D&D 5E Eyes of Minute Seeing: Investigation vs Perception

[pukunui]

Hi all,

I thought I had a handle on the whole "Investigation vs Perception" thing, but after thinking about how to apply the benefits of eyes of minute seeing, I'm feeling confused again.

The PHB states on page 178 that Investigation can be used to "look around for clues and make deductions based on those clues". With it, you can "deduce the location of a hidden object", for example. However, on that same page, under "Finding a Hidden Object", it says that the DM will normally call for a Perception check to find something like a secret door or a key hidden under clothes in a bureau drawer.

Furthermore, the DMG states on page 238 that "Wisdom checks allow characters to perceive what is around them (the wall is clean here), while Intelligence checks answer why things are that way (there's probably a secret door)."

In other words: Perception is for the physical senses, while Investigation is purely mental. It's all logic and reasoning and the like.

But then you've got the eyes of minute seeing and eyes of the eagle. The former grant advantage on Investigation checks "that rely on sight while searching an area or studying an object within [1 foot]", while the latter grant advantage on Perception checks "that rely on sight" and allow you to "make out details of even extremely distant creatures and objects as small as 2 feet across."

It seems like the idea is that eyes of minute seeing are meant to be like a magnifying glass, while eyes of the eagle are meant to be like binoculars. But why the distinction between Investigation and Perception?

When would some ever make an Investigation check that relies on sight? Aren't the physical senses Perception's domain? Shouldn't these magic items perhaps both provide advantage on Intelligence (Investigation) and Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight (and only either up close or far away respectively)?

[sblock=As an addendumLet's just say you were running "Death House" and you happened to have a PC with eyes of minute seeing playing in the adventure. Would you let the item grant them advantage on their Perception checks to notice all the little details in the house's woodwork?[/sblock]

Thanks in advance!

Regards,
Jonathan

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

When would some ever make an Investigation check that relies on sight?

Whenever it is uncertain that they will notice a fine detail (scratches on an object, crumbs in a suspicious location, places where a not overly heavy layer of dust have been disturbed, a book on a shelf placed upside down relative to the nearby books, tobacco ash out of place, et cetera) and/or make the appropriate deduction based on those fine details, and the primary determining factor is along the lines of "If [blank] is seen."

So, perhaps never, perhaps frequently.

I agree that these items mentioned are basically a magic magnifying glass and a magic set of binoculars, so I just go with applying their listed benefit in a situation where it seems reasonable that a real-world person would benefit from using those real-world items.

 

[NotActuallyTim]

Some physical features that are visibly obvious have implications which are not necessarily anywhere near as obvious.

For example, picking up a feather and examining it visually might give many details about that feather: white for 1/3 of its length and reddish brown for the remaining 2/3s, rough edges on the base of the shaft, some of the barbs (the little things sticking off the shaft that make up most of what people usually think of when they think of a feather) have been sliced off.

However, using those details to come to any conclusions about that particular feather may be difficult, and being able to carefully examine the object for extra details, with a little thought, can prove quite useful in coming up with solid evidence to draw a conclusion. The eyes of minute seeing for example, might reveal extremely small reddish brown stains on the base of shaft, like blood, and that the cut on the barbs was made by a exceedingly sharp blade, as though someone sliced at the previous, uh, owner of the feather with a weapon sharper than ordinary steel, pulling the feather out completely in the process.

Oh, and on closer inspection, the reddish brown color on the outer 2/3s of the feather is actually a dye, meaning that someone killed a bird with a magic sword (because its always a sword ) and then tried to cover it up.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I'm confused about any rules that have multiple skills for this sort of thing. I was playing Fantasy Craft which made me go to house rules which make more sense to me. They also fit very well in 5e. For me perception is that instant what you perceive (passive perception) or what you see hear when concentrating on it whilst not moving or doing anything else. Investigation is moving around, checking the wall and floor, opening drawers and looking behind curtains. They have different dc for things. Example finding the key under the mat is a very high dc for perception but trivial for investigation. Same with hidden creatures, but ( unless the creature is just watching you) they'll normally get to act vs you before you finish an investigation check of their area. Also different time scales. Passive perception no action, perception an action and investigation a whole round plus depending on the size of area you are checking. Investigation checks won't be required if the player describes his actions such they'll find the object (i look under the mat). Investigation is risky, perceiving a trip wire down the corridor maybe harder, but with investigation you could easily set it off

Not totally relevant to your question sorry. But I find it so much easier to run this way. Eyes of minute setting, great for investigation where you get up close and interact with things. Eyes of the eagle great for perception where your looking for something without interacting with it or the area, wow I spotted that trip wire down the corridor or goblin in the bush!

 

[pukunui]

[MENTION=6701872]AaronOfBarbaria[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6804638]NotActuallyTim[/MENTION]: I get what you guys are saying. It just seems like the rules are saying that noticing clues = Perception, whereas figuring out what those clues mean = Investigation. So it seems like, if someone was wearing eyes of minute seeing, then it would be a Perception check to notice something with them, but then an Investigation check to derive meaning from what you've noticed.

