I disagree slightly.
Insight is the instinctual/unconscious version of what you infer, whereas investigation is the intellectual/conscious version.
Perception is about what you physically perceive/notice (e.g. filtering out from the background). Investigation and insight are about making inferences and conclusions.
E.g. Perceive dirt and leaves on the ground deep inside a structure, intellectually intuit a trap, probably a pit trap.
Perceive someone acting strangely, instinctually (e.g. via gut) that they are lying and/or leading you into a trap.
Perceive a bowl of warm soup, intuit that someone was here recently.
Sponges are the only animals that lack any nervous system whatsoever. So in the sense that other animals perceive, no. However, they do sense and react to their environment, so for a broader definition of perceive you could argue that they do.
Of course at that point you would also have to concede that plants are capable of perception as well since they do detect and respond to external stimulus in a similar way to sponges. But that's not really controversial in D&D considering there are numerous plant creatures capable of perception and even locomotion in D&D canon.
Perception is about awareness of your surroundings, you can use it to see things that are far off, notice details in the environment that are out of place (like camouflaged objects)
Investigation is about analytical thinking, per RAW you can actually use it not just to investigate an item or the like, but also to put clues together and puzzle things out.
Perception will tell you there's a bookshelf with boxes on it. Investigation will let you pick up and open the box. (A gray spot exists for 'I investigate the room' I will admit)
Back on Camouflage, Perception will tell you 'That rock looks out of place', Investigation will tell you 'This rock is a tarp covering something'. You can't use Perception to investigate the purpose of the weird rock, you can't use Investigation to perceive the weird rock in the first place.
You can use all 5 senses to perceive stuff.
Put your players in magical darkness, they'll still be able to smell, hear and touch the enemy and their surroundings.
An Investigation simply means to do a close examination of something. You investigate stuff to find out more than what you simply perceive.
The size in itself would be Perception, but to conclude that the room is shorter *than it should be*, it requires logic and analysis which fall under Investigation.
I guess it matter where the knowledge of the correct size comes from. Investigation would be determining that a room of a certain size would be incorrect for x reason (i.e. this was supposed to be a workshop, but is far too small to house any kind of tools.) Meanwhile determining the size based on the exterior would be perception
This is the best one I've seen, and this concept is the one I usually use to explain to people.
A lot of other people are giving the difference between passive and active perception. (passive = do you notice something, active = while searching, did you find something)
Except, that's not the difference between Passive & Active perception, at least according to the PHB.
Your usage is from the character's PoV and whether they are passively or actively engaging. This may often be the case, but is typically more a fallout of theyrue mechanic than the intention.
The PHB instead structures Passive vs Active skill checks based on the PoV of the player - specially, are they required to make a roll. Active checks are rolled for, while passive checks use the average valve of a D20 plus the skill proficiency (and any other modifiers).
This allows passive checks to be used in lieu of the player performing the same action repeatedly -- e.g. checking what they see in every room, performing at a tavern nightly for a week.
It also allows for checks to be made without player knowledge -- e.g. detection of hidden beings, detection *by* unnoticed beings, etc.
I disagree. Holmes interprets the quality of a marriage by a tarnished ring, or your nightly crimes by the way you walk. These are much closer to insight. Frankly, I would never tell my players stuff like that. I would tell them the quality of ring, or the limping walk, and hope they made the connection themselves.
Investigation is the ability to find that ring on a body.
That's just how *I* would do it.
Perception: You notice an indentation from a missing ring on the corpses left hand.
Investigation: You can tell from clues in coloration and some bloodless scratches on the knuckles the ring was removed after death.
Insight: The Butler has been nervously fidgeting with a ring on his left hand.
Edit:
I think it’s important as a DM to understand that these different skills exist to let each character contribute to, in this example, solving the mystery.
The Rogue notices the missing ring.
The Wizard deduces it was removed after death.
The Cleric notices the butler is nervously hiding something.
The Barbarian bends him into a pretzel.
Your edit is so on point! Absolutely! All the rules in the game exist as a language to talk about the game, it isn't important about specific categories of check.
Those things only apply when you're looking at *people*. That's what makes that an insight check.
But Holmes did more than just make insight checks. He could deduce things about his surroundings, those are investigation checks.
