Possible house rule for Investigation verses Perception

[molean]

I've read many pages with much debate over this poorly explained part of the rule books and I think I have a house rule solution.
Alot of the discussion I've seen try to rationalize it out, but this is a game, and one that has not been all that keen on realism in the first place. So we need a more practical definition of these two skills.

I am going to define this from investigation and leave the rest to the better understood perception. These house rules were designed to minimize cross over usage.

Investigation has four functions in my house rule, where you can see these functions cross over each other and make for a complete function. #1 is the most important.

1. Determine the real nature of something
So basically insight for objects etc. as opposed to their deception.

Helps you "see" items hidden with "deception". If you could look straight at something in good light and not see it for it was, investigation will help you see it.
For example a hidden door that looks like a wall.

Determine details and nature of anything not covered by a specific knowledge check.
For example, unusual wear on a candle holder. Perception would not allow you to see said wear because the wear is a quality of the candle holder.

2. A miscellaneous knowledge check not covered by the other knowledge (arcane, history, religion, survival) and only of things you can reason out using what you already know of.

3. GM clues. Investigation rolls can allow you to get additional hints from the GM. Investigation used this way, you only get this if you are proficient in investigation, as to save the GM rolling for everyone. It's something the GM does in secret when ever you check anything out. Or even look at something that might have a unknown challenge to it (passive investigation check) Hints should not tell too much, or be required to get past something. Hints do not need to be related to any specific story or plot. GM discretion with #3 all around.

With 1-3 I hope you can see what a "passive investigation check" might look like.

4. Gathering information.
If you are consulting sources of information like books, or something else I can't think of. Investigation can help you collect information you need from those sources and put it together in a usable way, if they have the information in the first place. Yes this could overlap with the other knowledge, maybe synergy bonus if you have both Investigation and a pertinent specific knowledge check.
I edited out gathering information from people. Insight makes more sense for this and needs it more for balance.

So what do you all think of these house rules? Too good? Not good enough? Distinct enough from anything else to make it worth getting proficiency in? {Scrubbed}

[pragma]

A house rule that I've seen which I rather enjoy is: "use investigation if it's within 5 feet, use perception if it's further away."

[molean]

Pragma, how do you feel that rule compares to this suggested one and why? it seems to me that house rule you mentioned reinforces the (IMO bad) idea that Investigation is active and Perception is passive since something being real close to you probably means you are actively focusing on it. It would also mean if I got expert perception and lots of wisdom but no proficiency in Investigation and low intelligence, I just need to step further back to determine something, and visa versa, which means lots of overlap with the two skills which does not seem like a good idea to me. It seems like a recipe for GM headache too as you constantly got to be aware of how far everyone is from everything and be rolling both investigation and perception all the time since there will always be stuff both close and far from people.

Please provide some feedback to this idea.

[Kane0]

I've always ruled it as Perception = Spot + Listen whereas Investigation = Search + Gather Information. Not 100% accurate but works 99% of the time.

[greenstone]

Alternatively, stop asking for Perception checks. There is no such thing as a Perception check. :smallsmile:

There are only ability checks. For example, INT checks and WIS checks. It is usually pretty clear which one is called for.

Is vision and hearing and sense of touch applicable? Then it is a WIS check.
Is reasoning and calculation and deduction applicable? Then it is an INT check.

Once you have decided the game requires an INT check then you can decide whether or not a proficiency applies. Personally, it a player can give me a half-decent reason for any proficiency then I'll allow it.

[molean]

Perception is not spot and Investigation is not search. That was a bad system as it was and it fits into 5e even worse (as in doesn't fit in at all)

@Greenstone. Exactly the type of nebulous basing things on real life thinking I mentioned at the beginning of my post that is so bad.


Personally, it a player can give me a half-decent reason for any proficiency then I'll allow it.

Exactly, you're just doing whatever devaluing the point of skills in the first place, this way almost any skill can be used in almost any way, just argue and convince the GM enough for it. So who needs lots of skill proficiencies, certainly no one in your games, which devalues the bard and rogue classes.

Could I please get some comments on my idea! I think it's pretty good. This thread is meant to present my idea, not everyone chime in with their own. That said I'd be glad to hear your ideas but please also tell me what you think of mine,(with specifics) maybe even compare the two.

Also as mentioned before, many of these checks would be done in secret by the GM.

[Aussiehams]

1. I'm not really sure what you mean by a lot of this. Do you mean that you have to pass an investigation check before you can attempt a different skill check?
That seems to just be adding a roll and slowing things down unnecessarily.
2. This is just an Int check.
3. I have concerns abouting gating clues like this. What happens if no one passes, does the DM just eventually tell people the clue anyway. Treasure or tactical advantage should be gated behind skill checks, not story progression.
4. This is already what's it's for I thought. I.E researching in a library uses Investigation.

I find the best rule of thumb is perception is if you don't interact with something, and investigation is if you do.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

My groups have used the following since before 5e and it works out rather well with regard to sight.

Perception: Passive

Investigation: Active

In 5e we now only have one active and one passive "sight" based skill. Perception is like when you spot something out of the corner of your eye or you realize there's danger even if you don't fully know the danger.

Investigation is when you're actively searching for danger or something hidden.

Sweet n simple.

[Tanarii]

In theory:
Wisdom (Perception) = Sense
Intelligence (Investigation) = Figure out

Personal Caveats:
- Technically Traps should be Perception to Find, Investigation to figure out how to disarm. I skip straight to investigation.
- Tossing a place for hidden compartments or clues or secret doors, again I skip straight to Investigation.