That's why I'm thinking that eyes of minute seeing, at the very least, should grant advantage on Intelligence *and* Wisdom checks that rely on sight (so long as the thing being seen is no more than 1 foot away). I think eyes of the eagle being Perception only is fine, though.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This is exactly why when 5E first came out I made my own decision:

Perception was for finding living objects that could move around and which were trying to hide from you (or were so far away you might not pick them out.)

Investigation was for finding inanimate objects that someone had to spend time trying to cover up and hide.

So the goblin who ran and hid themselves in the bushes? Apply Perception to find him.

That tripwire installed near the floor and half buried in the dust? Apply Investigation to find it.

The very faint howl of the wolf in the distance? Apply Perception to hear it and figure out that the wolf's approaching.

The door in the hallway that was faced and painted to look like a part of the corridor? Apply Investigation to search for it and find it.

It made things so much easier to know when to apply which skill, plus made Investigation much more useful and reduced Perception's use as the Uberskill.

 

[NotActuallyTim]

That section actually doesn't say to make a perception check in the 'finding a hidden object' box. Rather it says that no matter how high a characters perception might be, looking in the wrong place reveals nothing at all. That despite needing perception to see hidden things, you can't find a hidden thing with perception if there is nothing to find.

To figure out good places to look for stuff in the first place, investigation wouldn't be innapropriate.

 

[discosoc]

Here's my interpretation of investigation vs perception:

Perception is nearly always passive. I rarely have players roll on it, instead relying on the passive score and taking into account if they'd have advantage or disadvantage. Someone standing watch at the cave entrance while the rest of the party sleeps would get advantage, so +5 to their passive perception to notice something. If it was pitch black and they were actively on guard, the advantage and disadvantage would cancel out leaving them with a normal passive perception. If they were in an animal form that could reasonably detect things by sound or smell (such as wolves), the disadvantage for darkness wouldn't apply. That kind of thing.

For secret doors or hidden treasure, it's mostly the same scenario unless they are on the lookout for something specific, but otherwise not searching around for clues or anything. If they are looking for something specific, or otherwise doing something out of the normal 'check the bodies and rifle through the drawers' type stuff, then they are essentially investigating.

Investigation is nearly always rolled at my table, but it makes a great candidate for passive checks as well. Basically, investigation is like "active perception" in many cases. While the group is 'searching the room for treasure' (passive perception), maybe the cleric says she wants to focus on the old statue. In that case, there'd probably be a few rolls taking place: history or religion, perception, and possibly investigation depending on the other results.

Now to your specific questions:

In other words: Perception is for the physical senses, while Investigation is purely mental. It's all logic and reasoning and the like.

To me, perception is more passive and investigation is active. A detective at a crime scene might notice (passive perception) that the bodies have been moved, but to make sense of that would require a proper investigation. He didn't walk in and decide to actively try and notice things; what he notices is simply the result of his general perception.

When would some ever make an Investigation check that relies on sight?

Basically anyone who needs to make use of libraries or hieroglyphics, or is maybe trying to match up a weapon with a wound (candlestick in the library), etc.. I would say it's actually the most common way of making an investigation check.

Aren't the physical senses Perception's domain?

Perception is generally limited to the 5 senses, but investigation uses them as well.

Let's just say you were running "Death House" and you happened to have a PC with eyes of minute seeing playing in the adventure. Would you let the item grant them advantage on their Perception checks to notice all the little details in the house's woodwork?

No, because they aren't investigating anything. They walk into a room and either notice something about the woodwork or they don't. If the player with the Eyes of Minute Seeing states that they want to go inspect the woodwork, then you'd have them roll investigation with advantage.

The player with Eyes of the Eagle, however, would get an advantage to his perception (or +5 to passive)to notice there there even are details about the woodwork as soon as she walks in. Eyes of the Eagle wouldn't do much for her when inspecting the woodwork details, but she may be the only one in the group that even noticed they existed.

One last thing: Skills do not always have to be tied to the assumed attributes. I had one player roll a Strength: Investigation check because he knew about a secret door, but no one could find it. His method basically boiled down to "I'm going to start pushing and pulling on crap until something gives" which made sense to me. He didn't find the secret door elegantly, but he did find it.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It looks like and actually from the playtest investigation started more as search and lost more and more of it. In the last playtest, the phb text was written with investigation instead of perception and in some adventures in my opinion investigation would be a better fit than perception, exactly when what you see is obvious but you have to put the cles together. The mirror of the death house for example should be a perception check to find the fine details, but it should be an investigation check that lets you find the secret door. And investigation may contain thinking, but also closely looking and sometimes touching objects. Although you may make the case that noticing fine details is still perception. Yes, but coming to the conclision that those fine details point to a secret is investigation.

 

[pukunui]

It looks like and actually from the playtest investigation started more as search and lost more and more of it. In the last playtest, the phb text was written with investigation instead of perception and in some adventures in my opinion investigation would be a better fit than perception, exactly when what you see is obvious but you have to put the cles together.

Yeah, I think the distinction between Investigation and Perception got a bit mangled between the playtest and the final version of the rules. They tried to clarify things with the sidebar in the DMG, but I'm not sure it really helps.

As an aside, I advocated for keeping the Search skill during the playtest period. Partly because I felt like the term "Investigation" (along with "Medicine") felt a bit anachronistic to me in the context of a pseudo-medieval fantasy game, but also because it seemed to overlap with Perception more than the old "Search" skill did. Ah well.