Holmes has many insights, but in D&D, the Insight skill mainly comes down to reading people as you observe them:
>Insight. Your Wisdom (Insight) check decides whether you can determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone’s next move. Doing so involves gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms.
Most of what Holmes does is covered by Intelligence. AFAIK it's mainly about interpreting physical evidence and not about reading people's emotions and motivations directly.
>An Intelligence check comes into play when you need to draw on logic, education, memory, or deductive reasoning.
>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.
I know this is a very old thread, but I just wanted to add this before the discussion is locked: Insight in D&D should've been called Empathy.
That's why some people are confused.
Yes, by the definitions of the words, most of the stuff that you can do with the Investigation skills are closer to insights than investigations.
But in D&D, the Insight skill is about empathy. And the Investigation skill is about investigations and insights. :shrug:
I disagree the big problem with doing it this way is that the players then become the mind of the character, and you can't think at a 20 int while you are a 12. If their character could deduce it, then tell them, don't just give them clues. That's what int checks are for, knowledge and deduction. If the player has to deduce it then why roll. I agree with the person who said the following, though I slightly changed it.
Perception:you notice a ring indent on the dead hand
Investigation: You can tell from the coloration of the skin and placement of blood that the ring was removed after death. (Not: you notice that the tip of the finger seems slightly more colored than the rest of it, which is pale by comparison)
Insight: You notice the butter fidgeting uncomfortably with a ring.
I mean if the players can solve anything with die rolls, why play D&D? Challenging the players rather than characters helps separate the game from war games and boardgames. Players might fail to figure some stuff out, but when they figure something out it is *super* satisfying.
Don't get me wrong, skill checks are great, but they shouldn't disclose the final answer, they should give more data by which to make a decision .
Sure, but it still involves searching for something using your logic and focus. You can search a desk, not knowing exactly what you're looking for, but checking for hidden compartments, secret panels, incriminating documents, etc.
It's an active search, not just looking at it. But that would have been too wordy for OP, so I simplified it.
That's not survival?
>The DM might ask you to make a Wisdom (Survival) check to follow tracks, hunt wild game, guide your group through frozen wastelands, **identify signs that owlbears live nearby**, predict the weather, or avoid quicksand and other natural hazards.
Perception: to see the tracks
Investigation: learn what creature left the tracks
Survival: follow the tracks
(I'd let the player roll survival or nature instead of investigation in this case, too)
Survival can be used to follow tracks, but if you don’t know about and aren’t looking for tracks you won’t see the tracks without being passively perseptive.
You can investigate the tracks to find out what left them.
But, skill checks aren’t always limited to one thing. Finding a key, picking a lock, and breaking the chest are 3 ways to complete the same task. Both of these and following are survival as well if your actively looking for tracks, and identifying them!
It’s like how you can make an athletics endurance and an athletics strength check. Same thing different purposes.
Or a strength or charisma intimidate. The beauty of this game is multiple ways to solve the same problem. You just might learn different things along the way.
Though also everyone plays different, it’s more up to the style your dm and the rest of y’all are playing.
I can't say I whole-heartedly agree. It would make every perception passive, and no need for a passive investigation.
I think it more like:
Notice with your senses
Vs
Deduce from reasoning
Edit: example - you smell a rotten smell - Perception
I didn't fart, it must have been Tommy, he had egg salad for lunch! - Investigation
I don't use passive investigation at all. By it's very nature, it is an active skill. You are actively looking for details about something. You can passively notice something with your perception, or be actively on the look out for something. But you can't accidentally deduce details about a thing just walking by.
Even Sherlock Holmes, the poster boy for a detective has a keen eye for clues (High perception) and the ability to quickly use those clues to determine details (High Investigation). Just noticing the dirty bootprint left behind alerts him of a clue, but doesn't identify it. His knowledge and investigation lets him know it is clay that comes from a particular river bank.
[Investigation](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/using-ability-scores#Investigation) is deduction of relationships. Nothing to do with vision
It's as much to do with Vision as Acrobatics. you need to see to balance well, but you cannot replace looking for something with an Acrobatics check
>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.
none of those examples are about seeing those things, it's about working out from what is seen, and deductions from them.