So in practice, 90%* of the time:
Wisdom (Perception) = Spot
Intelligence (Investigation) = Search

*90% of statistics yadda yadda



Perception: Passive

Investigation: Active

In 5e we now only have one active and one passive "sight" based skill. Perception is like when you spot something out of the corner of your eye or you realize there's danger even if you don't fully know the danger.

Investigation is when you're actively searching for danger or something hidden.Doesnt this cause confusion when you're actively searching for something hidden or repeatedly, and thus have to make a Passive Intelligence (Investigation) check? Or are you one of those tables that thinks Passive checks means passive characters?

[molean]

Aussiehams, thankyou for replying to my suggestion. {Scrubbed}




1. I'm not really sure what you mean by a lot of this. Do you mean that you have to pass an investigation check before you can attempt a different skill check?

I mean Investigation tells you more about the true nature of something you can see (or hear) , thus you don't get it if you don't see (or hear) that something in the first place. Please explain how I failed to explain myself. Or do you see a way I could have better put things?



That seems to just be adding a roll and slowing things down unnecessarily.

"That" being?



2. This is just an Int check.

And now having proficiency in investigation would help. I did mention this was a house rule idea. Do you see a problem with #2?


3. I have concerns abouting gating clues like this. What happens if no one passes, does the DM just eventually tell people the clue anyway. Treasure or tactical advantage should be gated behind skill checks, not story progression.

You misunderstand me. Let's replace the word clue, with hint. The hint don't need to be story related. Nor do all story related hints come from this. As the idea is that you may get additional aid in figuring something out, but that aid wouldn't be necessary, just helpful. You would still tell them all the basics they need to know.

For example. You find a secret door through investigation. A separate successful investigation roll secretly made by the GM would cause them to inform you that you notice wear marks at the base of a candle holder on the wall. Perception would not tell you this.

Or you come across a alter, the GM rolls you for investigation (perhaps secretly) on success they remind you of rumors you heard earlier about about a ritual for summoning a god. The GM isn't telling you anything new in this scenario, just giving you a hint.

[Pex]

I distinguish them through a 3E lens. If we were playing 3E and Search would be called, use Investigation. If Spot would be called, use Perception. For everything. This means despite the PHB Investigation is used for all cases of searching for traps. I find it a lot easier to decide which is appropriate instead of 5E's way of use one skill unless exception applies and vice versa.

[Tanarii]

On your house rule, gathering information from people is already a Charisma check per the PHB.

[molean]

On your house rule, gathering information from people is already a Charisma check per the PHB.

Whether it's a charisma check or an intelligence check as Aussiehams said in RAW, as mentioned before this is a house rule. Please provide some feedback on it, telling me that it's different than RAW is not useful feedback as that's implicit in it being a house rule! Though now that I think on it, perhaps this should go to Insight, that skill deserves a bit more usefulness. It makes sense for insight too, if your asking people questions, you need insight to determine truth in what they are saying and to sense if they are hiding something.

{Scrubbed}

According to RAW Perception is not spot, and Investigation is not search. The ultimate proof of this the Observant feat. It boosts passive Investigation. But passive Investigation is a contradiction in terms if Investigation is defined by giving active effort.

It's also bad mechanics (so bad as to even call it mechanics is a misnomer) to do it that way, You're telling me that which stat finding something uses depends on whether you're looking for it?!? Player "OK, my intelligence sucks and I got no Investigation proficiency, but I got great Wisdom and Perception proficiency! Can I just glance around the room without trying to find anything and spot what I need?" GM, "Why not, our inane rule should absolutely allows it."

Investigation as active searching is only a bit better than the other awful house rule mentioned on repeat in this thread, "We just do whatever we can reason out would work" essentially. But D&D is not real life. And such a inane house "rule" means the skills themselves become more irrelevant and it means more dependency on the GM making decisions throughout the game and arguing with the GM about said decisions instead of focusing on the adventure. Such a inane house "rule" hurts game balance as skills and their proficiencies are absolutely part of the PHB and especially part of specific classes. In my searches on the topic I found someone who said "In our game the GM just let's me use my charisma to find everything since I'm so good looking that things just line up to be seen by me." {Scrubbed}

I say any rules in this regard should check two similar boxes

1. The skills should be unique, separate, minimal overlap between them as to what they can do. (Investigation as search means they do exactly the same thing, just varying on effort given) If they are going to do nearly exactly the same thing you might as well merge the skills into one. Proficiency in one equals proficiency in both and will use Wis or Int, which ever is higher. And since that increases their power you got to merge other skills too to make them more powerful, the different knowledge checks, tumble and acrobatic. to keep the balance. But then we also need to change how many proficiencies we give everyone since all the skills suddenly got more useful. Wait, is this all maybe a bad idea?!? Or at least a major project begged for by messing with the balance and having two skills do nearly the same thing.

2. The skills should be clear in when they apply with the GM needing to make minimal to no effort making calls. It's great if you're roleplaying and describing the scenery, But that should rarely override established rules. For example "I'm targeting he last bosses head, I roll a 20! I shoot them between the eyes, they fall down dead. WE WON!" No, bloody hell no! And the whole "Perception is for senses and Investigation for reasoning and we'll know it when we see it" Nebulous reasoning is one step closer to that kind of nonsense. It's a game, not real life.

{Scrubbed}

[PhantomSoul]

{Scrubbed}

[molean]

{Scrubbed}

[Keravath]

The "house rules" seem a bit complicated and mostly you trying to enumerate the cases in which you might choose to use an investigation check rather than a perception check. You also include investigation for miscellaneous knowledge checks which doesn't make much sense to me. If you are trying to remember something you once knew or figure it out from knowledge you have then usually pick the closest knowledge skill rather than investigation (unless you are performing research of some sort which involves more reason and logic).

