Search and taking 20: the problem

[Nifelhein]

Traps? take 20 to find traps? Sorry... if there are any you will find it, when it is sprung... take 20 considers that you fail your tests, so if there is a trap it is sprung... bad luck on you huh!

And on time. yes, it takes a hell long to search everything, try a 20ft square room, now add wardrobes, a bed and some debris... the walls being 10 ft tall... and the ceiling a bowl...

I am not sure but I think take 10 does not assume you fail your test, it cannot be done during a hurry, though.

 

[Henry]

I see no problem in our games with this rule, for two reasons:

1) Two minutes of searching every 5 ft by 5 ft section is time-consuming. If you are in a hostile environment, it is VERY time consuming. If you are in a tomb of nothing but traps, it's warranted; in an environment that is much more dynamic, or if you are on a time-table, it is very detrimental. Because it doesn't help you in all or even half of the situations, I don't see it as a problem.

2) As DM, I and the other DM use a mix of traps both simple and complex. If a player has spent the resources to have a maxed-out search score, he should gain the benefit of it. No bad guy can afford to have DC 35 traps in every trap in a fortification. There will be a mix of simple, DC 15 arrow traps, some more complex DC 20 pit traps, MAYBE one really tough DC 30 or 35 revolving room trap, etc. That's not playing killer DM favoritism, nor is it letting the PC's waltz through the dungeon - it's more plausible. I don't set DCs whimsically - I try to set them plausibly.

Since I don't see a problem with letting someone find something if they can afford to spend two minutes poring over it with a fine-toothed comb, it's never been a problem.

 

[Scion]

Traps? take 20 to find traps? Sorry... if there are any you will find it, when it is sprung... take 20 considers that you fail your tests, so if there is a trap it is sprung... bad luck on you huh!

You can search for a trap all day long, roll a 1 every time, and never have it sprung. Searching for traps is not, 'I stomp my foot on every part of the ground looking for something.'

If you are just outside of a doorway, and stepping through the doorway triggers a pressure plate then you can stand on your side of the doorway forever and search. You will never trigger the trap. Never.

Searching and not finding and not searching have the same direct consequence, none. It is completely possible to search for traps, fail to find them, and then simply not step on the place that triggers it. Or to not search and not step on it.

So you may take 20 on search checks, because even if you fail the first 10Billion times you will still not trigger it. Nothing bad will happen.

 

[JimAde]

All right, you guys have convinced me. When I was griping about the short time, I was considering a single object or small area. As soon as you start searching an entire good sized room, the times get more reasonable (since there's a square function in the math). And as far as 'good roleplaying' I'm talking about people who insist that they will take 20 with every single door and room they come to. But if your DM has set up a really dangerous environment, I suppose it could be justified.

 

[Beholder Bob]

I loath players who insist on take 20 search for every square in a dungeon. Searching likely areas, using reason to decide which areas deserve the attention - great! But in cases of taking 20 for every door and hallway: 1/2 or no exp for the traps located via that take 20. If skipped, no exp. If disarmed, 1/2 exp. By taking 20 and thus having NO risk in the search, you have reduced the threat considerably. Finding the trap is a good portion of the challenge traps represent and (for me) 1/2 of the exp.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I have to say that having played a rogue has really changed my perspective upon the search skill. When I initially saw the rules for taking twenty, I immediately thought "why not take 20 on every area." Now that I've spent more time playing rogues and playing in high level games, I know why not.

For instance, some new islands surfaced in the Nyr Div covered with the ruins of an ancient civilization. Your party is exploring those ruins. The wizard casts a shield spell on himself, Heroism on you (to help with search, open lock, and disable device rolls as well as attacks and saves), and stoneskin on the fighter and the cleric blesses the group. The Shield and the Bless will last eight minutes each and the stoneskin will last 80 minutes. You fight a few demons (30 seconds) and come to a door. If you take 20 searching for traps (2 minutes), find one, remove the trap (30 seconds), and then take 20 opening the lock (another skill that people often rely on the take 20 rules for), you've just spent 6 minutes. Unless there's a fight on the other side of the door, your first level spells are gone now. If instead of taking 20, you took ten once and rolled twice (triple checking the door for traps), and have enough skills to pick the lock in two or three tries, you can go through about five more rooms (assuming you check each door for traps) before the minute per level spells wear off. If you insist on taking 20 to search every room (assuming 15x15 rooms), your stoneskin and heroism will wear off too by the fourth room. If, on the other hand, you take 90 seconds (take ten or one roll) instead of 18 minutes to search each room, you can quite possibly make it through the entire ruins before the 10 min/level spells wear off.