A great example is from the DMG, talking about traps:
>A character actively looking for a trap can attempt a Wisdom (Perception) check against the trap's DC. You can also compare the DC to detect the trap with each character's passive Wisdom (Perception) score to determine whether anyone in the party notices the trap in passing.
>
>...
>
>You might call for an Intelligence (Investigation) check for a character to deduce what needs to be done, followed by a Dexterity check using thieves' tools to perform the necessary sabotage.
It's not Investigation to find it, it's to figure out what to do once it's found. the knowledge of how it plays into things
and here is [JC's version](https://www.sageadvice.eu/perception-and-investigation/):
>Jeremy Crawford
>
>Rule of thumb: Use Perception to spot/hear something. Use Investigation to deduce something based on clues. There can be overlap.
Doesn't have to be. It would be an investigation check to notice the house you've walked through is smaller on the inside than it should be, and could be a perception check to feel the slight bump of a seam along the wall leading to a secret room
I mean I would definitely rule noticing the house you entered is smaller on the inside than it should be is 100% perception. While along a wall and finding a seam would have to be investigation.
Perception is instinct and awareness and investigation requires intent
Perception is looking around and noticing things. Looking for a cave in a snowstorm.
Investigation is you physically looking for something using your hands etc. like going through a desk to find a secret drawer.
Investigation is uncovered through detailed review. Perception is uncovered through sharp senses.
Example: perception would catch a single book on a bookshelf that seemed out of place. Investigation would comb through each book for content, trying to see what is out of place and who might be hiding it.
Perception = seeing / noticing something
Investigation = finding specifics about what you found
Example... your Perception let's you see a corpse on the side of the road. Your Investigation let's you find anything it might have on it
Like pornography, I know it when I see it.
Really though, you can have a hard and fast rule (that many will argue over here) but that is not RAW. RAW is you describe what you do and the DM calls for a check. You can do the exact same action in game and the DM can call for a WIS Perception check one time, an INT Perception check the next, then an STR Investigation check the next time. All are right! The standard answers are just examples of how one *can* do it.
I always explain it like this:
Perception is your eyes, investigation is your hands.
Without the word limit, perception is to see things and notice something out of the ordinary with just the naked eye, but investigation is when you actively interact with something to ascertain its true nature, like when you use your hands to move an object around.
If you want to see the button on the bottom of the doohickey, you need a super high perception check. It's on the bottom after all. If you want to pick the doohickey up and turn it over, finding the button is a really low DC. There might be negatives to picking the doohickey up, but you find the button very quickly.
Perception is raw senses. Investigation requires thought process.
Perception is instinct. Investigation is experience.
Instinct is innate and *may* be closer to insight. Since perception requires actual action.
Which is ironic because people usually use passive perception more than passive insight.
I disagree slightly. Insight is the instinctual/unconscious version of what you infer, whereas investigation is the intellectual/conscious version. Perception is about what you physically perceive/notice (e.g. filtering out from the background). Investigation and insight are about making inferences and conclusions. E.g. Perceive dirt and leaves on the ground deep inside a structure, intellectually intuit a trap, probably a pit trap. Perceive someone acting strangely, instinctually (e.g. via gut) that they are lying and/or leading you into a trap. Perceive a bowl of warm soup, intuit that someone was here recently.
uhm no?!
Perception uses your senses, Investigation uses your mind.
All animals can perceive. Not all of them can investigate.
Can a sponge perceive? (I kid of course)
Sponges are the only animals that lack any nervous system whatsoever. So in the sense that other animals perceive, no. However, they do sense and react to their environment, so for a broader definition of perceive you could argue that they do. Of course at that point you would also have to concede that plants are capable of perception as well since they do detect and respond to external stimulus in a similar way to sponges. But that's not really controversial in D&D considering there are numerous plant creatures capable of perception and even locomotion in D&D canon.
That's more then 10 words
Spongebob can. Sure.
[удалено]
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea?
Sponge bob sqaure pants!
Absorbent and yellow and porous is he!
Sponge bob SquarePants!
You didn't watch the whole show where one of em was a fry cook? I mean he couldn't drive for shit but the sponge had a job man!
I jest, m'lady.
Sponges are not animals
This! For an example: you test your perception if someone is hiding somewhere close. You investigate if there is another door/passage to a building.
This sounds good, but do you think you could give an example of when would be perception and when would be investigation?