My simple rule of thumb is:
- if you are trying to see or sense something then it is a perception check. (passive or active depending on the circumstances) but the key is that the character is perceiving something in their environment.

- if the character is applying reason or logic to their observations then it is an investigation check. If there are obvious clues in the environment then a perception check isn't required and figuring out what the clues mean either becomes an investigation check or a role playing activity.

For the most part, if a check is not perception or a knowledge skill, it will fall into the category of investigation.

[molean]

Thank you Keravath


The "house rules" seem a bit complicated and mostly you trying to enumerate the cases in which you might choose to use an investigation check rather than a perception check

"Enumerate the cases" ??? I don't get your meaning. I gave examples so as to give others a better idea of what i meant. But in the end it's simple.
Investigation is for knowing somethings true nature. Perception is for noticing something at all. How is that complicated?
Or put another way, Investigation is Insight for the physical. And again, the PHB backs this up by using investigation as a counter check for seeing through illusion magic.



You also include investigation for miscellaneous knowledge checks which doesn't make much sense to me. If you are trying to remember something you once knew or figure it out from knowledge you have then usually pick the closest knowledge skill rather than investigation (unless you are performing research of some sort which involves more reason and logic).

"pick the closest knowledge skill" you make it sound like all knowledge can fit in the 4 knowledge skills, which it can not.
At risk of being accused of "enumerating the cases" (what ever that means, I don't know) Let me give you three examples.

Example A. You got a wall in front of you. A Investigation check tells you that the wall uses dried mud as its mortar. (thus you can get the wall wet and weaken it) I would not say a knowledge Arcane check would apply here.

Example B. You meet someone new wearing fancy clothes, a Investigation check tells you she's a duke of some importance. I would not say a knowledge Religion check would apply here.

Example C. You Search and find a trap with your Perception skill. A Investigation roll allows you to know that it's a specific type of trip wire trap that will cause arrows to shoot out of holes in the wall in front of you. Which allows you advantage in disabling it with Thieves Tool or allows you to use Acrobatics to step over it.(everyone in the party will need to do so) or you could teleport or fly across it etc. I would not say a knowledge History would apply here.

Notice this miscellaneous knowledge check has a great deal of cross over with determining true nature of something which should make it even easier to figure when investigation applies.

Keravath, you're rule of thumb kinda echos what's already been said here and that I argued against. It's better to have some more solid definition and roles for these skills than trying to use real life logic to decide if something applies which leaves players arguing with GM and GM stuck trying to figure out which applies since it leaves room for lots of cross over.

[Keravath]

Thank you Keravath



"Enumerate the cases" ??? I don't get your meaning. I gave examples so as to give others a better idea of what i meant. But in the end it's simple.
Investigation is for knowing somethings true nature. Perception is for noticing something at all. How is that complicated?
Or put another way, Investigation is Insight for the physical. And again, the PHB backs this up by using investigation as a counter check for seeing through illusion magic.



"pick the closest knowledge skill" you make it sound like all knowledge can fit in the 4 knowledge skills, which it can not.
At risk of being accused of "enumerating the cases" (what ever that means, I don't know) Let me give you three examples.

Example A. You got a wall in front of you. A Investigation check tells you that the wall uses dried mud as its mortar. (thus you can get the wall wet and weaken it) I would not say a knowledge Arcane check would apply here.

Example B. You meet someone new wearing fancy clothes, a Investigation check tells you she's a duke of some importance. I would not say a knowledge Religion check would apply here.

Example C. You Search and find a trap with your Perception skill. A Investigation roll allows you to know that it's a specific type of trip wire trap that will cause arrows to shoot out of holes in the wall. Which allows you advantage in disabling it with thieves tool or allows you to use acrobatics to step over it.(everyone in the party will need to do so) or you could teleport or fly across it etc. I would not say a knowledge History would apply here.

Notice this miscellaneous knowledge check has a great deal of cross over with determining true nature of something which should make it even easier to figure when investigation applies.

Keravath, you're rule of thumb kinda echos what's already been said hear and that I argued against. It's better to have some more solid definition and roles for these skills than trying to use real life logic to decide if something applies which leaves players arguing with GM and GM stuck trying to figure out which applies since it leaves room for lots of cross over.


"Enumerate the cases" means to give specific circumstances (or examples if you like) of situations in which you would choose one skill over another to resolve a skill check. The problem with this approach is that there are an almost infinite set of circumstances under which you may make skill checks and you can't have an infinite set of rules or examples.

The "rule of thumb" that people put forth are the most general guideline a DM can apply in order to determine what skill check is required as easily as possible. D&D has quite a few rules already and most DMs aren't interested in looking at a long list of cases in order to figure out what skill check they want to ask for.

In addition, the choice of skill checks is up to the DM, not to the players, if you are getting into arguments over whether something should be a perception check/investigation check/knowledge check then you need to have a chat with the players rather than come up with a set of rules that can never be exhaustive. Problem players will always argue edge cases to be in their favor no matter how complete the rules might be.

For comparison, here is how I would run your examples ...

"Example A. You got a wall in front of you. A Investigation check tells you that the wall uses dried mud as its mortar. (thus you can get the wall wet and weaken it) I would not say a knowledge Arcane check would apply here."

Why would you suggest Arcana? There isn't anything to do with magic. On the other hand Nature skill could cover mud being dissolved in water.

Example A: if the mud was pretty obvious then a Knowledge:nature check to figure out that the mortar was mud and might dissolve. Alternatively, if the mud was difficult to notice and required investigation to find (i.e. scratching at it to determine properties) then I'd have an investigation check to find the clue then depending on the circumstances I would either just tell them the mortar was mud or ask for a nature check.

