Search and taking 20: the problem

[Nifelhein]

Okay guys, it seems I was mostly misunderstood and for that I take all the blame, my point is that while they can search for things from some distance that should not always be the case, as is implied by the generaly word in hyp.'s post, else they will know that it always work and when you place a trap it will be less of an encounter and more of a skill roll challenge, or time challenge, for that matter.

The example I gave was silly but you all can surely make situations where one could trigger the trap while searching for it, I am sure of that. The dialogue thing was really nitpicky and I would like to say that I don't handle things that way if that changes anything, what I meant is that while the rules tend to make it easy on them to overcome a trap by merely stating a take 20 search and making a few die rolls, they also allow you to make things be different.

Traps & Treachery have some very clever traps for that reason, one can overcome them by merely making a skill check or stating a take 20 search, then disabling them, but if one has some brains he could also overcome it without making skill checks or by using both skill check and brains.

Anyway, I think that can be done around once every 10 or so traps, it helps keep the feel of a trap without the "Hey! Yet another of those damn times where we only have to roll and roll...".

Just some thoughts, remember that sometimes what I want to say may not be what you understand, I am not writing rules anyway, so that is no big deal for me.

 

[Scion]

Although I dont have traps and treachery, if the 'brain' part is figureing out the clues in order to trigger it without harm or how to turn the trap 'off' then that is exactly what the disable device skill is doing.

 

[DarkMaster]

Please do as you wish, but the rule states clearly that you can take 20 to search for a trap as demonstrated by a lot of people on this board.

If you don't like it house rule it, end of story.

 

[Pielorinho]

"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.

Sure he does: he has to get to a position from which he can see the upper part of the door. The word "generally" means "most of the time," not "all of the time." It is bizarre to allow someone to visually search a surface which they are incapable of seeing, for example.

If this rule is causing you grief, just keep in mind the idea that you can't visually search that which you cannot see. A superior trapmaker may put all components of a trap behind a panel that is itself trapped; it will be impossible to discover the trap without removing the panel (and without the use of magic). A character may make a disable device check, implying that they're removing the panel verrrrrry carefully.

I don't use traps hardly ever in my games -- I don't like them much. But if I did, I'd definitely enforce the idea that you automatically fail at searching for something if it's imperceptible to the sense you're using. No seeing traps through opaque surfaces.

Of course, a character might still catch the signature tang in the air of a contact poison, and tapping lightly on the floor might reveal a hidden hollow that could conceal gears.

Daniel

 

[Ogre Mage]

I agree with Scion. If a trap can only be found by triggering it then something is wrong. It really isn't a trap. It is arbitrary damage inflicted by the DM, sort of like random lightning bolts from the sky.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I agree with Scion. If a trap can only be found by triggering it then something is wrong. It really isn't a trap. It is arbitrary damage inflicted by the DM, sort of like random lightning bolts from the sky.

Rocks fall! Everyone dies!

-Hyp.

 

[dcollins]

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...

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...

I can't agree that these examples occur very "often" -- in fact they're the kinds of suggestions that come up in these Take 20 Search discussions that seem very idiosyncratic and a bit contrived. I haven't seen very many published adventures (actually, any) that include such scenes. The standard situation for a rogue searching is at the head a party exploring on their own time schedule, and that's the key situation that Take 20 Search needs to be rationalized for.

Time-constrained adventures are very much the exception, not the rule.

 

[Beholder Bob]

I disagree - their can be traps that can not be found by rolls, only through player intuition or putting together clues found earlier.

For example: I had a room with a large pool (3'6" deep), with a small stone island in the center and a stone walkway on either side of the pool. The pool was incredibly clear water, but the bottom was covered with green algae. What was not clear was (this is in 1st edition) that the spell attraction had been cast on the stone blocks that made the floor of the pool. Attraction acted like magnetism, but only for living creatures, with (in this case) the range set to 3'. Searching for traps was pointless - it was only by sticking something living into the water (below the 3' 1" line) that the effect was discovered - an instant 400 LB pull. Once sucked in - you discovered that the algae (just algae, not green slime) made it near impossible to get your footing, leaving you flat on your stomach, side, or back - to drown in little over 3' deep water.

In 3.X - I wouldn't allow a search roll to find it. A player could describe his experiments testing it, but not a blanket roll. A take 20 search would find it - how! Does a take 20 search assume you physically interact with the area? If so, it triggers the trap. Does it assume you probe it? If so, unless something living is used, no chance of discovery is possible. There are situations where a simple roll does not find/solve the problem. Player smarts, though, goes a long ways to bypassing this.

BB

 

[Artoomis]

I can't agree that these examples occur very "often" -- in fact they're the kinds of suggestions that come up in these Take 20 Search discussions that seem very idiosyncratic and a bit contrived. I haven't seen very many published adventures (actually, any) that include such scenes. The standard situation for a rogue searching is at the head a party exploring on their own time schedule, and that's the key situation that Take 20 Search needs to be rationalized for.

Time-constrained adventures are very much the exception, not the rule.

This is not a game system problem, it's a DM problem. If a DM does not set things up very well, it's boring. True for traps, true for everything.

I will say, though, that one of the greatest character concepts I've heard of is the Rogue who maxes out Search (and uses magic, etc to boost it as muich as possible), but take 0 ranks is Disable Device. he'll find it, but after that you are on your own. What fun!!

 

[CyberSpyder]

Sure he does: he has to get to a position from which he can see the upper part of the door. The word "generally" means "most of the time," not "all of the time."

Indeed. Therefore, sometimes the clause to which 'generally' is applied is inapplicable. Since the statement is "you generally must be within 10 feet of the object or surface to be searched," we can conclude that sometimes, you don't have to be within 10 feet of the object or surface to be searched.

By the rules, there are no circumstances in which it is necessary to be closer than <=10 feet.