Search and taking 20: the problem

[DarkMaster]

Sure, you can search for those hints, if they're there. To suggest that they're always there, however, is bizarre.

And yes, I've watched CSI. I've never seen them see something they couldn't see, but I sure have seen them move things around in the course of searching an environment, and I've seen them find bodies, for example, only after opening the door behind which the bodies were hidden; were those bodies traps, they woulda died.

Daniel

I would not like to play with you then, because you are probably assuming that some skilled rogue can walk without leaving any traces and they are therefore impossible to track.

Well in CSI you never noticed how the bad guys as much as they want to cover it always leave something behind.

You have to see it as a contest between the guy who put the trap and the rogue, the DC could be seen as the roll of the trapmaker + plus his craft(trapmaking), because assuming that there are no visual cue left is assuming that the trapmaker is perfect and the PC rogue can never be.

So I always(almost see the blind question) allow a DC for a trap unless a God himself set the trap (assuming god is perfect and has infinite and all skills)

 

[Pielorinho]

So glad to know you'd not like to play with me, Darkmaster, but I'm afraid you're basing that polite and well-mannered statement on some false assumptions.

First, I HAD noticed that the bad guys in CSI (and in almost every crime fiction) leave clues behind. Have YOU noticed that the good guys in such shows can't see what they can't see, and often have to manipulate objects in order to gain line of sight to them? Try not to misrepresent my position.

Second, of course a skilled rogue leaves traces when he moves. However, a ranger tracking a rogue can't figure out the content of the rogue's conversation by making a really good track check, nor can he figure out that at such and such point the rogue scratched his ear, nor can he figure out whether the rogue's eyes are blue or brown. Sometimes you just can't figure something out through making an inappropriate check. Similarly, you can't see that which you can't see, no matter how good your search skill is.

I note that you've not answered my questions about the banana or about the spy's letter. What would your answers be? Note that these are relatively common situations in a game (well, the banana normally would be something like a key, or a treasure chest), and as near as I can tell, playing the search skill the way you're suggesting -- that object leaves clues that are visible even when the object itself is hidden from sight -- would allow the rogue to find the letter without opening the backpack, or find the banana without opening the door. And that's just freaky in my opinion.

I can't believe that when my wife asks me what I did today, I'll tell her that I was defending the position that you can't see things you can't see .

Daniel

 

[NPC]

To me, skill checks are not the defining moment in gaming, combat is. Sure, skill checks are a part of the game, but we shouldn't be spending 10-15 minutes adjudicating searching and disabling traps. That's why we have Take 10 and Take 20, to speed things up to get to other, more important, parts of the game. And that's why rolling a 1 is not an automatic failure on a skill check . . .

Pielorinho, of course if a door's closed a rogue is not going to see the banana on the other side. But if opening the door would somehow squish the banana and trigger a trap, I would allow the rogue to Search the door for a trap. And by the rules, he gets to Take 20 to do it.

IMO you're going against the spirit of the game if you start "concealing" your traps in this way. It just doesn't seem that fair.

 

[BSF]

I think the intent of the search skill is to offer the chance of finding _something_. In this case, we are talking about traps, so it seems reasonable that on a search check can give you a good chance to find a trap, without triggering it. The distance range of the search skill description is supposed to help define where search stops and where spot kicks in. Since you cannot use your spot to find traps, you must be within search range.

It seems like this conversation is getting very nitpicky, but then again, this is the Rules Forum. So, I am definitely going to take something useful from this.

A few questions: If you can search a 5x5 area, so you search the floor first, then the wall/door? That seems reasonable, but it might not be entirely rules correct. If it is, then you could search the floor, fail to find the trap and conclude that it is safe to step into that "square" to search the wall/door.

I don't believe the search skill specifically states that you are using visual senses. The argument seems to hinge on the assumption that a non-visual search would probably trigger a trap. Is this really part of the issue?