"Example B. You meet someone new wearing fancy clothes, a Investigation check tells you she's a duke of some importance. I would not say a knowledge Religion check would apply here."

Why would you choose religion when history could cover knowledge of rank/privileges/local governance?

Example B: Possible perception check to notice the quality of the clothing. If they aren't paying attention then they might not notice anything more than "nice clothes dude!". If they do notice then I might go with knowledge:history to determine whether the character was aware that this is a style favored by nobles of a particular class or status. Since there is nothing to actually investigate then I wouldn't use an investigation check.


"Example C. You Search and find a trap with your Perception skill. A Investigation roll allows you to know that it's a specific type of trip wire trap that will cause arrows to shoot out of holes in the wall. Which allows you advantage in disabling it with thieves tool or allows you to use acrobatics to step over it.(everyone in the party will need to do so) or you could teleport or fly across it etc. I would not say a knowledge History would apply here."

No. You noticed the trap with perception and then apply logic, reasoning and observation to figure out how it works and come up with ways to bypass it. This is clearly an investigation check. Why would you suggest history as appropriate?

Example C: Possibly a perception check first to find and notice the trap if they are searching (might use passive perception). Followed by an investigation check to determine how the trap works and how it could be disarmed. No advantage on thieves tools checks to disarm since the investigation check enables the thieves tools check in the first place.

As for methods to bypass the trap, those are up to the players, they don't get that information from the investigation check - they learn how it works though if there is something special or unique about it then the character might learn some additional information on ways it could be bypassed. If it was a trip wire, I wouldn't give them anything more than the fact it was a trip wire that triggers something which they may or may not be able to determine as part of the investigation. (for example, a trip wire that triggers a rock fall in the ceiling, I would tell the characters what the trap is and what it triggers, if the trip wire goes disappears into the wall (perhaps ringing a bell in another room) the players aren't going to get that information).


Finally, you don't have to have a skill check at all ... you could just have an Intelligence check.

"Other Intelligence Checks. The DM might call for an Intelligence check when you try to accomplish tasks like the following:
• Communicate with a creature without using words
• Estimate the value of a precious item
• Pull together a disguise to pass as a city guard
• Forge a document
• Recall lore about a craft or trade
• Win a game of skill"

etc.

If you find something hard to categorize just ask for an intelligence check (decide whether it will add proficiency or not) and have them roll. There is no requirement that every check fit into a specific skill. You can decide the relevant stat, decided proficiency or not, then have the character roll the check to see whether they succeed or not.



----

I don't really understand your choices of alternate skills in your three examples, you seem to have intentionally tried to choose the least logical or applicable skill in each case which really doesn't make any sense at all.

Finally, it is YOUR game, run it how you wish. If you like your house rules then use them. However, when you post on a forum asking for feedback, you can expect that there will be people who disagree with your approach or suggestions for a wide range of reasons and they aren't wrong either.


Finally, if you find you are getting into arguments with your players over choice of skills for checks then just have a logical reason for requesting the specific skill rolls for each check. As long as you have a good reason and you are the DM, problem solved :)

[molean]

As with comparison to which knowledge check to use with your version, my point was that doing that way amounts to this skill applying because GM says so. So which knowledge skill i said didn't apply in the example didn't matter. It would be easier if they were just covered by investigations ability to determine somethings true nature.

BTW, a little aside, knowledge survival and nature should probably be merged.


D&D has quite a few rules already and most DMs aren't interested in looking at a long list of cases in order to figure out what skill check they want to ask for.

Then all the more reason for them to want to use this suggested house rule.

Perception to notice things.(but not things hidden via disguise to a sufficient degree. You see it, but only as it's disguise)
Investigation to see the true nature of something and other details about it.

You don't need any list of cases to figure out which applies in any particular situation. What about this confuses you? / What about this are you saying would confuse a GM if they used this house rule? Can you give an example in game-play where which to use would be unclear? (without any "list of cases")

[pming]

Hiya!

As you quite specifically wanted input on your house-rule, I'll do that first. At the end I'll give my 2¢.



Investigation has four functions in my house rule (that I can think of, do feel free to mention other possibilities too) where you can see these functions cross over each other and make for a complete function.

1. Determine the real nature of some one or something (basically insight for physical rather than mental/social):
Investigation is already used as a challenge to illusion magic in RAW. If someone is in disguise, investigation will help you determine that, and maybe even more details about who they are depending on how you roll.
If an object is pretending to be something else, investigation can give you an idea of it's real nature. Note that investigation might tell you that a object is magical, but not how, you need arcane for that. Investigation might tell you that a item is religious, but not any other information, you need knowledge religion for that. If a object is using pretending to be something else to hide in plain sight, then investigation will help you "find it" But not help you see it. So if a door is disguised as a wall, investigation will help you "find" that door. But first you need to perceive that "wall" in the first place, if say it's off to the side in a poorly lit space. So those two skills will compliment each other rather than be redundant to each other. And to emphasize that perception checks can not help you with this at all, even if there is a draft coming from under the secret door pretending to be a wall or whatever. (or maybe you feel a draft in the area, but that's it, perception can't help you determine the doors there after determining the fake walls there)

Note that blending in does not count. If you got someone camouflaged as a tree, it's still perception to notice them unless they were an incredibly convincing tree. Ask the question, could you reasonably know it was not that thing if you stared directly at it in full light? If so it's a perception check, if not it's a investigation check.

This is "poorly explained". I'd say more poorly explained than in the rule book. Sorry to be so harsh, but you asked! :) The reason I say so is that it seems you are designing it in a primarily binary way; "If X, then Y. If you don't have X, you can't ever know Y".


2. A miscellaneous knowledge check not covered by the other knowledge (arcane, history, religion, survival) and only of things you can reason out using what you already know of.

