Search and taking 20: the problem

[Pielorinho]

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.

This is a drastic misunderstanding of how the language works. John Wayne can generally knock someone out within thirty seconds of beginning to fight them. Does that mean that there's nobody he CAN'T beat up within thirty seconds of fighting them?

Mike Tyson generally must be within 10 IQ points of someone in order to outwit them. Does this mean that there are never circumstances in which he must be within 2 IQ points of someone in order to outwit them?

No in both cases. Absolutely not.

People seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying when I suggest that some traps are not findable with a visual search. Such traps don't constitute inevitable damage: 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.

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.

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.

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

 

[DarkMaster]

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

Nobody is perfect, DC of the trap also include non related thing that can lead a good rogue to figure out that there is a trap. In your example even if the lever is out of sight there might be unusual foot step around the trap that could lead the rogue to identify that the person installing the trap was kneeling in a certain position in front of that panel, then he would notice a bit of salt that would probably comes from the trapmaker sweating head when he installed the panel, these two information would allow to figure out how he was positionned, the rogue knowing a lot of different trap can then strongly suspect that someone was around the panel preparing most likely a trap. You cannot always see the trap, but there might be a lot of clue around. How do you think tracking works? The DC to spot the trap englobes much more than the actual trap.

 

[Pielorinho]

Nobody is perfect, DC of the trap also include non related thing that can lead a good rogue to figure out that there is a trap. In your example even if the lever is out of sight there might be unusual foot step around the trap that could lead the rogue to identify that the person installing the trap was kneeling in a certain position in front of that panel, then he would notice a bit of salt that would probably comes from the trapmaker sweating head when he installed the panel, these two information would allow to figure out how he was positionned,

You presume too much . If the trap were installed half an hour ago, sure -- but if the trap were installed even two weeks ago, and the lever/dial/panel mechanism had seen good use since then, even the bizarre signs you suggested would not be present. And such traps may be found in complexes decades, centuries, or even millennia old, in which case all such signs would long ago have disappeared.

Daniel

 

[Black Knight Irios]

First I have no problem with allowing T20 on Search Checks, finding the trap is one thing, disabling another and you can't T20 on Disable Device Check! -So why bother.

Some DMs think it is funny to nullify the effect certain skills, like Search for traps by creating a trap that can't be searched for without triggering it or whatever. The question is what do you think you get for doing this? -Make the Players feel anoid of your stupid traps or is the real problem that you as DM can't cope with the problem that your players, can detect all of your traps, maybe I hit the spot, in some cases.
Nevertheless allowing an imediate DD check, for your "clever" placed and hidden traps, is not the same as giving a character first the ability to detect the trap and then disarm it.
And what is this "I create a trap that you can't find sh**" about?!? -Using the Search skill implies that you search for something hidden that isn't obvious. And not allowing someone with the Searchskill to find that freakin' trap you placed, is a bit stupid in its own right, because who can find it if you can't use the Searchskill, there is no commonsense, is there.
You say he can't find it because he doesn't touch it or move it or the like but why are you intenionally taking the abilities granted by a skill away.
What bothers me really is why some people always have to critisize the rules, instead of trying to find a solution within the rules, the first thing they make is creating houserules, not very good solution.
Some houserules are indeed good, I use some as well but that is not the point, it is simply that you do not need to create these odd situations at all.
And really don't measure any abilities a character might posses with realism in any way because that doesn't work at all.

 

[DarkMaster]

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?

Muito obrigado por todo, but don't consider me as an absolute reference.

first thing I always at least allow a search check.

1 this is very simple, the old brick section probably contains visual clue, otherwise it would be brand new . The rogue should should be able to identify easily weak points in the mortar in an old brick section. so the DC should be around 20-22 range

2 as for two see my answer to Pielorinho, most of the DC here will be based on the profesionalism of the trapmaker and the amount of people that got caught in the trap. If the trap maker was not careful and damaged slightly the door with it's tool while making the trap the rogue could notice it and determine the type of tools that were used leading to figure out the trap, also if there are full of tiny dry blood spot around. Like I said search is more than finding the trap per say. think track feat.

