PROBLEM with search and spot! HELP!

[dcollins]

To those who would disallow it - what would you call carefuly looking over very small areas at a time in search of a person?

I would certainly disallow it in the case given by the original poster, namely "in the night when a PC is at guard protecting and watching the sleeping PCs".

If the PC in question is (a) not aware that there are any enemies around in the first place, and (b) "at guard/in the night", and presumably not marching around in the brush in the pitch darkness alone, then allowing a "Search" check would in fact be abusive, I think.

 

[RigaMortus]

I've always used Spot to look for creatures (a monster hiding in hte bushes, suspicious characters in a crowd, etc.) and Search to look for objects or something non-creature related (search for a secret passage, search for a hidden compartment on a chest, etc.).

I also play that Spot can be passive (usually a DM will secretly roll this, sometimes the players will roll it and if they don't find anything we try not to use meta-game knowledge to our advantage) or active like when we state that we are looking for creatures hiding in the brush. Search is always active, unless you are an Elf and pass by a secret door of course.

 

[Gromm]

I would let players Search for a foe they missed. Of course, this will open them up to ambushes and only allows one 5' square at a time, but hey - it's their call.

To those who would disallow it - what would you call carefuly looking over very small areas at a time in search of a person? Sure, it's not practical in combat situations, but perhaps the players are looking for a halfling smuggler, not a direct combatant.

For combat purposes, the players want to "actively" Spot as a full-round action. For pokinmg and prodding small areas to find anyone and anything hidden, they want Search.

Even if they were looking for the halfling, search wouldn't do them any good unless he jumped down a hidden trap door.
Spot is always used vs Hide. Search is, like the skil says, for fine details. So they can search all they want it wont help them.

Like was said before you should always roll Spot checks for your players (especially if they metagame so much- searching for things they have no clue are there). Same goes for listen rolls, sense motive, hide, move silently, and search. Really any roll that the players might look at and knowthey failed and try again, because their character doesn't know he rolled a 1 searching for traps, he just knows there aren't any.

 

[nsruf]

The way search is described, I'd say finding a hiding rogue with this technique (taking a round per square) should be automatic, if you pick the right square. But then, you need to be very sure about which area to search (no "searching" the entire forest next to the road while travelling!) and you would probably draw an AoO or be surprised if you didn't spot the rogue beforehand. So searching for a hiding character would be possible but pretty useless.

 

[Henrix]

So searching for a hiding character would be possible but pretty useless.

Not to mention downright letal. Wandering around searching is a good way to get sneak attacked.

The potential rogue must think it is christmas.
"What, I don't have to sneak up on the guard? He is wandering around outside the camp looking for his lost car keys or something? Hmm, perhaps I should jingle a bit with my tools so he knows whereabouts to search!"

The DM (to PC on guard): "You hear a jingling sound just beyond the light of the campfire."

PC: "Do I see anything?"

DM: (Rolls a Spot check.) "Nope."

PC: "Well, I'll just wander out there and search for it then."

PC exit to the left.

(Sorry, I just could not resist.)

 

[Umbran]

Spot is always used vs Hide. Search is, like the skil says, for fine details. So they can search all they want it wont help them.

Um, yeah. I'm gonna search this area for fine details and not notice there's a halfling in the area? What, the character can't see the forest for the trees? What does the character do when he comes across the halfling's feet? "Pardon me, sir, but I'm looking for fine details. You are more a gross feature than a fine detail, so could you please stand aside, so I can continue searching?"

The question is not "Will search reveal a hidden person?" The questions is "When do I allow people to make search checks to find a hidden person?"

 

[RigaMortus]

The questions is "When do I allow people to make search checks to find a hidden person?"

Never, that is what Spot is for.

 

[RigaMortus]

Here is a semi-on-topic question with regards to Search...

How specific do you play Searching? I mean, is it enough to say "I Search 5' in front of me." or do you need to specify what you are Searching for "I Search 5' in front of me for a trap", "I Search 5' in front of me for a secret passage", "I Search 5' in front of me for arrows I fired earlier in combat".

We play that you need to specify what it is you are Searching for. If you do not know a Rogue is hiding behind a tree, then you have no reason to Search for them (besides the fact that is what Spot is for). I think this was already said but, if you happen to be Searching the area near the tree for keys (for example) then I'd say the DM should allow a Spot check (or another Spot check if you already had one) with a circumstance bonus since you are so close to the hidden Rogue. If you fail, that means you have a nice Sneak Attack headed your way while you are busy Searching for those keys.

 

[strongbow]

Note that the Spot and Listen skills can be used to spot something you previously missed as a full-round action.

For example, let's say your hapless PC rolls high enough on a Spot/Listen to hear something, but too low to have any idea what it was. (Some DM's will do this depending on the circumstances).

The PC could spend a full-round action on a new Spot/Listen to try and see/hear what he/she missed previously. Since the designers put that provision into the game, using Search doesn't make sense except to use a skill at which you are better.

As a further example, let's suppose that an improved invisible rogue is right next to our guarding PC. Per the Spot rules, the PC gets a Spot check to notice the invisible opponent. Let's also suppose the rogue attacks the PC and then moves around to the PC's other side. (Imagine the standard grid system. The PC does not threaten the squares around him/her with relation to the rogue he/she can't see).

Now it's the PC's initiative. Would you rather search a 5' square with the Search skill as a full-round action OR try to use the Spot skill as a full-round action? Using Spot will potentially detect all the invisible opponents around our poor PC. Therefore, using Spot is a sound choice, what the designers intended, and avoids delving into house rules. Of course, the DM, if he/she was feeling sympathetic, might rule that you can use Search to find invisible foes. That is the rule 0 priviledge.

Happy debating

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

For the general question of whether you can search for Hiding Rogues, I would say absolutely yes.

IMO, if you can guess the exact 5'x5' square and search, you usually automatically succeed no matter what your Search skill is.

The downside is the Rogue can move, thus foiling a systematic search. And anyone searching automatically gives the Rogue a surprise round. And you may suffer an AoO first for being so obsessive and distracted if you stand in the wrong spot.

When the Rogue unloads 3-4 Sneak Attacks (AoO, Surprise Round, Full Attack) on this neurotic character before he blinks, the player will learn to relax and let the game take its course.

Players using metagame knowledge to motivate their search deserve to be slapped down. When they roll for initiative, reach over to their d20 and turn it to a '1' and tell they, "Your character is very distracted."

BTW, we usually do not have this problem because the DM asks everyone for a Spot and Listen after the watch order is set. And then tells us who notices anything. Searching motivated by a die roll just won't work.