Seems reasonable enough...Investigation more or less requires/assumes that the person actually knows what they are talking about; e.g., you can't Investigate the operation of a car if you've never seen or read about one before.


3. GM clues. Investigation rolls can allow you to get additional hints from the GM. Investigation used this way, you only get this if you are proficient in investigation, as to save the GM rolling for everyone. It's something the GM does in secret when ever you check anything out. Or even look at something that might have a unknown challenge to it (passive investigation check)

With 1-3 I hope you can see what a "passive investigation check" might look like.

I'm not seeing the difference between Investigation as a passive check and a Perception as a passive check; they are both going to result in the GM giving, or not giving, hints. Not that there is anything wrong with that...think of it like the Dex based fighter versus the Str based fighter. Both accomplish the same thing, but both accomplish it using different skill sets. Nothing wrong with Wis/Per being the same sort of thing.


4. Gathering information.
If you are consulting sources of information like books, or something else I can't think of. Investigation can help you collect information you need from those sources and put it together in a usable way, if they have the information in the first place. Yes this could overlap with the other knowledge, maybe synergy bonus if you have both Investigation and a pertinent specific knowledge check.
I edited out gathering information from people. Insight makes more sense for this and needs it more for balance.

So what do you all think of these house rules? Too good? Not good enough? Distinct enough from anything else to make it worth getting proficiency in? {Scrubbed post, scrubbed quote}

Again, seems fine if your goal is to have a more "binary and skill-based game". It should work fine. The gaining of info from Investigation is kind of what it's for...at least that's what I've always read it to be {Scrubbed}

As for my own interpretation of Perception and Investigation...

PERCEPTION: "Hey guys, I can feel an air draft right at the floor here by the wall...and *sniff sniff sniff*...it sort of smells 'musty' over here. There's probably a secret door right here...I just don't see how to open it"

INVESTIGATION: "Really? Ok, right here? Hmmm...*starts looking around area, feeling the wall and tapping on it*. Ah-ha! Here...feel this? This stone is warmer, and listen when I tap it versus the one next to it? Yeah...hold on...*feels around it, then pulls it from one side*. HA! Watch...*pushes stone back forcefully*...*CLICK!* (secret door opens)".

That's my use. The "active versus passive" thing does work and seems to be what was intended. I see it as Perception letting someone "feel" or otherwise "get a vibe" that something is off. Like looking at a very well done 3D character. It's called the uncanny valley because it's ALMOST real, but people looking at it will say "it just...looks...odd...strange...creepy even". Same thing with Perception. "Guys, something's not right...it's quiet...TOO quiet...". That is a Passive Perception roll. "Everyone stop moving. ... let me listen...". That is an Active Perception roll. Investigation is used when you have already determined the 'something' and are now trying to figure out how to use/activate that 'something'.

[molean]

This is "poorly explained". I'd say more poorly explained than in the rule book. Sorry to be so harsh, but you asked!
But of course you should say such things if you believe them. I absolutely want your honest opinion. But can you back it up?

Perception to notice things.(but not things hidden via disguise to a sufficient degree. You see it, but only as it's disguise)
Investigation to see the true nature of something and other details about it.

To say "poorly explained" would be to say unclear in how to implement it. Can you give an example in game-play where it would be unclear which skill to use, using this house rule with the bulletin points above?

Pming, you basically said for your alternative what many others said. That Perception and Investigation should essentially do the same thing. Just pick one, no reason to have proficiencies in both skills. I suppose we could even expand this so that Perception can be used to see through illusions. you like that idea? Investigation can oppose someone being stealthy, because you used your mind to figure out they were there. This is really no different than merging the two skills. I believe this makes the merged skill too useful relative to many other skills.

[Pex]

According to RAW Perception is not spot, and Investigation is not search. The ultimate proof of this the Observant feat. It boosts passive Investigation. But passive Investigation is a contradiction in terms if Investigation is defined by giving active effort.


No kidding. I didn't say it was RAW. I said that's how I decide which skill to use because it's easier. I already acknowledged it goes against what the PHB says since the PHB says use Perception to search for traps, but I exclusively use Investigation. You have your house rule. I was sharing mine.

[Tanarii]

I've provided you with feedback twice.

Once on how I do it.
Intended Feedback: here is a much simple alternative to your proposed house rule, which is unnecessarily complex and verbose.

Once on RAW for gather information.
Intended feedback: RAW already covers this in a way that is superior to your house rule.

[Kane0]

Perception is not spot and Investigation is not search. That was a bad system as it was and it fits into 5e even worse (as in doesn't fit in at all)

Could I please get some comments on my idea! I think it's pretty good. This thread is meant to present my idea, not everyone chime in with their own. That said I'd be glad to hear your ideas but please also tell me what you think of mine,(with specifics) maybe even compare the two.

Mmkay.

Your houserule is simply too many words used to convey a relatively simple idea. Boil it down to the simplest, most concise form possible. Dont try to address every single edge case as you will never get them all and your base concept will suffer for it.

For example:
Perception: using your senses to gather data
Investigation: interpreting gathered data to turn it into useful information

You use perception to notice something, and investigation to figure out what the thing you noticed means.


People giving their own thoughts is what happens in forum threads. Sometimes the conversation derails completely but more often what you might think are unrelated responses are just a different kind of feedback. People are bringing up what they do likely because they arent liking or arent understanding yours.

[CorporateSlave]

For example. You find a secret door through investigation. A separate successful investigation roll secretly made by the GM would cause them to inform you that you notice wear marks at the base of a candle holder on the wall. Perception would not tell you this.

Does this example follow your house rule? From what I recall by RAW, Perception is explicitly what would tell you about wear marks at the base of a candle holder on the wall...but it would provide no input to your character regarding what this might mean from a "secret door" standpoint, that would require an INT or Investigation check.

