Search and taking 20: the problem

[Pielorinho]

Wow, straw man much, people? Argue against what I'm actually saying, or else don't address me, please.

First, some things I'm NOT advocating. I've already listed these, but some of you prefer to ignore them in favor of attacking easy (though fictional) targets:
-I'm not advocating making the search skill useless.
-I'm not advocating requiring the player to describe exactly what technique he's using to disable a trap.
-I'm not advocating designing traps that are perfectly undetectable.

What am I advocating?
-I'm advocating the truism that you can't see what you can't see.
-I'm advocating the idea that trapmakers ought to use every advantage they can.
-I'm advocating the idea that some traps have absolutely no clues detectable with a non-epic search check made visually within 10' of the trap. (Non-epic listed in order to exclude those rogues who can see banana molecules wafting from the trap).

Yes, you can list ways that the panel trap could be seen, if poorly constructed or previously activated. We all acknowledge that. My point is not about whether a rogue can detect the evidence of a poorly built trap; my point is that a well-built trap may have no visual clues.
-Discoloration on the wall? Only if it's been previously activated.
-Heard of a similar trap before? Only if it's a common model.
-Hear the cap detach? This has two problems. First, reread the trap's description: the cap only detaches when the panel is opened. Second, this is no longer a visual search. In order to make this search, the rogue has to manipulate the trap, and that's exactly what I'm saying a rogue should sometimes have to do.

The last one is the closest to providing a way to detect the trap: if a rogue decided to manipulate the trap, I'd give a (secret) search check even if the rogue didn't ask for one. On a successful check, I'd give the rogue more information: "You know, you hear a click, but you think you can feel that the dial could turn further if you wanted to." That's information that the rogue couldn't possibly get just from looking at the trap.

Of course, by manipulating the trap, the rogue subjects himself to danger: the trap could've been a decoy designed to release poison gas as soon as the dial is turned at all. That's one of the dangers of being a rogue.

One final question: one straw man that's come up repeatedly is the idea that a rogue player will be very upset if he takes 20 (or rolls a natural 20) on a search check and still doesn't find the trap. Yet this is perfectly within the rules: a rogue who has a +8 search check has no chance whatsoever of finding a trap with a search DC of 30 (barring special modifiers). Would you be okay with a player who whinges about not finding such a trap?

I wouldn't.

Daniel

 

[Nifelhein]

Okay guys, we now have two issues, unless I have forgotten any other here, if I did, forgive me, as it was a good lot of posts to read.

1. The undetectable trap. When I raised this issue I was stating that a search check has its limits, and that is by the rules, they state clearly that a skill can achieve what one categorizes as possible. This means to me that no matter how damn good you are, making a search check in the whole room will not eveal to you that behind the door on the north wall there is a pit trap, that is very true to me.

A trap usually has clues, some are a hell hard to detect and others are not, the trap on the panel would not be such a hard time for me because I, as previously stated and used by some people, consider that a search check is not purely a sight thing, all senses get in when looking for traps, else there would be absolutely no way of detecting a magical trap without the proper spells.

On the panel one, I think there is a chance of detecting the trap because it is connected to the panel, but that will not rely on the sight of the rogue, thus a higher DC to find, a trap has a search DC to find and a Disable Device one, who said that a trap must be easier to find then to disable? I can make a hell hard trap to detect that once known can be easy as gone to disable... there is nothing stopping that.

The best example on this thread was that magical trap that would drown you on a 3 ft. tall water body, pretty good trap, in my games a rogue would detect it based on his whole senses, he could hear movement in the water, he could spot a damn insect being pulled underneath, that is what would justify the damn DC even existing.

If a rogue wants to search a room for traps and checks every door and too, he does search the table, who said he wouldn't? I did not. But doing so would still not allow him to detect a trap set on the first tile on the opposite side of the door, unless tehre is a possible hint to it on the place he is, and by that I mean markings and the like, but this trap was made on the other side, put there through the other side, bypassed by the otehr side and the like.

The panel we had is set by the same side the one actually is and must be bypassed by where the rogue actually is, hell, that is something he can do! The difference we have, and that is fair to have this, is what is possible and what is not, asking questions regarding the trap and the use of the place that is trapped is silly because,a s Darkmaster noticed, there is no right answer... consider that the panel was set there a thousand years ago, tehre are no residents that use the room, it is a long forgotten ruined place, the trap was never sprung... the clues woudl be there but no sweat, no markings of bypassing or the like, the clues woudl be a lot more harder to find, a high search DC. Now have you ever entered a very very old house made out of wood? Some sections of the floor can drop and that is something that I would consider traps, natural ones, but still traps.