And that's the "traps heavy tomb/ruins environment."

Taking a couple of other examples that rogues often encounter:

1. The party has to sneak into the shipyard, break into the office, and open the safe door to find evidence of malfeasance without being seen. There are about a half-dozen guards patrolling the shipyard at regular intervals and the party, being mostly good aligned (and not wanting to bring down all of Freeport on their heads) doesn't want to kill them. Does the rogue really want to spend two minutes crouched by the door of the office with all the other party members next to him? And another two minutes searching the safe. And another two minutes opening it? With that kind of time frame, the party is almost certain to be discovered. (And any silence spells the rest of the party is using to keep from being detected are bound to wear off but that's not really what we're considering at the moment). A rogue with proper skills should be able to pull off the whole caper in 1 or 2 minutes rather than ten--greatly lessening the likelihood of having to fight his way out.

2. The party was searching for an item in some ruins but found that the drow had beat them to it. They attack and kill the drow they find there but they know that there's a large camp to the southeast and that reinforcements could come at any minute. (In fact, their first foray ends abruptly as they retreat ahead of the drow reinforcements). At that point, taking 20 to search anything but the most obvious places for traps (the high priestess's sarcophagus for instance) is a luxury the party can't afford.

Incidentally, the combination of these scenarios is why I don't think there's a "DM decides whether or not you find it" problem WRT traps. You usually won't be taking 20. (Anyway, I'm more used to writing adventures for the RPGA where you don't know the parties playing the mod in advance, so it's more like the writer decides what kind of character COULD find the trap. In my case, I usually try to write it so that a skilled rogue who thinks to check for traps will usually find it and a part-time rogue MIGHT find it).

In general, taking 20 is for places that you're pretty sure are trapped but where you haven't found it on a take ten (like the sarcophagus) and for times when you've defeated all the threats but haven't found what you've been looking for. So, you go to the tedious task of searching and searching again until you find whatever it is or become convinced that it's not there.

All right, you guys have convinced me. When I was griping about the short time, I was considering a single object or small area. As soon as you start searching an entire good sized room, the times get more reasonable (since there's a square function in the math). And as far as 'good roleplaying' I'm talking about people who insist that they will take 20 with every single door and room they come to. But if your DM has set up a really dangerous environment, I suppose it could be justified.

 

[Nifelhein]

You can search for a trap all day long, roll a 1 every time, and never have it sprung. Searching for traps is not, 'I stomp my foot on every part of the ground looking for something.'

If you are just outside of a doorway, and stepping through the doorway triggers a pressure plate then you can stand on your side of the doorway forever and search. You will never trigger the trap. Never.

Searching and not finding and not searching have the same direct consequence, none. It is completely possible to search for traps, fail to find them, and then simply not step on the place that triggers it. Or to not search and not step on it.

So you may take 20 on search checks, because even if you fail the first 10Billion times you will still not trigger it. Nothing bad will happen.

That can be right, but consider that when Joe searches the door for traps, he doesn't find any (he is sure there is none) then he goes take a look at the upper part of the door, that is when he hits the trap pressure plate, it is sprung.

You can always consider what you said to be true but as I see it one would rely on areas searched for looking other areas, the very square that has the trap mechanism is composed of many parts, when you consider that one fails in that square you can say that the trap is sprung.

Searching for a trap involves much more than actually looking for it, that is why there are magical traps, if a rogue could use merely his eys to locate every trap things would be too easy, the actual smell can be what gives the thing, he could sense that the floor behind him feels different, that is because acid is constantly being dropped on it and so on.

What I want to say is that while assuming that one could look through all the room before ever entering it you are also taking away the need for other clues that are not visual and that could rely on other senses.

If a rogue ever searches for holes that is okay but what about a magical trap? Is it possible to locate it by looking at the area? i don't think this would stand true for all the traps. take 20 may have a bad result or not, depending on the actual trap and the mechanism of triggering it.

Also, if they can just search all day for traps something is missing, there is no hurry, no nearby monsters that could run by and also, no need to worry... as Henry pointed out, some traps used should be easily beaten, others shoudl require the highest rolls or the greatest care.

Anyway, I don't think take 20 or take 10 is a problem in my game and it has never been, I run games to tell stories with the aid of the players, if they take hours to search rooms that have nothing that is surely gonna have an impact in the game, give them some empty rooms and a day is gone, after sometime they will get less paranoic, if not, that is okay for me... given that I may use the urge them tactic sometime.

