Help me nail down this 'take 10, take 20' nonsense

[FireLance]

If you search and find nothing, you FOUND NOTHING. That means that you either FAILED TO FIND what was there, or there is NOTHING TO FIND. And you don't know which it is - hence permitting a take 20 to succeed is equivalent to metagaming. My response? Keep seaching all ya like, ain't gonna change the initial roll

"I'm sorry - you rolled a 1 on your Search check and can't find the key you put in your backpack for safe keeping."
"Drat! Does this mean I have to dig my way out of my house again?"
"Yup, provided you can find your shovel. Don't roll low this time."

 

[Hypersmurf]

See, the problem with take 20 is demonstrated perfectly right there - why keep searching if you searched once and found nothing?

Because you only spent six seconds to search a 5' x 5' area, and figure "Hey, maybe there's something that not quite that obvious"?

If you search and find nothing, you FOUND NOTHING. That means that you either FAILED TO FIND what was there, or there is NOTHING TO FIND. And you don't know which it is.

That's right. You don't know whether or not there's something there that you missed on first perusal. So why is it metagaming to take a closer look, just in case?

My response? Keep seaching all ya like, ain't gonna change the initial roll

Trying Again
In general, you can try a skill check again if you fail, and you can keep trying indefinitely. Some skills, however, have consequences of failure that must be taken into account. A few skills are virtually useless once a check has failed on an attempt to accomplish a particular task.

All the skills that can't be retried have a note in the "Try Again" section explaining that. Search doesn't.

-Hyp.

 

[Kabol]

See - thats not true in real life either. Your missing your Keys - How many times do you Check the couch? - or through the stack of papers on the Table? Just casue I looked once dosen't mean I think i did a good job at it.

I take 10 every time im hungry and open the fridge

I have to agree - some of the take 20 nonsence is just stupid - i mean, i dont know anyone who would take 20 min looking at a door in real life - 5 min maybe if he thinks there was something funny about it - but 20 min seems stupid to me.

My characters have started briging stools and a deck of cards with them on adventures casue he has to stop every 10 min or so, while they have to stand around for 20 min while the thief looks at a door.

For that reason i think taking 20 = 20 min is kinda a stupid rulle - i agree, it should take much more time - 20 rounds < 2 min > would be a more accurate portrail i think.

 

[sad_genius]

Doesn't Gandalf say something like "I know every spell written in the tongues of Dwarves, Elves and Men, yet this still escapes me" (or similar) ... sounds like Knowledge: arcana to me; obviously, the DM rules that since this isn't a standard open coded door spell, Gandalf is barking up the wrong tree to use this skill, he takes twenty, and still doesn't get the DC, meanwhile, Frodo's player works out the riddle and tells him the answer.

I was thinking the Moria direction thing comes under knowledge: dungeoneering, and obviously Aragorn (who IIRC has been through Moria before) is trying intuit direction at the same time

 

[Hypersmurf]

For that reason i think taking 20 = 20 min is kinda a stupid rulle - i agree, it should take much more time - 20 rounds < 2 min > would be a more accurate portrail i think.

Uh... Taking 20 on a Search does take twenty rounds.

A Search check is a full round action. Taking 20 takes twenty times as long - twenty rounds.

-Hyp.

 

[knifespeaks]

In response to your question Hyp, re: why is it metagaming to take another closer look, I ask why would you? You just looked, and found nothing - sure, look again....you still find nothing. At what point does nothing equate to "I may have missed something" ?

It has nothing to do with retries being permitted - it is about the reality of searching. Finding nothing is as valid a result as finding something. The crucial point 'taking 20' overlooks is that you aren't aware of whether the search succeeded in finding nothing or failed in finding nothing. Hence, allowing a take 20 to succeed where a single roll might fail is making the entire process of permitting a roll invalid, as success is only a matter of time.

No matter how hard I try to find something, sometimes I will overlook the obvious. Is that so hard to accept?

 

[Li Shenron]

Doesn't Gandalf say something like "I know every spell written in the tongues of Dwarves, Elves and Men, yet this still escapes me" (or similar) ... sounds like Knowledge: arcana to me; obviously, the DM rules that since this isn't a standard open coded door spell, Gandalf is barking up the wrong tree to use this skill, he takes twenty, and still doesn't get the DC, meanwhile, Frodo's player works out the riddle and tells him the answer.

To me it still sounds like he's using Knowledge as written in the PHB

Gandalf "rolls" Knowledge Arcana. Once. Doesn't beat the DC, hence he doesn't know the "key" to open the door.

But the door can be opened by just solving a riddle, which is what Frodo does with a simple Int check. Had Gandalf knew the answer beforehand, no one would have needed the Int check for the riddle. It just means there were 2 ways of opening the door, either knowing the answer or guessing it, the latter of which can of course be tried over and over.

 

[Ovinomancer]

In response to your question Hyp, re: why is it metagaming to take another closer look, I ask why would you? You just looked, and found nothing - sure, look again....you still find nothing. At what point does nothing equate to "I may have missed something" ?

It has nothing to do with retries being permitted - it is about the reality of searching. Finding nothing is as valid a result as finding something. The crucial point 'taking 20' overlooks is that you aren't aware of whether the search succeeded in finding nothing or failed in finding nothing. Hence, allowing a take 20 to succeed where a single roll might fail is making the entire process of permitting a roll invalid, as success is only a matter of time.

No matter how hard I try to find something, sometimes I will overlook the obvious. Is that so hard to accept?

I think your problem is with metagaming, not the rules. Yes, it is true that we do sometimes miss the obvious, but usually not when we go to exhustive measures not to. When I am looking for something I have misplaced, I tend to randomly root around in the most likely areas first, and, if that fails, begin on one side of the room and move or touch everything until success is had. Sometimes that does not work and I chalk that up to not mutliclassing into rogue.
If, however, I had no reason to suspect that something is there to be found, I would not look very hard for it, and would, therefore, likely overlook a small detail. If your players are relying on the take 20 rule, always doing so in order to not miss anything, then they are metagaming. "There might be something here to find, so I will look for it until I do!" The rule is not the problem, the player is. Changing the rule in this case is not the answer, modifiing the behavior of the player is. If your players insist on taking 20 all the time, have some big nasty come around to "help" them hurry it up. Maybe apply a -5 circumstance penalty to thier spot/listen checks to see it coming because they are so engrossed in searching.

I once believed as you did that the take 20 on search was a bad thing. Repeated discussions on this fine messageboard showed me that I was wrong. Follow the Smurf... his rules-fu is strong.

 

[Sebastian Francis]

To me it still sounds like he's using Knowledge as written in the PHB

Gandalf "rolls" Knowledge Arcana. Once. Doesn't beat the DC, hence he doesn't know the "key" to open the door.

But the door can be opened by just solving a riddle, which is what Frodo does with a simple Int check.

Li, I agree with you completely. But just for the record, I must state that in my own campaigns, I wouldn't allow players to solve a riddle just because their *characters* make an intelligence check.

 

[Scion]

I wouldn't allow players to solve a riddle just because their *characters* make an intelligence check.

Do you also not allow strong characters played by weak players to pick up heavy objects? Or players who have a hard time speaking up playing characters with high cha and social skills from useing any abilities?

I dont see much of a difference.

'I'm sorry, but since you cant lift 200lbs then obviously your character cannot either'

'I'm sorry, but since you do not have an int of 32 like your character then he cannot solve riddles'