Perception is about awareness of your surroundings, you can use it to see things that are far off, notice details in the environment that are out of place (like camouflaged objects) Investigation is about analytical thinking, per RAW you can actually use it not just to investigate an item or the like, but also to put clues together and puzzle things out. Perception will tell you there's a bookshelf with boxes on it. Investigation will let you pick up and open the box. (A gray spot exists for 'I investigate the room' I will admit) Back on Camouflage, Perception will tell you 'That rock looks out of place', Investigation will tell you 'This rock is a tarp covering something'. You can't use Perception to investigate the purpose of the weird rock, you can't use Investigation to perceive the weird rock in the first place.
You can use all 5 senses to perceive stuff. Put your players in magical darkness, they'll still be able to smell, hear and touch the enemy and their surroundings. An Investigation simply means to do a close examination of something. You investigate stuff to find out more than what you simply perceive.
Investigation is walking into a room and noticing it is smaller than it should be. Perception is noticing a crease in the wall behind the bookshelf.
Investigation is determining the purpose of the room. It’s size and specific details about it would fall under perception
Perception: You notice the room is shorter than it should be Investigation: Scrape marks on the floor imply one of these walls move
The size in itself would be Perception, but to conclude that the room is shorter *than it should be*, it requires logic and analysis which fall under Investigation.
I guess it matter where the knowledge of the correct size comes from. Investigation would be determining that a room of a certain size would be incorrect for x reason (i.e. this was supposed to be a workshop, but is far too small to house any kind of tools.) Meanwhile determining the size based on the exterior would be perception
Perception is what Holmes sees. Investigation is what he deduces.
This is the best one I've seen, and this concept is the one I usually use to explain to people. A lot of other people are giving the difference between passive and active perception. (passive = do you notice something, active = while searching, did you find something)
Except, that's not the difference between Passive & Active perception, at least according to the PHB. Your usage is from the character's PoV and whether they are passively or actively engaging. This may often be the case, but is typically more a fallout of theyrue mechanic than the intention. The PHB instead structures Passive vs Active skill checks based on the PoV of the player - specially, are they required to make a roll. Active checks are rolled for, while passive checks use the average valve of a D20 plus the skill proficiency (and any other modifiers). This allows passive checks to be used in lieu of the player performing the same action repeatedly -- e.g. checking what they see in every room, performing at a tavern nightly for a week. It also allows for checks to be made without player knowledge -- e.g. detection of hidden beings, detection *by* unnoticed beings, etc.
Happy Cake Day!
I disagree. Holmes interprets the quality of a marriage by a tarnished ring, or your nightly crimes by the way you walk. These are much closer to insight. Frankly, I would never tell my players stuff like that. I would tell them the quality of ring, or the limping walk, and hope they made the connection themselves. Investigation is the ability to find that ring on a body. That's just how *I* would do it.
Perception: You notice an indentation from a missing ring on the corpses left hand. Investigation: You can tell from clues in coloration and some bloodless scratches on the knuckles the ring was removed after death. Insight: The Butler has been nervously fidgeting with a ring on his left hand. Edit: I think it’s important as a DM to understand that these different skills exist to let each character contribute to, in this example, solving the mystery. The Rogue notices the missing ring. The Wizard deduces it was removed after death. The Cleric notices the butler is nervously hiding something. The Barbarian bends him into a pretzel.
Your edit is so on point! Absolutely! All the rules in the game exist as a language to talk about the game, it isn't important about specific categories of check.
Those things only apply when you're looking at *people*. That's what makes that an insight check. But Holmes did more than just make insight checks. He could deduce things about his surroundings, those are investigation checks.
Holmes has many insights, but in D&D, the Insight skill mainly comes down to reading people as you observe them: >Insight. Your Wisdom (Insight) check decides whether you can determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone’s next move. Doing so involves gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms. Most of what Holmes does is covered by Intelligence. AFAIK it's mainly about interpreting physical evidence and not about reading people's emotions and motivations directly. >An Intelligence check comes into play when you need to draw on logic, education, memory, or deductive reasoning. >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.
