Search and taking 20: the problem

[dcollins]

...reasoned arguments that, the more rogue-centric the situation, the more likely it is to be time-sensitive.

Sure, a rogue-centric adventure may be more likely to be time-sensitive. But that is not the standard D&D play situation. It is claimed to be designed for a party of 4 characters, all cooperating and participating at the same time. I accept this as a concession that the rule is broken for the standard D&D adventure situation.

(Even for non-rogue-centric mods, time pressure is typical; off the top of your head, name ONE adventure path adventure where there is no time pressure.)

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.

 

[BSF]

No, it is definitely a game system problem. If the D&D rules assert that they are balanced towards a 4-character party exploring a dungeon (e.g., 3.0 DMG p. 106), then they should deliver on exactly that -- the fact that so many people are house-ruling, or uniquely interpreting Take 20 Searches, or coming up with contrived examples where it sort-of makes sense, is an indicator that it isn't fully working right as written.

The above mentioned scenarios are "contrived"? OK, you obviously like a different style game than some people. That's cool. For your game, they are "contrived". For mine, they are not.

As for the house rules on taking 20, unnecessary for my game. So, for my style of gaming, the game system is obviously not a problem.

But, that is what's cool about DnD (or most any RPG for that matter), everyone plays slightly different. We have a fairly strong baseline of rules to work from and we tell stories based on those rules, with the tweaks we feel are necessary to tell our stories in a manner that works best for each of us.

If my PC's are working their way through an ancient tomb of a people that were well known to trap the dickens out of everything, I fully expect the PC's to be checking for a lot of traps. Does it matter to me if they use their skills and patience to bypass those traps? No! I applaud them for their prudence. If they want to take days doing that, great. I hope you have enough food and water, that's all. There might be wandering monsters, if the environment makes sense for them. Maybe it is a tomb protected by traps and undead. So, undead show up every so often. Maybe the tomb is in a monster infested bit of wilderness and nasty things peek in from time to time. Maybe there is nothing more than deer and birds around. Whatever works for the area that they are in.

If my PC's are getting ready to do an urban break-in, then I expect them to plan accordingly. Maybe they spend a bit of time buffing the rogue's skill checks as much as possible so they can have a better chance of making it in and out without taking 20, or 10. Maybe they just want to ascertain if an item is really in a room. Maybe they want to grab that item. Maybe they want to plant evidence.

What makes one situation any more contrived than the other? Aside from the context of what kind of game you enjoy, and how the PC's ended up taking that path of action, nothing makes the situation contrived.

 

[Coredump]

(I may have to make this into my sig soon...)

Maybe...just maybe... the designers jumped to the insane conclusion that this game was meant to be run with a *DM* that can take into account certain things that would otherwise not make sense.



It is the *DM's* job to make sure the story is fun and sensible. And sure, unique situations will occur. To try and fit *one* rule into all scenarios is foolish. Sure, It is easy to think of a time where taking 20 on a trap search is *not* appropriate, but that doesn't mean it *never* is. Either version of the 'rule' will not work 100% of the time. Gee, good thing we have one of dem dere DM-types...


Find a chest, you think it may be trapped. Should be no problem to search it over and over again. Taking 20 will just mean you take a long time looking. No problem.

Walking along the corridor, find a section of floor that is not smooth, but made of bricks. Rogue gets suspcious and searches, but never sets foot upon the section. Sure, take all the time you want. I will increase the DC to find the trap because the only real sign is a hairline crack around one brick, and maybe some scratches along the sides from when it gets depressed. Take 20 may or may not let you find it, depending on how good you are.

Same situation, but the theif decides to get down on hands and knees and 'really search'. Fine, Lower DC. And can even retry. But (as that cool DM type) I decide that missing the DC by 15 means you kneel on the wrong one. So when you say you want to 'take 20', instead I roll for you until either you find it, or miss by enough to trigger it.