(imagining the example of a sharp eyed barbarian hunter who only ever lived in a tent. He might have no concept of secret doors or hidden switches, or even architecture for that matter, but he still might notice that the wall below one candle holder looks different than all the others. Perhaps the gnomish wizard with poor eyesight missed that clue, but when pointed out by the barbarian he quickly deduces it likely indicates a hidden switch.) Part of the issue we run into in these situations is the separation of the meta-game. We, the player, instantly know what this means as we are familiar with the trope. But our INT 8 lunkhead PC might have no idea of its significance.


That's very bad "food for thought". Who knows what you're talking about, since you don't say.

If you're really curious, PhantomSoul is talking about your belligerent attitude towards people who make any comment that doesn't address your idea of what their comments should address. Like KaneO said, expecting otherwise in a forum is rather naive, and being nasty about it is completely uncalled for. (especially since your original post says "do feel free to mention other possibilities too")

As far as your house rule on Investigation, I feel like most of it is less a "house rule" and more your interpretation of how Investigation is used. I don't see anything in it that is explicitly different than the actual RAW in Investigation. There is some potential overlap in the RAW between Investigation and Perception, but there still ought to be limits on just how far you can push this overlap before one vs the other is essentially meaningless, as you say. The barbarian might notice the candle light under the secret door, but without any concept of what a secret door is, they would have to point it out to someone who does before that perceived information is useful...I think this is the general point of Part 1 of your house rule? You can't simply "Perceive" a hidden door, you would need to "Investigate" to even determine it is a door at all?
Part 2 feels like just using Investigation to grant blanket proficiency for what ought to be a simply INT check (recalling something from memory about a random subject)
Part 4 is pretty much already spelled out in the PHB isn't it?


Part 3 seems more house-ruley, having the DM make secret Investigation rolls to help decide the quantity and quality of clues to dole out. That seems perfectly reasonable, as simply using Passive Investigation feels rather cheap if the DM is creating their own adventure, and therefore pre-setting the DC's of certain clues while knowing full well the PC's Passive Investigation scores to begin with! Secret roll might at least leave something up to chance and give the players a shot without handing them a sure thing.

[molean]

Perception: using your senses to gather data
Investigation: interpreting gathered data to turn it into useful information

You use perception to notice something, and investigation to figure out what the thing you noticed means.
.

Nearly right. You use Investigate to figure out what something truly is. If stuff had a deception skill, Investigate would be the counter to that in place of Insight.

So do you get what I mean? What do you think of it as a house rule if it were in a concise form?

BTW thanks for the feedback on the structure of my OP and the conversation. I will work to make my OP more concise though that's difficult for me.

{Scrubbed}

[Kane0]

Nearly right. You use Investigate to figure out what something truly is. If stuff had a deception skill, Investigate would be the counter to that in place of Insight.

So do you get what I mean? What do you think of it as a house rule if it were in a concise form?

Yeah that's much better, 'You can use Investigation for objects like you would Insight for creatures'.
And for the record, that's how most people do it anyways and not something i'd really consider a houserule.



That's not "feedback", that's talking past someone/ignoring them, no matter how Tanarii might try to spin things.

No need to get so worked up mate, we're all here because we like talking about the game we enjoy.
With internet discussions it can be hard to get all the context, emphasis, inflection, etc so you have to read between the lines a lot of the time. When someone takes the time and effort to respond to your thread they generally have something to say at least related to what you did, even if it's not what you were expecting it can be used somehow. Just like when someone puts out a survey and gets invalid responses, it is actually useful information in its own way (no answers that actually represented what they wanted to say, they didn't understand, they are making a statement against the survey altogether, etc). This has happened to be a lot of times, especially in the Homebrew forums, where I start a thread with the intent on working on a class rework or what-have-you and there ends up being a half dozen pages of argument over that classes' identity or core features or somesuch, only tangentially related. This is still useful information, because it informs me of what is actually in contention rather than what I worked on (which by their silence might mean it's fine and not worth dissecting or not actually addressing what I should be with the work in the first place).

Edit: In jest, you appear to be using Perception to see what people are saying but not Investigation to understand what they're getting at or why they're saying what they are.

[blackjack50]

I don’t really know why a rule would be required.


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.

Vs


Perception
Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something. It measures your general awareness of your surroundings and the keenness of your senses. 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.

Perception is more senses. You are looking/listening/touching. Where Investigation is the Sherlock Holmes skill where you are learning what those things you are looking/touching/listening to mean. Investigation involves intelligence because one must deduce meaning. Perception one can see but not understand the meaning behind what they see.

[molean]

For example. You find a secret door through investigation. A separate successful investigation roll secretly made by the GM would cause them to inform you that you notice wear marks at the base of a candle holder on the wall. Perception would not tell you this.
Does this example follow your house rule? From what I recall by RAW, Perception is explicitly what would tell you about wear marks at the base of a candle holder on the wall...but it would provide no input to your character regarding what this might mean from a "secret door" standpoint, that would require an INT or Investigation check.

Yes it does. Perception would allow you to see the candle holder. Investigation would allow you to notice the difference with it. Perception to see something, Investigation to know about it. Think of Sherlock homes. His power of investigation would allow him to notice details others missed. Details people saw, but didn't register. Because my version is a bit different than the scant amount of explanation offered in the PHB. And with my version, you can more easily know when Investigation applies, and when Perception applies. If the off topic replies I got with people talking about how they do helps in any way, it's in how it demonstrates how universally ignored the PHB is in regards to Investigation. That is proof that a more precise system is necessary, like mine.


