Just how easily does adamantine slice?

[Majere]

Not that I ever posted on that one, but rogues shouldnt be able to take 20 on a search because there is a bad side to failing.. ie you dont spot the trap.
And if your about to tell me that not spotting the trap is not bad, you may now roll you fort save VS my disintigrate trap that you didnt find when you failed your search roll. DC 40 , and your 3rd level..

Just because you look at something for a lont time doesnt mean you spot every detail, ever tried those where's wally books ? Just because you look for a long time doesnt mean you will see everything. Even if you are looking for something as specific as that stupid dogs tail

 

[Hypersmurf]

Not that I ever posted on that one, but rogues shouldnt be able to take 20 on a search because there is a bad side to failing.. ie you dont spot the trap.

No no no no!

That's not something that happens because I tried and failed.

Let's say there's a trap on a chest.

1. I see the chest; I turn and walk away. Nothing happens.

2. I see the chest; I make a Search check. No matter how badly I roll, the consequences of failure are no worse than if I didn't make a Search check. If I fail, nothing happens.

3. I see the chest, I find the trap. I make a Disable Device check. Aha! If I screw up this roll, I could trigger the trap. If I don't even try to Disable the trap - if I just ignore the chest and walk away - the trap is not triggered. Therefore, there is a consequence of failure for the Disable Device skill.

If I fail my Search roll, open the chest, and the trap goes off... the triggering of the trap isn't because I failed my Search roll. It's because I opened the chest.

If I fail my Disable Device roll badly enough, the trap goes off... because I failed my Disable Device roll.

So I can Take 20 on Search, but not on Disable Device.

-Hyp.

 

[Gort]

Yep, that's how I see it too, Smurf.

 

[Majere]

If you fail your disable device check but make your save you dont suffer any bad effects.. does that mean that you should be able to take 20 on the roll because the bad effects are from failing your save and not your skill ?

Its a rules interpretation.
And consequentionalism isnt exactly my strong point.

If you search the chest and walk away, thats no different from not spotting the trap and walking past the trip wire by luck. The rules dont say that the result HAS to be bad, it merely states that there must be the possibility of a bad result. I would argue the trap went off because you didnt even try to disable it. and that was a reasult of failing your search.
Personnaly I would never allow people to take 20 on a search, but I would also play in house rules like the rogue being able to tell me "Im checking the corridor as I go" and letting me make rolls for him as required. Taking 20 is in no way "required" if your traps are balanced to the parties level. and average rogue gets two attempts to avoid a trap, search and a save. If you rogue needs say 8 or more on either to be ok then he will only be hit by 1 in 8 traps. And even if he does get hit most traps wont instantly kill you, they just burn up a few of the clerics heal spells.

Ive played in a game when you could take 20 for search and it destroyed the suspense, where is the excitement of trying to unlock that last door to get the party to freedom if you knwow there is no chance the rouge might take a poisoned dart to the neck and your fighter will have to whip out his one rank in lock picking. (I joke not BTW )

 

[Hypersmurf]

I would argue the trap went off because you didnt even try to disable it. and that was a reasult of failing your search.

Let's use Jump as an example.

After falling through a hole in the floor, I've found myself on a small ledge. Directly in front of me is a near-bottomless chasm - on the other side of the chasm is a tunnel back to the surface.

Above me, ten feet off the floor, is the bottom rung of a ladder.

A. Jumping for the ladder.
1. I do nothing. Result: I stay on my ledge.
2. I Jump and succeed. Result: I escape.
3. I Jump and fail. Result: I stay on my ledge.

You might say that a result of my Jumping and failing is that I starve to death. But that's the same result as if I don't Jump at all. There is no consequence of failure; therefore I can Take 20.

B. Jumping over the chasm.
1. I do nothing. Result: I stay on my ledge.
2. I Jump and succeed. Result: I escape.
3. I Jump and fail. Result: I fall to a grisly death.

If I don't jump, nothing happens. If I try and fail, I die. There is a consequence of failure; I cannot Take 20. (I can Take 10, as long as nobody's trying to kill me, but not 20.)

When I'm picking a lock, or searching, failure yields exactly the same result as not trying at all. There is no negative effect of trying. I can Take 20.

When I'm attempting to disable a trap or craft a longbow, I can end up worse-off than when I started (setting off the trap or ruining my materials). There is a consequence of failure. I cannot Take 20.

That's how Take 20 works. "You don't find a trap" isn't a negative consequence; it's a non-consequence. There's no Retry limit on Searching, so there's nothing stopping me from Searching again.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

Ive played in a game when you could take 20 for search and it destroyed the suspense, where is the excitement of trying to unlock that last door to get the party to freedom if you knwow there is no chance the rouge might take a poisoned dart to the neck and your fighter will have to whip out his one rank in lock picking. (I joke not BTW )

That's not because of take 20. Consider a trap with Search DC 30. A rogue with Search +9 will never find it, even with taking 20. There's plenty of suspense right there. And even if you do find it, you can't take 20 on the Disable Device check, so again, there's plenty of suspense.

 

[Ovinomancer]

HIJACK ALERT HIJACK ALERT

 

[tauton_ikhnos]

My problem with adamantine weapons = bludgeoning weapons, which also ignore hardness.

I side with Majere on this, though. Real problem is calculating hardness. One solution is apply hardness separately per inch, double overall hardness if 6" or thicker.

 

[Hypersmurf]

My problem with adamantine weapons = bludgeoning weapons, which also ignore hardness.

Absolutely. Adamantine shields are great for tunnelling through walls.

-Hyp.

 

[Dark Jezter]

My adamantine sword can slice a tin can in half, but still cut a tomato.