In my games, I don't use a whole lot of traps. They exist, but it doesn't exactly come up every session. However, when my players do find traps, I tend to custom build my descriptions based on the character flavor/concept, and the trap.

Sure, there may be a two-stage lock on a panel (see above post). Stage one allows you to open the panel, but triggers the poison gas trap. Maybe the rogue noticed a faint discoloration on the wall/panel where the poison gas has been triggered before. Maybe the rogue notices some sign that the locking mechanism is a two-stage lock and knows that using the first stage alone is bad. Maybe the rogue remembers hearing about a similar trap. Does it matter? All of this can be ascertained visually, but you _could_ go non-visual. Maybe the rogue hits the first stage of the lock and realizes that while the panel can now be opened, the lock didn't fall completely into place. Is there a second stage? The rogue thinks so, but without a disable device check, it is hard to say what that is. Until the rogue opens the door, the trap hasn't been triggered.

For my games, I might use any of the above examples, depending on circumstances. The key for me is that they have a chance to find the trap without triggering it. It might hard as heck to disable, but if they searched it, they will know that something bad might happen because of it.

 

[Ranes]

...a character who believes something may be trapped even though she doesn't see the trap may still make a disable device in order to, for example, remove a panel that conceals a trap. A successful DD check enables her to act carefully enough that she's able to perceive the trap before it goes off and successfully disarm it.

Stop. A rogue who suspects there may be a trap searches. If a trap is found, the rogue can atempt to disable. In your example, the rogue who suspects the panel may be trapped can search it for traps. If he is on the case enough to be suspicious, he should not be forced into a DD check! Give him what is rightfully his.

...An example: a level that controls a door is hidden behind a panel; the panel is opened by turning a dial to the right until it clicks, and then turning it to the right again until it clicks again. The trap is that you can open it after the first click, but doing so leaves the cap to a vial of poison gas attached to the inside of the panel, opening the vial when the panel itself is opened. This trap is completely invisible to someone searching the panel or dial visually.

Emphasis mine and bingo! That's why the rogue should be entitled a search check. The search is not visual here, fine. What about auditory? Can the PC hear the vial cap attach/detach? What about tactile? Can the PC feel there's more play to the lever, so it can be turned again? Is the weight of the lever slightly different between positions 0-1 and 1-2?

...However, if someone suspects the panel is trapped, they could disassemble the dial mechanism carefully so that they could examine it, or they could remove the hinges from the panel, or they could open it verrrrrrry slowly. In all these cases, I'd require a DD check, and if it succeeded, I'd allow them to disarm the trap -- disassembling the dial successfully would show them that the dial had a secondary function (i.e., controlling the mechanism that attached the vial's cap to the panel), and disassembling the hinges or opening it verrrry slowly would let them feel the resistance from the cap's pulling away from the vial.

So my suspicious rogue player spies the panel: "I don't like the look of that panel. I examine it for signs of a trap."

Me: "Sure. Roll a d20."

Rogue: "Ok, that'll be a 20 I just rolled."

Me: "Looks like a trap-free panel."

Rogue: "Ok. I open it."

Me: "Foul smelling fumes spew from the niche behind the panel. You feel like you need to make a Fort save."

Rogue: "What?"

Me: "Mmm. Guess you set off a trap."

Rogue: "I couldn't detect a trap with a 20?"

Me: "You searched the panel for a trap but this trap was behind the panel. If you had just tried to disable the panel, this might not have happened..."

My take is that the rogue should be allowed to examine the panel for signs that it may have a trap connected to it (which it does). All your circumstantial reasoning is nothing more than an attempt to justify not allowing the player to use one of his chaarcter's skills. Search is there to reveal that which has been hidden. As DM, you should be justifying how searching can reveal evidence of a trap behind the panel, as I did above, not scratching search off the list of resources available to the PCs.