{Scrubbed}



As far as your house rule on Investigation, I feel like most of it is less a "house rule" and more your interpretation of how Investigation is used. I don't see anything in it that is explicitly different than the actual RAW in Investigation.
Judging by your other words, I think you are misunderstanding my idea. {Scrubbed}


there still ought to be limits on just how far you can push this overlap before one vs the other is essentially meaningless, as you say.
Thank you. And if you don't define those borders well, then there will be cross over. Most of what was mentioned as other peoples house rules for this are vague and allow for lots of cross over with the functions of Perception and Investigation.


The barbarian might notice the candle light under the secret door, but without any concept of what a secret door is, they would have to point it out to someone who does before that perceived information is useful...I think this is the general point of Part 1 of your house rule? You can't simply "Perceive" a hidden door, you would need to "Investigate" to even determine it is a door at all?

I think you get pretty close to understanding me here. Like I said before. Investigate would be to determine somethings true nature. So failing a Investigation check, you would see the hidden door in a sense, but all you'd be registering in your mind is "wall" You need Investigations "Insight" to overcome the items "Deception"

Now take a hidden door that's not trying to pretend to be something else. It's just the same color as the surrounding wall down to the knob. And/or it's partially behind something or off in the corner partially obscured by bad light. Then you can use perception to find it.

It's like the difference between trying to spot someone being stealthy and trying to see through someones disguise.

{Scrubbed}


Part 2 feels like just using Investigation to grant blanket proficiency for what ought to be a simply INT check (recalling something from memory about a random subject)

Would that be a problem for you? But it's a bit more narrow than that. You would be combining general knowledge and deduction from what you can see to arrive at knowledge not covered by the other knowledge skills. (if it is covered by the other knowledge skills, that's where the border of this stops) If you feel this would make Investigation too useful, please tell me. It is a concern of mine. A related concern of mine is that it may indeed take away too much from the other knowledge skills which do have their own issues with whether they are useful.


Part 4 is pretty much already spelled out in the PHB isn't it?

Well the books part is. The questioning people part I originally had Investigation cover but decided Insight could use it more. Regardless I was essentially saying this part remains the same.


Part 3 seems more house-ruley, having the DM make secret Investigation rolls to help decide the quantity and quality of clues to dole out. That seems perfectly reasonable, as simply using Passive Investigation feels rather cheap if the DM is creating their own adventure, and therefore pre-setting the DC's of certain clues while knowing full well the PC's Passive Investigation scores to begin with! Secret roll might at least leave something up to chance and give the players a shot without handing them a sure thing.

Thanks. Do note I changed the word "clue" to "hint" to better represent the idea. Those hints can can be as major or minor as you like, from reminders of things they already heard to extra details they didn't need but aid in figuring things out. No hint should be required and no hint should should give the game away, so to speak. Also the hints are not limited to story plot, but anything they might be facing that the GM might like to provide minor aid in with a hint, providing a Investigation check secretly clears. Hint should be given as to come from the person who's investigation skill succeeded (Player X suddenly remembers... spots... etc)
PhantomSoul

Yeah that's much better, 'You can use Investigation for objects like you would Insight for creatures'.
And for the record, that's how most people do it anyways and not something i'd really consider a houserule.
Not based on everyones response on how they house rule the Investigation skill. And any overlap on how "most peopled do it" is because most people seem to do it in a haphazard way where overlap is bound to happen in places, because it's everywhere in their haphazard methods.

Mine draws specific lines to make it clear which one to use and minimize overlap.
Perception can only allow you to see or hear things. But not notice any of their details. Think of great Perception but horrible Investigation skill as seeing things in silhouette (example extremified to emphasis the point) you know where everything is, but not what it is, only what it seems to be.

Investigation allows you to know some of an items details and true nature, but only if you notice it first. So someone with great Investigation but horrible Perception would have myopic vision that need other people to bring them things for them to examine. Imagine an inventor with that head gear with the magnifying glass attached, always looking through the magnifying glass at everything.

And again, under my house rule, perception would not allow you to notice the wear at the base of the candle holder. The wear is not a something, but a quality of something, the quality of the candle holder, you'd need Investigation to know that.


I don’t really know why a rule would be required.
See the two different and vague ways alot of people house rule Investigation and Perception and you might know.
BJ1. To prevent overlap. This isn't real life. But if you try applying real life thinking anyway, anything can be found out using either depending on how you spin it. Large skill overlap is a problem.
BJ2. To simplify it for players and GM. A simple clear rule that makes it easy to know when Investigation applies and when Perception applies is good for both players and GM.
BJ3. To preserve the use of skills like Investigation and aid in preserving game balance. (but that goes back to 1. with preventing overlap.) It would also aid in making Intelligence useful outside of wizards since your Int modifier still applies, proficiency or not.

[Kane0]

Not based on everyones response on how they house rule the Investigation skill. And any overlap on how "most peopled do it" is because most people seem to do it in a haphazard way where overlap is bound to happen in places, because it's everywhere in their haphazard methods.

Mine draws specific lines to make it clear which one to use and minimize overlap.

Perception can only allow you to see or hear things. But not notice any of their details.
Investigation allows you to know some of an items details and true nature, but only if you notice it first.

And again, under my house rule, perception would not allow you to notice the wear at the base of the candle holder. The wear is not a something, but a quality of something, the quality of the candle holder, you'd need Investigation to know that.


It appears haphazard for a few reasons, not the least of which is the annoying habit of adventure books calling for perception instead of investigation when dealing with traps. The other major reason I see is that the two are quite closely related, a venn between Perception and Investigation does indeed have some heavy overlap.

