D&D 3E/3.5 A New Approach to the Search Skill, D&D 3.5

[Leif]

In http://www.enworld.org/forum/talkin...wizards-academy-revisited-ooc-thread-1-a.html I had just reminded my players that I prefer searches to be role-played out, as opposed to rolling a skill check for it. One of my players, Lou, http://www.enworld.org/forum/members/lou.html, responded with:

"While [ I ] understand the desire to have searches role-played, the SEARCH roll can provide either intensity of the search or luck for finding things. In Xavier's case, the roll of 1 could mean that he gets so hung up laughing about Thugler learning to spell his name that he misses something on the desk in plain sight."

I thought this was such a good idea that I came straight here to share it with everyone. Comments?

 

[Jeff Wilder]

My experience is that nobody rolls for Search. It's all Take 10 or Take 20.

I would prefer that Search checks be rolled, definitely. If players want to RP the results, I think that's great.

I also don't much like the "Greyhawk the room" approach that has become the default (at least in my games and all the con games I've played). But "I search the desk," then "I search the walls," and "I search the floor for trapdoors" also gets old.

I haven't been able to find a happy medium.

 

[Leif]

I'm a hold-over frm 1st edition days, so I have never gotten used to even having a search skill. Always before, we just described where and how we were looking and told the DM. If we looked in the wrong places, we "failed our search roll," I guess.

I'm not familiar with the term, "Greyhawk the room." Please enlighten me?

I agree with your assessment of, "I search the [whatever]." My response would be, "Yes, but HOW do you search it? What, specifically, do you DO?"

 

[timbannock]

I agree with your assessment of, "I search the [whatever]." My response would be, "Yes, but HOW do you search it? What, specifically, do you DO?"

Maybe a good middle-ground would be to do both: ask how they are searching, how they are interacting with the environment. If their roleplayed actions do not bring anything up, have them then make the Search check to see if they caught some detail that the Player might not have noticed.

Search is difficult because there's such a huge disconnect between what senses are engaged by the character and what the DM describes. Even a very descriptive DM might not get across all the sensory input that a person would truly experience during dungeon exploration, and all those little details that would have in real life get lost unless there is that direct experience.

Also, in empty rooms that you just want to move past (it's getting late in the session, there's other things to do that more exciting), you could just skip the description and go with the Search roll. As long as you don't default to this too often (how many empty rooms are there in your dungeons?!), everyone is more engaged and they still get to use their characters' abilities.

 

[Leif]

Two excellent poins, Neuronphaser! I especially like the idea of usiga search roll when the players just aren't getting it. Kind of a deus ex macina roll to save the party. (Or have I missed your point completely?) And it's also a good idea to use the skill when you're in "hurry up" mode, too.

Gosh, I'm just getting all kinds of useful information from the responders to this thread! I should have started opening threads like this a long time ago.

 

[Bladesong]