...It's not difficult for a smart trapmaker to hide a trap completely from the viewer's sight for certain types of traps. Doing so has the advantage of making trapfinding more dangerous than before without being binary: finding a well-hidden trap becomes a matter of luck, just as surely as hitting someone with a sword or casting charm person successfully or turning undead successfully is a matter of luck.

Daniel

So, a sufficiently skilled trapmaker can make any degree of search skill irrelevant?

Humbug.

 

[Tatsukun]

I personally would hate it if the DM started making things that were impossible because he doesn’t like our PC’s to use their abilities. That’s not what D20 is about.

If the DM makes a trap and declares ‘nobody can find or disable this trap, it’s the coolest trap ever, I was up all night making it,’ the rogue is useless. If there is no DC set, and no roll allowed, it’s not D20 any more, it’s story time.

Same thing if the DM makes an NPC who is ‘so covered in armor, you just can’t hit him’. No attack roll, no AC just ‘you can’t hit him’, story time.

Alright players just sit back and relax while I tell you a story about a really cool man who built infinite protection armor and then built the best trap ever. Fan boy time.

-Tatsu

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Now that's odd. I've read story hours of Forge of Fury and there certainly seems to be things going on while the players' backs are turned so to speak. If the players defeat the orcs at the gates and then leave to heal up, I would expect the guard to be replaced and strengthened and a few extra traps to be laid. If the PCs fight the dragon and decide to rest immediately thereafter, it's quite likely that the Duergar, if alive (as they would be if the PCs negotiate rather than fight them) will come and attack them as they rest.

In The Sunless Citadel, there is at the very least the perceived time pressure of needing to rescue the victims of the Gulthias tree before whatever happens to them happens to them. (It doesn't matter too much in the end, but a "rescue mission" isn't an "on your own schedule" type situation).

In the Heart of Nightfang Spire (which I've actually played partly myself), the vampires, vampire spawn, and some of the other undead regenerate regularly until you hunt them down in their coffins and kill them. And there's that assassin who can teleport in to your camp and try to kill you if you tip Gulthias off to your presence.

I think it also comes down to a difference in philosophy here too. I don't think that there "must be something explicit informing the PCs to give any reason for them not to take all the time in the world with their searches." I think that any adventurer in a hostile environment has bona fide, prima facia evidence that he doesn't have "all the time in the world." Specifically, if they take too long, they're likely to be eaten by wandering monsters. If you're fighting vampires, you shouldn't need to be told that you need to defeat them now and follow up or you'll have to defeat them again. If you're invading the orc lair, you shouldn't need to be told that, it's only a matter of seconds between you slaughtering the gate guards and reinforcements coming to check out what's going on. And if you're exploring the Crypt of All That Is Undead and Horrid, you shouldn't need to be any more explicit warning than that it's the Crypt of All that is Undead and Horrid to know that there are nasty undead wandering the halls and that they'll fight you on their terms if you don't find them first and fight them on yours. (When I was playing RtToEE, I didn't need explicit warning that the dragon had cultists trapped under the moathouse to know that it wasn't safe to rest just anywhere. Nor did I get angry with the DM when all of the monsters and cultists that had been cowering in the basement came up stairs and kicked down the door of the room we'd holed up in to rest and heal).

I only played through "The Forge of Fury", and there was no time pressure that I could detect as a player. So please, name one adventure path module where there is a time pressure. But note -- time constraints that the players don't know about don't count. There must be something explicit informing the PCs to give any reason for them not to take all the time in the world with their searches. Otherwise, the only result is angry players when they fail to meet a time constraint that they never knew about.

 

[Saeviomagy]

The problem, niffie, is that like someone said - when you get into this sort of detail, all you are going to do is display someones inexperience with traps.

On the trap and steel pate thing, what if the trap is aprung when the plate is removed? Is that silly? What if the player searches the outside and finds nothing and then removes the plate? Is that silly? I don't think so, this is where we disagreee, as it seems.