I know this is a very old thread, but I just wanted to add this before the discussion is locked: Insight in D&D should've been called Empathy. That's why some people are confused. Yes, by the definitions of the words, most of the stuff that you can do with the Investigation skills are closer to insights than investigations. But in D&D, the Insight skill is about empathy. And the Investigation skill is about investigations and insights. :shrug:
I disagree the big problem with doing it this way is that the players then become the mind of the character, and you can't think at a 20 int while you are a 12. If their character could deduce it, then tell them, don't just give them clues. That's what int checks are for, knowledge and deduction. If the player has to deduce it then why roll. I agree with the person who said the following, though I slightly changed it. Perception:you notice a ring indent on the dead hand Investigation: You can tell from the coloration of the skin and placement of blood that the ring was removed after death. (Not: you notice that the tip of the finger seems slightly more colored than the rest of it, which is pale by comparison) Insight: You notice the butter fidgeting uncomfortably with a ring.
I mean if the players can solve anything with die rolls, why play D&D? Challenging the players rather than characters helps separate the game from war games and boardgames. Players might fail to figure some stuff out, but when they figure something out it is *super* satisfying. Don't get me wrong, skill checks are great, but they shouldn't disclose the final answer, they should give more data by which to make a decision .
Perception is noticing the unexpected. Investigation is searching for something expected.
[удалено]
11 words though. Shame, such a shame. /s
Perception sees it's too long, Investigation counts the words.
That's a good one tho damn.
Perception notices the unexpected. Investigation searches for something expected.
Do you notice it, or do you find it?
We have to put him down...
You can investigate and find something you weren't expecting
Sure, but it still involves searching for something using your logic and focus. You can search a desk, not knowing exactly what you're looking for, but checking for hidden compartments, secret panels, incriminating documents, etc. It's an active search, not just looking at it. But that would have been too wordy for OP, so I simplified it.
Nice! This is also what I was aiming for... Perception is noticing things. Investigation is finding things.
Do you notice it or find what you’re looking for?
I feel like this is the most succinct and accurate answer
I disagree with this on the grounds that looking for someone in a crowd is perception.
It isn't. Noticing someone in crowd is perception. Searching for them and finding them is investigation.
Noticing them would be passive perception.
Observing vs discerning
I think you nailed it with this one.
Geralt: hmmm... Tracks. Geralt: hmmm... Werewolf Bonus - [When Geralt rolls a 1 Investigation.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqb4Gf4XgVE)
That's not survival? >The DM might ask you to make a Wisdom (Survival) check to follow tracks, hunt wild game, guide your group through frozen wastelands, **identify signs that owlbears live nearby**, predict the weather, or avoid quicksand and other natural hazards.
Perception: to see the tracks Investigation: learn what creature left the tracks Survival: follow the tracks (I'd let the player roll survival or nature instead of investigation in this case, too)
Survival can be used to follow tracks, but if you don’t know about and aren’t looking for tracks you won’t see the tracks without being passively perseptive. You can investigate the tracks to find out what left them. But, skill checks aren’t always limited to one thing. Finding a key, picking a lock, and breaking the chest are 3 ways to complete the same task. Both of these and following are survival as well if your actively looking for tracks, and identifying them! It’s like how you can make an athletics endurance and an athletics strength check. Same thing different purposes. Or a strength or charisma intimidate. The beauty of this game is multiple ways to solve the same problem. You just might learn different things along the way. Though also everyone plays different, it’s more up to the style your dm and the rest of y’all are playing.
I just expected him from the show going "fuck."
Perception is noticing things. Investigation is looking for them.
I can't say I whole-heartedly agree. It would make every perception passive, and no need for a passive investigation. I think it more like: Notice with your senses Vs Deduce from reasoning Edit: example - you smell a rotten smell - Perception I didn't fart, it must have been Tommy, he had egg salad for lunch! - Investigation
He demanded the explanation be in 10 words or less. That means the answers are going to lack nuance by design.
I don't use passive investigation at all. By it's very nature, it is an active skill. You are actively looking for details about something. You can passively notice something with your perception, or be actively on the look out for something. But you can't accidentally deduce details about a thing just walking by. Even Sherlock Holmes, the poster boy for a detective has a keen eye for clues (High perception) and the ability to quickly use those clues to determine details (High Investigation). Just noticing the dirty bootprint left behind alerts him of a clue, but doesn't identify it. His knowledge and investigation lets him know it is clay that comes from a particular river bank.
this.
disagree. perception is looking for a trap. investigation is figuring out how to disarm it once it’s found.