Plus, I find it a problem that people are upset that some traps may be 'too difficult' to find. Gee folks, that is life. Now, to make it an 'insta-die' trap would suck and not be much fun. But otherwise life gets boring. And yes, occasionally we come across monsters that we can't hit real well either. We run away.

 

[Nifelhein]

Okay, it seems I triggered a flmae trap!

Guys, as I see it nowhere in the search skill it says that searching is a purely eyesight thing, one has to interact, if the wall is hollow how can a character actually realize that? By knockin on the wall, if the panel of that holds the actual mechanism of the trap is hard to find they will need to nock it and the like, now what if the trap itself is a single brick that is so old that it will break and fall after a character steps in it?

In my game searching means looking, smelling, knocking, moving things and the like, it is just not seeing a thing. If you allow the rogue to find traps by merely looking at the 10 ft. away section of the floor, door, wall or whatever than saying: that damn brick that is exactly like all the others here does not seem right to me, than I think that your game has flaws, this is purely in my opinion and not meant to offend anyone, but surely not a game I want to be in...

The reason for this is that the same could apply to the rogue who is searching for the stalker at the forest, during the night, he rolls a 20 and total an absurd amount, the stalker is actually inside a hole that cannot be seen from the actual position of the rogue... the rogue says:

1. "I don't know, that place, it just does not seem right, I can see the air there moving different, like there is a warm creature below..."

or

2. "I cannot find it."

Sure, the first one could be done, what about the place being a hell hot? Still purely visual? Then I think that when one speaks in your game that he is hitting the room for a secret compartment that they are necessarily going to find it, as they are not using only their sight. In my game it would be a search check in both situations, the rogue in the forest wouldn't find the man in the hole that has total cover from him and the one hitting everywhere would make a search check, if the secret compartment is a 5 inches wide thing, he has a high DC, if it a 5 ft. wide one, he gets a lower DC.

Anyway, that is how you prefer to run your game, I like mine this way you the other one, good that it works for you, because mine works for me. This kind of reminds me of the skill section, in the start of it they say that a skill is supposed to do what is considered possible, with the epic level handbook they amde it possible to swim up a waterfall... well.. that enters the realm of the impossible things, in my opinion, and enter the domain of magic... but you may prefer to run things other way.

Just do not tell me that i have to house rule something when what I can do is simply use the damn rules to adjudicate a situation that does not fall within the general situation, the search skill allows me to do that.

As a alst note, the same thing about disbale device roll and using brains can be said about diplomacy and roleplaying, I still prefer to have the roleplaying around though...

 

[DarkMaster]

Okay, it seems I triggered a flmae trap!

As a alst note, the same thing about disbale device roll and using brains can be said about diplomacy and roleplaying, I still prefer to have the roleplaying around though...

Yeah as a DM I really like hiting my player simulating that I am the dragon, roleplaying is so much better, who needs combat rules when you can "roleplay" them

Replacing your PC skill by your player skill is actually the opposite of roleplaying.

Concerning the hidden stalker he might be in a hole but before getting in the hole he might have crush some leaves around or left faint foot print that a highly skilled spotter could notice. How can I know what a guy with a spotting skill has high as an eagle can see, that is why the rules are there.

Also why would I need to put skill point in bluff if I am a lawyer in life with great bluff skill, I will just role play it, greatly affecting the other player with no social skill who wants to play a very highly social guy and puts all his skill points in social skill. Why play a fighter when I can beat up my DM?

 

[Nifelhein]

I never stated that I use one in place of the other, I said that my game still has roleplaying around when the skill check could be the only thing to be done... your actual statement make me want to discuss less because you taek what I did not say and then make things out of it, much like a lot of annoying rulelawyers do with the rules... no, I don't think you are a rule lawyer, just that I don't like the wya you have made things in you last post, if that is because I offended you I must apologize, that was not my intent in any of the comments above, at all. And as this is not really going to make the actual discussion any better, I will withdraw the comments I could do on the rest of your post.

I hope we can have more friendly discussions in the future.

Cheers,

Nif.

 

[Nail]

.... Why play a fighter when I can beat up my DM?