Making the players be in control of most of their characters actions is not wrong or unbalanced, take 20 gives them that.

 

[Hypersmurf]

That can be right, but consider that when Joe searches the door for traps, he doesn't find any (he is sure there is none) then he goes take a look at the upper part of the door, that is when he hits the trap pressure plate, it is sprung.

"You generally must be within 10 feet of the object or surface to be searched."

He doesn't have to "go" anywhere to look at the upper part of the door...

-Hyp.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Player: I search the door for traps.
DM: [rolls] If there are any traps you don't find them.
Player: I take 20 searching the door for traps. After all, it says "Abandon all hope ye who enter here." That's got to mean something.
DM: You set off the trap. Make a fort save.
Player: But I didn't open the door, I was just looking...
DM: Roll.
Player: [rolls] 30. But I was just looking...
DM: You didn't say you were looking for magical traps. Searching for holes would have been OK but this is a MAGICAL trap.
Player: whatever.
DM: The DC was 29 so you only take 50 points of damage from the horid wilting.....

Later in the game

Player: So we search the room for the lich's phylactery.
DM: [rolls] You don't find it.
Player: We take 20.
DM: You still don't find it.
Player: Fine, we move on to the next room.

Much later

Player: The cleric puts his phylactery of undead turning in the bag of holding and casts locate object on a phylactery.
DM: The spell leads you back to the previous room and to the underside of the table.
Player: But we already searched this room.
DM: Yeah, you searched the ROOM but nobody said you searched the TABLE.
Player: Isn't the table a part of the room?
DM: No. That doesn't work for tables.
Player: whatever.
DM: Allright already. You also find a bunch of gold in a box in the northwest corner.
Player: But we searched the room.
DM: You searched the ROOM for the Phylactery; you didn't search the box for TREASURE.
Player: whatever.

After the game

Player 1: I'm not sure how to put this politely to X, how about we suggest it's time for a new campaign or you say you'd like to run a game for a while.
Player 2: Yeah, I guess I could do that.

One of the high numbers on the list of annoying things DMs do: Making you specify what part of everything you're searching for. It's not as if competent characters who are searching an area wouldn't search for everything interesting. It's not as if rogues who know about magical traps and apparently have some method of observing that they're there (perhaps the telltale shimmer of magical energy that's more noticable when mutliple abjurations are close together is something they can spot, maybe they spot faint traces of the runes that were part of the casting, or maybe rogues just develop a 6th sense about such things (they develop a pretty darn good 6th sense about combat (can't be flanked), so that's not much of a stretch)). In any event, the point of searching for a trap is so that you don't set it off. And if rogues are competent to search for normal traps without risking setting them off, they'd be competent enough to do the same for magical ones.

In any event, low level use of magical traps either assumes that all rogues have some kind of feat, a +search magic item, maxed ranks, and a decent int, that rogues will be able to take 20 or both/either. A first level spell trap has a search DC of 26. A third level spell trap has a DC of 28. If you don't want rogues to either be entirely tricked out (lens of detection, max ranks, skill focus, etc) or not bother at all about searching for such traps, you'd best leave the take 20 rules (or at least the retry rules--and that amounts to pretty much the same thing) for search alone.

Rogues already have good reasons to get good search skills as I described above. However, the take 20 rules gives them some bonus for having decent (but not maxed) search skills. When the rogue has time, he will still be able to find the traps in obvious places (like the front door of the dragon's lair or the chest in the BBEG's secret stash--assuming the BBEG is dead already, if he isn't, you probably can't afford the time) though traps in less obvious places are likely to get that rogue.

If a rogue ever searches for holes that is okay but what about a magical trap? Is it possible to locate it by looking at the area? i don't think this would stand true for all the traps. take 20 may have a bad result or not, depending on the actual trap and the mechanism of triggering it.

 

[Scion]

That can be right, but consider that when Joe searches the door for traps, he doesn't find any (he is sure there is none) then he goes take a look at the upper part of the door, that is when he hits the trap pressure plate, it is sprung.

Since he can search the doorway from 10' away according to the rules then I dont see how he will be stepping on any pressure plate you have at the door.

Traps that are harder to find for whatever reason have a higher dc to find. But dont take that to extremes beyond the system, set the dc's at what they should be according to the system and let the pc's go from there.

If the trap can 'only' be found by triggering it then something is probably wrong. Rogues can still find most, if not all, magical traps. Especially given proper equipment. D&D has a lot of abstractions, being able to tell that the carpet over there just seems 'strange' somehow is perfectly justified.