What you're saying makes perfect sense to me, but try to take care in how you present your opinions. Ain't no point in standing on a hill and declaring everyone else wrong just because they're using keywords like spot/search or wis/int as a basis to steer their rulings rather than hashing out detailed guidelines, it's just going to get under people's skin like how they got under yours.

[blackjack50]

See the two different and vague ways alot of people house rule Investigation and Perception and you might know.
BJ1. To prevent overlap. This isn't real life. But if you try applying real life thinking anyway, anything can be found out using either depending on how you spin it. Large skill overlap is a problem.
BJ2. To simplify it for players and GM. A simple clear rule that makes it easy to know when Investigation applies and when Perception applies is good for both players and GM.
BJ3. To preserve the use of skills like Investigation and aid in preserving game balance. (but that goes back to 1. with preventing overlap.) It would also aid in making Intelligence useful outside of wizards since your Int modifier still applies, proficiency or not.

I think the best way to preserve investigation is to put a heavy emphasis on knowing what one is looking at. “You see scratches on the floor.” Make an Investigation check. Do I see anything unusual in the room? Perception. “Yes you see something unusual about the layout of the room.” Perception should really just be senses and not “meaning” of what you detect.

[molean]

It appears haphazard for a few reasons, not the least of which is the annoying habit of adventure books calling for perception instead of investigation when dealing with traps. .
Well with my system, Investigation or Perception could be used to find traps depending on the trap, and it would be pretty easy to figure out which to use.


The other major reason I see is that the two are quite closely related, a venn between Perception and Investigation does indeed have some heavy overlap.
"venn"?


{Scrubbed}



just because they're using keywords like spot/search
You make this seem to be about semantics. But spot/search thinking is way more than what words you use. It means that Perception and Investigation are being used for exactly the same thing most of the time. You just control which you use by controlling the effort you give it which amounts to arguing with the GM that you did it in a spot way or a search way.



I think the best way to preserve investigation is to put a heavy emphasis on knowing what one is looking at. “You see scratches on the floor.” Make an Investigation check. Do I see anything unusual in the room? Perception. “Yes you see something unusual about the layout of the room.” Perception should really just be senses and not “meaning” of what you detect.

There are two schools of thought on this subject other than my own unique one that it seems no one else has come up with.
OM1. Spot/search-
Even if they don't use the words, it's still a similar thought about effort used. This is a absolute carry over from earlier D&D. Basically, "If we can't make sense of D&D5e's "system", we'll just jam in the system used from earlier versions/Pathfinder" See issues with this in my reply to Kane above and earlier in this thread.

OM2. Trying to apply real life logic to it.
"Is it using my senses or am I reasoning it out?" In theory this makes alot of sense, you roleplay what you want to do and just apply which ever fits that. Encourages roleplay and requires no figuring anything out ahead of time.
But the problem is anything can be reasoned/roleplayed out as one or the other potentially causing similar major overlap. And the go to standard will be Perception, we know it will help us notice the danger ahead, not sure about when Investigation might be useful + Int is my dump stat because I'm not a Wizard, Arcane trickster, or Eldrich knight (and Eldrich can get spells that don't care about SC level and thus can generally dump Int too). So let's just cram it all into Perception. Everyone no matter their class in the party (except maybe the wizard) get Perception proficiency (if it's not a class skill, just get via background or being elf!) and not Investigation. along with putting any spare stat points into Wis and not Int!

Using your example BJ, maybe a Investigation check would cause the GM to give you a hint? But you would already have to be suspicious of the rooms layout to even ask that. And you can just use Perception to see the full room layout and figure it out yourself. Just like in a method like yours, you can use Perception to see scrap marks and a slightly different looking square of flooring that tells the party of a secret trap door, using your method, probably. Because that can be reasoned out using real life logic. So who needs Investigation?!?

In my system you wouldn't notice the scrap marks or the different look of a square of the floor unless you succeeded in a Investigation check, thus preserving the use of the skill and the usefulness of intelligence stat for non-Wizards.

Oh also a third one. Just whatever people want, it doesn't matter. Let people use their preferred stat and Perc or Inves for detecting everything. Then you got games with people using Charisma to detect things.

[ChildofLuthic]

I mean, generally speaking, I just remember that it's perception to find a person and investigation to find a trap. I think of perception as being how well honed your senses are, whether you hear that snapped twig or see that movement in the bush. Meanwhile, investigation is about looking thoroughly, feeling up the chest for inconsistencies, looking over the ground for tripwires, etc.

If you tried to do an investigation check on someone hiding in a room, I imagine you'd end up finding them eventually no matter what, if you were really looking, but after they had the chance to act - run away or ambush you. Meanwhile, doing a perception check to see what you can tell about a room with a hidden door behind the false wall of a cabinet would only get you "Yeah, you see that candlestick and that cabinet, nothing snuck up on you." Because you're not actually checking anything.

[molean]

@ ChildofLuthic
So you're suggesting Perception used to see creatures and Investigation be used to see stuff (AKA not creatures)? I need time to think about that but I suppose that could work fine, but it seems even more different than my system compared to the usual house rules mentioned by others. Thanks anyway, that is a interesting thought. I wonder how I might compare the two ideas as to decide which to use.

[ChildofLuthic]

@ ChildofLuthic
So you're suggesting Perception used to see creatures and Investigation be used to see stuff (AKA not creatures)? I need time to think about that but I suppose that could work fine, but it seems even more different than my system compared to the usual house rules mentioned by others. Thanks anyway, that is a interesting thought. I wonder how I might compare the two ideas as to decide which to use.

It's a general rule of thumb rather than anything set in stone. But it works out pretty cleanly most of the time.

[Ventruenox]

Mödley Crüe: Keep it clean, kids. If I perceive this conversation going outside forum expectations, I will investigate and act accordingly.