Nice quote.

The PC has skills written on his sheet so that he can use them. Trying to "role-play" through the situation....is only likely to display real-world ignorance of how traps work. Moreover, it's a sure-fire way to cheese a player off; if the player's had his rogue put lots of points into Search, he'd better be successful more than once in a while.

This is a bit off the original topic, but:

SEARCH (INT)
Check: You generally must be within 10 feet of the object or surface to be searched. The table below gives DCs for typical tasks involving the Search skill.

That's pretty much it, as far as rules go. Nothing in there about using "sense of smell" or some such. In fact, the text implies the rogue does not have to touch the trapped surface to "search for traps"....unless he has 10' reach, I guess.

Finally: Saying "the trap is behind a trapped steel plate" is silly. If that were the case, the rogue would first find the trap on the steel plate! The other silly contention is that a trap "on the other side of the door" can't be searched. That's uber-silly; after all, if the trap were entirely on the opposite side of the door, then it couldn't be sprung on those in front of the door! If the trap is meant to be sprung when the door was oppened => that means the trap mechanism is in some way "connected with the door", and thus can be detected by a rogue examining the door.

 

[Nifelhein]

Nice quote.

The PC has skills written on his sheet so that he can use them. Trying to "role-play" through the situation....is only likely to display real-world ignorance of how traps work. Moreover, it's a sure-fire way to cheese a player off; if the player's had his rogue put lots of points into Search, he'd better be successful more than once in a while.

I will say that I can agree with this, but I never said that a player should roleplay his way out of a encounter, a trap or anything, I just said that I think that making them rollplay it all the time makes the actual thing less interesting, I dislike it and do not enjoy that kind of game, that is all, is that a problem? only if there were no people like that to play with me.

<snip>

Nothing in there about using "sense of smell" or some such. In fact, the text implies the rogue does not have to touch the trapped surface to "search for traps"....unless he has 10' reach, I guess.

Finally: Saying "the trap is behind a trapped steel plate" is silly. If that were the case, the rogue would first find the trap on the steel plate! The other silly contention is that a trap "on the other side of the door" can't be searched. That's uber-silly; after all, if the trap were entirely on the opposite side of the door, then it couldn't be sprung on those in front of the door! If the trap is meant to be sprung when the door was oppened => that means the trap mechanism is in some way "connected with the door", and thus can be detected by a rogue examining the door.

And neither it says that a search check is based solely on the sight of the subject, it does not imply that you have to actually touch anything, sure it doesn't, but it does not say you do not need no matter what the trap, the creature ar whatever you are searching for... I can see that pretty clearly, what makes me wonder is why that must be the only thing written...

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 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.

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...

 

[DarkMaster]

I think you are trying to explain in too much detail each of abstract mechanic of the game. I use the mechanic of the game in intrepret the results to my player acordingly. If they roll a hit for example removing 90% of the enemy hit points I will tell them they hit them in the stomach. Same with the trap I used the mechanic and adapt my description accordingly to the roll. I use Search to see the trap or hint of a trap and disable device to disarm it with risk.
If you want a trap that can be activated while searching, why not allow the search roll with a forced disable device roll. At least you give a chance to the player. Then it is up to you to interpret the result. example both roll failed trap disarm, search fail but disable device worked, you didn't see anything but were cautious enough not to touch anything and so on.

 

[Nifelhein]

Darkmaster,

I do the same with the hit and descriptions, I think that your idea might work well, if the situation needs it, would you use that for the door thing I described? i think it surely does a chance to the player...

For instance, how would you handle two of the situations I described there, I am curious to your answer, really, it seems I can learn some good tricks from you with this!

1. the old brick section, same amterial, no visual clue at all, that falls when one steps on them? Simply a ref save or allow a skill before?

2. the crossbow one, how would you handle it in your game?

Thanks in advance... the bricks one I would allow a search check to detect it, adding a modifier for the specific need of hiting or putting weight over it to detect. The second one I am yet unsure what would be a good way of handling it...