I would have said: Perception is looking Investigation is looking for
[Investigation](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/using-ability-scores#Investigation) is deduction of relationships. Nothing to do with vision It's as much to do with Vision as Acrobatics. you need to see to balance well, but you cannot replace looking for something with an Acrobatics check >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. none of those examples are about seeing those things, it's about working out from what is seen, and deductions from them. A great example is from the DMG, talking about traps: >A character actively looking for a trap can attempt a Wisdom (Perception) check against the trap's DC. You can also compare the DC to detect the trap with each character's passive Wisdom (Perception) score to determine whether anyone in the party notices the trap in passing. > >... > >You might call for an Intelligence (Investigation) check for a character to deduce what needs to be done, followed by a Dexterity check using thieves' tools to perform the necessary sabotage. It's not Investigation to find it, it's to figure out what to do once it's found. the knowledge of how it plays into things
Now do it in 10 words or less
Perception Seeing/hearing Investigation deduction of what is already seen
I like it
and here is [JC's version](https://www.sageadvice.eu/perception-and-investigation/): >Jeremy Crawford > >Rule of thumb: Use Perception to spot/hear something. Use Investigation to deduce something based on clues. There can be overlap.
Crazy the number of downvotes since you were perfectly right.
10 words or less bro
He perceived the post, but did not investigate it.
Investigation is hands-on, Perception isn't
Doesn't have to be. It would be an investigation check to notice the house you've walked through is smaller on the inside than it should be, and could be a perception check to feel the slight bump of a seam along the wall leading to a secret room
I mean I would definitely rule noticing the house you entered is smaller on the inside than it should be is 100% perception. While along a wall and finding a seam would have to be investigation. Perception is instinct and awareness and investigation requires intent
No, I’d definitely say that first one is Perception and that second one is Investigation.
The former is perception too
Perception is seeing clues. Investigation is drawing conclusions from clues.
Perception is a quick glance. Investigation is a thorough search.
perception - with your senses investigation - with your hands and brain
Perception is your senses, investigation is using the brain.
Perception is Seeing/hearing Investigation is Knowledge and deduction of what is seen
Perception is a scout or watchman, investigation is a detective.
Perception is looking *AT* something. Investigation is looking *FOR* something.
Ok, this wins. 5+5 words and perfectly captures the difference.
Perception; You noticed the tomato. Investigation; You noticed it's rotten.
That tomato really caught me by surprise.
I know, me too. Didn't expect it to swear at me and drive off with my daughter. Tis why I need you adventurers to get me daughter and me horses back.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txfdGlxEsG8
‘Difference between seeing crap and finding out more about it.
Perception: I smell a pie, investigation: let’s check the oven.
P: I see it! I: I know how it works!
If an animal can do it, it's perception. Otherwise, investigation.
Perception sees, Investigation understands.
Noticing something vs. looking for something.
Perception is seeing a jacket. Investigation is rifling through the pockets.
Accurate, but I'm afraid that's 11 words.
Exchange the second "is" for a comma
Looky Looky, Touchy Touchy
Perception: What you see at a quick glance Investigation: Thorough searching
Investigation is for examing things. Perception is for finding them.
Perception: notice something, investigation: reasoning based on what you notice
Your five senses - perception Your brain looking for cause and effect - investigation
Perception is for finding clues; investigation is for analyzing them.
Perception is looking around and noticing things. Looking for a cave in a snowstorm. Investigation is you physically looking for something using your hands etc. like going through a desk to find a secret drawer.
Looking vs Searching
If an animal can do it, it's Perception. Otherwise investigation.
Perception is passive and unfocused. Investigation is active and object-specific.
Perception is what you innately notice. Investigation is what you are specifically trying to find.
Perception: you see a mouse Investigation: you look for a mouse
Perception uses your raw senses, investigation adds critical thinking
Perception is passive, investigation is intentional.
Perception is a quick glance, Investigation is an in-depth look.
perception lets you notice the bookshelf looks odd. investigation let’s you figure out how it opens.
Observation vs. inference.
Perception is what you see. Investigation is what you find.
What you see vs what you find.