If there are absolutely NO clues as to the nature of the trap on the outside of the trap, then HOW DOES IT WORK? If there really are no clues at all, then what I'm looking at is either magical (in which case my sixth sense will detect it), or it is a sealed box with no impact upon the outside world.

If the player says he will carefully remove the plate, I can make a search check, if he says I remove it, the trap is aprung, the reason is that he could find the trap while removing only.

So you're one of those DM's who would claim that a character searching a room would fail to find something on the table, because they didn't search the table.

The trap is set at the other side, it is a crossbow with a rope that triggers it, it is plain to see for anyone on the opposite side of the door, the rope is tied only to the other side of the door, does a search check reveals the trap? I don't think so... unless it is done during the actual act of opening the door, or by a mere statement of carefully opening the door...

What is it tied to?

How taut is it?

Are there tell-tale crossbow-bolt marks on the wall opposite the trapped door?

Is the door rarely opened?

How does the actual owner open the door?

If I bang on the door, then does the rope on the far side make a noise?

Is the door airtight? Or can I see around it a bit?

What if I look through the keyhole?

Can you give me honest answers to any of these questions? Or are you going to rely on your original "the only way to bypass this trap is to announce "I carefully open the door""?

 

[DarkMaster]

I note that you've not answered my questions about the banana or about the spy's letter. What would your answers be? Note that these are relatively common situations in a game (well, the banana normally would be something like a key, or a treasure chest), and as near as I can tell, playing the search skill the way you're suggesting -- that object leaves clues that are visible even when the object itself is hidden from sight -- would allow the rogue to find the letter without opening the backpack, or find the banana without opening the door. And that's just freaky in my opinion.
Daniel

Actually I did but the message got lost. About the banana I don't know why you mention sherlock holmes. I never read a book of Sherlock where he find where the banana is by looking at it directly. He will always find subtle clue that will lead him to the truth. Example right in front of the second door you find little amount of dirt, of the same type as the one found in the banana storage. then you can assume that the banana is behind the second door. Since somebody had to put the banana there it didn't simply appears there. When I said he finds a trap I didn't say the rogue finds who placed it his size ect simply that there are enough evidence around to strongly suspect a trap.

You can interpret the search skill has you want I gave you my point of view do as you wish with it. The game mechanic and balance allow a search check for the rogue therefore I apply it and I was able to find a plausible explanation for it, so I am happy.

Also you could do the same with secret door. I was reading one of the post of a previous poster and taught of adding another aspect to the search explanation. The careful rogue can also manipulate the trap and notice a very small movement in the plate. Trust me it is very difficult to make a trap that will be activated simply by touching it, usually it requires some important pressure otherwise simple wind would enabled the trap. Again having such a sensitive trap could only be installed by the best trapmaker in the world. In any case this argument is going nowhere because you don't like the rule and want to play differently and are not listening to our explanation. Like I said before on a failed search attempt you can HOUSE RULE whatever you want in your campaign.

 

[DarkMaster]

The problem, niffie, is that like someone said - when you get into this sort of detail, all you are going to do is display someones inexperience with traps.

If there are absolutely NO clues as to the nature of the trap on the outside of the trap, then HOW DOES IT WORK? If there really are no clues at all, then what I'm looking at is either magical (in which case my sixth sense will detect it), or it is a sealed box with no impact upon the outside world.

So you're one of those DM's who would claim that a character searching a room would fail to find something on the table, because they didn't search the table.

What is it tied to?

How taut is it?

Are there tell-tale crossbow-bolt marks on the wall opposite the trapped door?

Is the door rarely opened?

How does the actual owner open the door?

If I bang on the door, then does the rope on the far side make a noise?

Is the door airtight? Or can I see around it a bit?

What if I look through the keyhole?

Can you give me honest answers to any of these questions? Or are you going to rely on your original "the only way to bypass this trap is to announce "I carefully open the door""?

Exactly and the rule system translate that magnificently into a DC. Otherwise everybody would have to be an expert in every domain their character is skilled and that is simply too limiting for me.