As DM I use initiative cards that have some basic skills/stats/figures for the PCs, so I know what their skills are. I would run a “room encounter” something like this:
First describe what they see when they walk in (I assume a “take 10” on a Spot check, in this case no one was high enough to notice anything “odd” or “standing out”) “The room is roughly 10 paces by 10 paces and contains a desk and chair in the middle of the room; on the desk are numerous papers and an inkwell with a quill in it. On the wall directly in front of you is a bookcase holding books and various other objects. It is currently lit by a 5 candle, candelabra. As you move into the room you notice there are no windows and a rug covers the middle of the floor directly under the desk.”
If a character states that he walks over to the desk to search through the papers (this time I assume a “take 10” on his Search check because nothing is technically hidden, and he is successful) “You find a journal mixed in with the papers.” Now I know that there is a false bottom to the single drawer in the desk. If a PC just “searches the desk” the DC to find the false bottom and mechanism to open it is 30 because it is excellent construction. If the PC says he searches the drawer for a secret compartment I make the DC 25 because he was a bit more specific. If the PC is very specific and says I search the drawer to see if there is a false bottom, I give him a +2 competence bonus on his roll for “being thorough”.
Another character walks over to the bookcase to get a closer look (it is the rogue PC). When he gets over to it I again assume a “take 10” on his Search because he is causally looking it over but his check is successful and so…”The books are not part of a set as they are all of different sizes and covers and they do not look like they have been used in a while because a thin layer of dust on and around them seems undisturbed. You also notice that an unlit candle leans slightly at an angle towards the back of the case.” Now I know that the candle is an unlocking mechanism for the bookcase which is actually a concealed door. The mechanism is not really that masterful so if the PC just states that he searches the bookcase for secret compartments, etc. the DC is 25 to find it. If on the other hand he catches on to the clue I gave him about the candle and checks to see if it moves, the DC is only 20 because he is specifically checking out the candle.
There also happens to be a small, well hidden compartment under the rug in the middle of the room. If the PCs state they are searching the room the DC is 35, because there is no way they would see it without the rug being moved. If someone states they are looking under the rug the DC drops to 25 (because it is still difficult to notice, but not impossible). This compartment is also trapped and unless the rogue checks it out, someone will probably set it off. If the rogue looks at it, but does not specifically state he is looking for traps I again assume a “take 10” so that he has some chance of noticing it (he would have failed in this case) but if he says he searches for traps and rolls at least a 14 he will be able to find the trap.
Sorry about the length of this. Hope it is of some use to you.
Happy Gaming!

 

[Leif]

Thanks, Bladesong! (Interestingly enough, I named my paladin in one of my first games at ENWorld 'Nijel Bladesong,' although I was not consciously aware of your handle at that time.) No apology necessary for length of post. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it and seeing some additional practical applications of the skill. Personally, for my 4th level game, your DCs look a bit high. They would never notice a single thing unless they got extrmely lucky!! But that is easily adjusted to allow for their level.

 

[Scotley]

One of the things I do like about 4e is the passive skill checks. There are a lot of things that the players can notice without a roll. Some of those things can lead to the kind of roleplayed search I think you are looking for. The problem with 3.5 search in my opinion is that nobody rolls it. They just say, 'I take 20 and search everything'. While that is a legitamate use of the skill, it doesn't make for very satisfiying gaming. At least not to me. I ran into a similar situation in my Tomb of Horror's game. The secret doors can't be opened until the player says the right method.

I believe the skill challenge might provide a happy medium between rolls and description. Again this could work in 3.5 as long as everyone is on board. Taking the desk example--you as DM decide that it will take three successes to find a hidden compartment. Search can be one of them, but the players need to come up with some related skill checks, like craft/profession skills carpentry or woodworking, knowledge archetchture could come into play here. Slight of hand might be justified. Perhaps using disable device to partially dismantle the desk. Knowledge local--hey this desk looks like it was made by old bob the crafty. Didn't he always put false bottoms in? Knowledge history, 'hey does anybody remember that story about the chest with the hidden panel where princess lolita Caris kept the letters from Prince Markum? This desk looks like it came from Caris and if I recall a lot of cabnet makers put similar panel in furniture. It was quite a fad for a while there. You can vary the DC depending on how farfetched the attempt is.

That could turn into a lot of work for the DM, but it would solve your problem. Once you've done a few skill challenges in 4e it will become easier.

 

[Leif]

Ahh, my Old Buddy Scotley! What a ray of sunshine you always are!

You have expanded my horizons exponentially! I had never even considered the use of 'oddball' skills like that. Why, that means that a player who is creative enough can find an excuse to use ANY skill to solve virtually ANY problem! That's great! Thanks, Partner!

 

[Bladesong]

Personally, for my 4th level game, your DCs look a bit high. They would never notice a single thing unless they got extrmely lucky!! But that is easily adjusted to allow for their level.

Sorry, since I was in 3.5 house rules I just assumed...but, yes, they would have to be adjusted down by at least 5 for 4ed PCs. A 1st level rogue should be able to make a DC of 25 occassionally and a DC of 20 more often than not (i.e. +5 for trained and likely at least a +1 for ability; aid another could give up to another +6, so it is very possible).