 

[DarkMaster]

You presume too much . If the trap were installed half an hour ago, sure -- but if the trap were installed even two weeks ago, and the lever/dial/panel mechanism had seen good use since then, even the bizarre signs you suggested would not be present. And such traps may be found in complexes decades, centuries, or even millennia old, in which case all such signs would long ago have disappeared.

Daniel

Maybe but other could still be there, also passage of time damages material and could damage the cover of the trap making it more easy to detect. Like I said adjust the DC accordingly, DC 40 for a trap makes it almost impossible to detect but still possible with magical boost and so on.

 

[DarkMaster]

You presume too much . If the trap were installed half an hour ago, sure -- but if the trap were installed even two weeks ago, and the lever/dial/panel mechanism had seen good use since then, even the bizarre signs you suggested would not be present. And such traps may be found in complexes decades, centuries, or even millennia old, in which case all such signs would long ago have disappeared.

Daniel

also I don't presume too much, what I described is what search is all about. you set the DC and you live with it. The only problem is the higher the DC is the more imagination you need

 

[Pielorinho]

Some DMs think it is funny to nullify the effect certain skills, like Search for traps by creating a trap that can't be searched for without triggering it or whatever. The question is what do you think you get for doing this?

Your insulting guesses notwithstanding, I already answered this: what you get is making trapfinding a matter of luck, just as surely as swinging a sword or casting a successful charm person or turning a vampire is a matter of luck.

Nevertheless allowing an imediate DD check, for your "clever" placed and hidden traps, is not the same as giving a character first the ability to detect the trap and then disarm it.

Very observant: it is different. Variety, they say, is the spice of life; it certainly adds spice to gaming.

And what is this "I create a trap that you can't find sh**" about?!? -Using the Search skill implies that you search for something hidden that isn't obvious. And not allowing someone with the Searchskill to find that freakin' trap you placed, is a bit stupid in its own right, because who can find it if you can't use the Searchskill, there is no commonsense, is there.

No common sense that I can see, certainly. What is this about? Why, it's about basic plausibility. See the trap I desribed above: how would a rogue find it without touching the mechanism or using magic? Given the difficulty in detecting it, why WOULDN'T a trapmaker devise such a trap?

You say he can't find it because he doesn't touch it or move it or the like but why are you intenionally taking the abilities granted by a skill away.

Look: if the party is attacked by a wraith, I'm not taking away the fighter's ability to use a sword: I'm just coming up with a situation in which the sword is no longer the best answer to the problem. I'm not taking away the wizard's ability to use a dominate person spell either, or the rogue's ability to sneak attack. I'm just presenting a different sort of problem. So your question is predicated on a false assumption.

What bothers me really is why some people always have to critisize the rules, instead of trying to find a solution within the rules, the first thing they make is creating houserules, not very good solution.

First, houserules are a great solution, if they're fun for everyone. Second, my suggestion involves no house rules whatsoever, as described above.

Finally:

And really don't measure any abilities a character might posses with realism in any way because that doesn't work at all.

Absolutely wrong. Certainly you don't need to mimic swinging a sword or singing an ode in order to have fun, but when you achieve verisimilitude of motive, your game is much richer. As described above, trapmakers have a vested interest in making traps difficult to discover; it breaks realism for them not to take advantage of any techniques that assist them in this goal. There is no reason to break plausibility in this case - indeed, adhering to plausible motives deepens rather than cheapens the game experience.

Daniel

 

[Pielorinho]

Maybe but other could still be there, also passage of time damages material and could damage the cover of the trap making it more easy to detect. Like I said adjust the DC accordingly, DC 40 for a trap makes it almost impossible to detect but still possible with magical boost and so on.

Darkmaster, a spellcaster casts Blindness on a rogue. Do you still allow the rogue to detect traps visually? What about in a cave with no source of light? Do you allow a rogue to detect a trap in another room if the wall between him and the other room is less than ten feet wide?

At some point, the DC becomes an IC.

Daniel

 

[Nifelhein]

Thanks for the answer, Darkmaster, you almost got the portuguese right too, and it is that thank you!

I really can picture what you said, although I can see with some ease where Pielorinho is coming from, this will serve me well while designing traps for specific locations and also, when adjudicating situations too.

And on the original question, I agree with most that to have found the trap does not make it bypassed.