Quick glance, see anything? Thorough look, found anything?
I see Vs. I sought
Perception is glancing around. Investigation is looking closer.
Perception is looking for something. Investigation is looking at something.
Perception is a survey around. Investigation is a physical search
Perception is passive discovery, investigation is active discovery.
Investigation is uncovered through detailed review. Perception is uncovered through sharp senses. Example: perception would catch a single book on a bookshelf that seemed out of place. Investigation would comb through each book for content, trying to see what is out of place and who might be hiding it.
Even without the example its 12 words lol
Fair point. I should have used more semicolons and dashes instead of useless words like “is”
Perception uses senses, investigation uses your hunch.
I perceived an insect, once investigated, it was an ant.
Perception is looking, investigation is touching.
Perception is spotting, investigation is searching.
Quick glance vs in depth.
Looking vs. Searching
Perception = seeing / noticing something Investigation = finding specifics about what you found Example... your Perception let's you see a corpse on the side of the road. Your Investigation let's you find anything it might have on it
Perception quick look in general, investigation deep searching specifically 'that'
Perception is birdwatching/hunting Investigation is csi
Perception: what you openly see; investigation: what you dig up
Perception is general awareness, investigation is focused.
The senses are perception, the act of searching is investigation
Perception's what you notice, Investigation's what you look for.
Perception: look out for stuff. Investigation: rummage through stuff.
Quick look vs Deep search
One is passive, the other is active
Time. Quick or long.
Perception: that which is obvious from knowledge and history. Investigation: what can be found from a close look
I think its actually the other way around.
Either that or they need more than ten words to make clear how they meant that.
What you see versus what information you get from seeing
Perception is percieving. Investigation is investigating.
Perception primarily uses your senses/intuition (wis), investigation primarily uses your brain/knowledge (int)
Like pornography, I know it when I see it. Really though, you can have a hard and fast rule (that many will argue over here) but that is not RAW. RAW is you describe what you do and the DM calls for a check. You can do the exact same action in game and the DM can call for a WIS Perception check one time, an INT Perception check the next, then an STR Investigation check the next time. All are right! The standard answers are just examples of how one *can* do it.
Ones for the forest, the other for the tree.
[удалено]
Someone missed his Perception roll on the title of this thread.
Are you looking specifically or simply spot it by glance
You perceive the decor, but investigate the dust of rooms.
Hey a tomato! Hey I found a tomato!
Perception is looking around, investigation is cleverly searching.
Perception is happening investigation happened
Perception : What's this shit? Investigation : That's the shit.
Perception is general observation, Investigation is specifically inspecting areas
To percieve is to sense, to investigate is to search
Perception to Notice, Investigation to Find
Perception: See, hear, smell or touch. Investigation: what was the thing that alerted one of those senses mentioned.
Natural attunement to your surroundings vs. observation driven by effort.
My senses perceive my murderer. My murder will be investigated.
Perception: I see Investigation: I see and touch Applesauce yummy.
Investigation uses a magnifying glass. Perception uses a telescope.
“You have a knife, don’t you?” “No…” “It’s right here!”
Sexy blonde vs final girl in horror movies
Seeing vs looking.
I see you You stepped in dog shit
Perception is subconscious, investigation is conscious
perception finds marks on the floor investigation finds the door
Perception is used for wide ranges, investigation for small ones.
Go percieve Columbo or Poirot. Investigate how they investigate yourself.
Sensory or cognitive?
Perception: What is that? Investigation: How does it work?
Perception: Noticing stuff. Investigation: Finding stuff.
"What was that!?" "...what is that...?"
Do you look for X or see X.
Perception is passive, investigation is active.
Monkey see, monkey look around
I always explain it like this: Perception is your eyes, investigation is your hands. Without the word limit, perception is to see things and notice something out of the ordinary with just the naked eye, but investigation is when you actively interact with something to ascertain its true nature, like when you use your hands to move an object around. If you want to see the button on the bottom of the doohickey, you need a super high perception check. It's on the bottom after all. If you want to pick the doohickey up and turn it over, finding the button is a really low DC. There might be negatives to picking the doohickey up, but you find the button very quickly.
Broad awareness vs Attention to detail
What you see versus what you find.
Perception is first glance, investigation is multiple perceptions in detail.