjeltz]

I could see a low strength score meaning that you have a below average understanding of how to apply your strength. In any event a 8 strength is likely not that noticeable day to day, and neither is an 8 intelligence.

Or they don't work out, it's only a little below average, not drastically below (like, someone frail would probably be str 2-3 or 4-5).

An 8 intelligence would probably be someone who has to work really hard to do well in classes, but they are by no means going to be an idiot or incapable.

Adventurers are basically, as a group, well above average at basically almost everything (everything if they shore up their weaknesses with ASI)

[steppedonad4]

I could see a low strength score meaning that you have a below average understanding of how to apply your strength. In any event a 8 strength is likely not that noticeable day to day, and neither is an 8 intelligence.

I've always felt that D&D's Intelligence score maps well to real world IQ scores, multiplied by 10. Average is 10 (100 IQ), an educated character at around 12 (120 IQ), MENSA entrant at 14 (140 IQ), Salarian Genius at 18 (180 IQ).

If that scale is used, then an 8 intelligence is definitely noticeable. Well, unless you're a politician with a PR team behind you.

[Sigreid]

I've always felt that D&D's Intelligence score maps well to real world IQ scores, multiplied by 10. Average is 10 (100 IQ), an educated character at around 12 (120 IQ), MENSA entrant at 14 (140 IQ), Salarian Genius at 18 (180 IQ).

If that scale is used, then an 8 intelligence is definitely noticeable. Well, unless you're a politician with a PR team behind you.

If I remember correctly this was actually spelled out in AD&D. That being said, 8 would probably be a noticeably slow learner, or someone with no patience for "book learning" but would be far from the village idiot. In a middle ages culture analog, it probably wouldn't be noticeable at all to the vast majority of the people, though educated nobility, clergy and sages would see it. To most people, wisdom (as portrayed in D&D) would be a far more useful mental attribute to help you prosper.

[MeeposFire]

The issue here is the same one you get when you consider social skills. DO you take something away by having a skill check rather than going by what the player says? There are some that liked it better with no social skills at all just using what the player says that the character says. Of course the problem is that then you are really basing things more off what the player does rather than what the character can do.

[djreynolds]

I see it this way, in addition to investigation being what you use when doing research:

Perception: The assassin you just stopped has mud on his boots

Investigation:
Easy: The mud's constancy implies a higher water content than you would expect to find in the city lately.
Moderate: The mud's composition matches the marsh land 2 miles north east of town.
Hard: This plant fragment is from a cattail common in the inner portion of marshes.
Very hard: These boots are made from snake skin from a type of rare snake that the yaun ti breed!

This is a very, very good suggestion.^^^^^^

Okay. That said. I agree and understand everyone's point.

But I cannot defend dumping stats, even with SPBI (Standard Point Buy In) just put a 10. I understand that with 27 points more than likely you're going have an 8, but the investigation skill alone is enough reason not to dump intelligence. The designers designed it on purpose, so your ranger couldn't dump intelligence or your paladin or cleric because 5 skills are tied to it, like nature and religion.

Now when I used to DM, and there were no ASI or feats, you rolled 3d6's and played them where they landed, I would give bonus increases to the "meta" physical skills. If during game play you showed signs of being smart, I'd throw you a point to intelligence. If you showed "well-placed" caution, some wisdom.

We all know that physical skills are tied to the game, but in reality the "meta' physical skills are not. I mean a newbie with an 18 intelligence can play a wizard, while a barbarian, as he is raging and with a 6 intelligence, is telling him what spells to cast and how. And I hear you on combat tactics too.

An ability score of 8, IMO because of SPBI, is the average. That means, we all, are sporting 8's. We all have an 8 intelligence in real life, not even a 10. So "8 is the new 10".

Solution 1 (easy)

Now if you're playing in the Adventurer's League with SPBI, just understand that an 8 now is the average and DMs should drop the DC's of skill checks accordingly, and if you don't have the nature skill assigned to you, then please leave it to the player with the nature skill to solve it but drop the DC of the skill check so he has a good chance and only allow him or her to do it.

Solution 2 (medium)(experienced players)

Honor system, once you've rolled your abilities and placed them, and dumped intelligence, allow people with low intelligence scores to reroll that attribute 4d6 and take it, with the promise that this is only used for intelligence skill purposes (not multiclassing) and give out bonus skills to everyone, like history, investigation and arcana because player's have memorized every edition of the player's handbook and monster manual, and read every paperback novel, and know all the spells. A low charisma score should be easy enough to role play. Low wisdom, that's your fault.

Solution 3 (hard)

Play your character accordingly. If you dumped intelligence and are a ranger, its going to hurt two big skills, nature and investigation. And if you can't play within your die rolls or keep the answer to yourself, next time ASI's come around, you're not getting that feat or dex bonus but you are getting an intelligence bonus or you take an experience point negative on the mission.

It sucks, but it works.