Searching for those traps would have much more to consider than mere visual clues, that is not a problem for me, the sections could squeak when pressed, then fall with a little bit more weight, they could smell rotten or whatever, high search DC, low disable device check, as all that is needed is to make it fall or make a new passageway...

2. Take 20 on Search and Time constraints. If I would make a trap on my house Iwould not put it in obvious places, the reason behind it is that no matter how good the trap is, if one would suspect of it they woudl look for those damn places.

The example of the rogue takign 10 and 20 and 44 minutes on the whole place is good for me, the rogue is being careful and has wisely chosen his pattern, but if I place a trap in the only corridor leading to the treasure vault I don't think I am screwing him, if the trap is not in the door but in the corrdidor that he must walk after the door, I don't think that is screwing him. It can be seen as such but if a player wants me to make silly things just because he is used to beating them the way he always behave, he woudl be better playing with someone else, because I place challenges and to be so a trap must caught them unaware, the one who placed it knew that, reason trap is on the damn corridor an dnot in the room.

3. As I have said of those, I woudl like to say that for me epic is still mundane, no matter what, you can be the olimpic winner on swimming, you still cannot swim up a waterfall, you may the best climber in the world, you still cannot climb a perfect smooth horizontal surface by hanging underneath it, that is just impossible to me, skills are just that, mundane things one can learn, this also reveals my problem with the skills systtem going on without a limit, like the roots of this system had, and I am not talking about D&D here.

A magical trap, on the other hand, is detectable to me not by a sixth sense or something liek that, although that can be fine, but by clues that are a lot harder to get, this works betetr for me and keeps the skill mundane still.

To me random encounters do have a reason and serve the game well, those questions could be answered, if they knew more, monsters don't just stand in a dungeon room, they live there, they move and relate to each other, they investigate suspicious noises and prepare ambushes, they live, or in some cases, did not die completely, and that is good enough an explanation, else things get much like when I was 12 and played D&D, we had unmoving dungeons with giants inside rooms they could not get with their size, we had enemies that would not get out of their room even if the dragon on the nearby one would make a damn noise and thump on the floor... that was good to me, back then, know I play a different game.

4. As a last note I would like to thank you guys for the discussion, although this could have easily turned into a flame war and still can, I have enjoyed discussing with you and I can say, as BardStephen there has, that I have learned from you all, I don't think your point of views aree invalid if they go against what I said here, I just see them as not fiting into my game, anyway, they have taught me some good things and I and my players are surely gonna enjoy that, I will surely handle things somewhat different now.

Cheers,

Nif.

 

[glass]

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!

This was my position as well, until recently. I even expressed it in pretty much the same words. However, without a house rule to the contrary, you can search an area for traps from 10 ft away. No danger of triggering a trap from there!

Bizarre, but true.


glass.

 

[Pielorinho]

One other thing I'll point out is that I think I may approach things differently from some other DMs. If a player complained, saying, "You're telling me that a natural twenty doesn't find the trap?!" I wouldn't answer with, "Well, you would have had to make a disable device check once you opened it."

I would smile enigmatically and say, "Apparently not." And then I would describe what they saw, smelled, heard. And then at last I would ask for a fortitude check, sotto voce.

In other words, the description comes first; the rules only serve the description. In this case, the rules can be read in one of two ways. One reading, that a rogue can see things he can't see by using a search check, shreds the narrative; another reading, that the search check is limited by all normal limits on perception, maintains the narrative. I'll always choose the latter over the former.

Daniel

 

[Nifelhein]

This was my position as well, until recently. I even expressed it in pretty much the same words. However, without a house rule to the contrary, you can search an area for traps from 10 ft away. No danger of triggering a trap from there!

Bizarre, but true.


glass.

I have stated it, although it is not often true, it may be but it seems that the best reason to ever avoid that is that this would piss the hell of the players off. I may use it eventually, but knowing the players would be a good help before doing so.

Good to know that I am not the only to have read that anyway, although I still see it as possible, not to say that the rules do cover it.

 

[Pielorinho]

This was my position as well, until recently. I even expressed it in pretty much the same words. However, without a house rule to the contrary, you can search an area for traps from 10 ft away. No danger of triggering a trap from there!

Bizarre, but true.

Bizarre, yes; true, no. The clause about 10' away is modified by the word "generally," implying that there are exceptions. The game designers didn't mention the "you can't see what you can't see" business; I can only assume they thought everyone knew that.

Daniel

 

[Artoomis]

This was my position as well, until recently. I even expressed it in pretty much the same words. However, without a house rule to the contrary, you can search an area for traps from 10 ft away. No danger of triggering a trap from there!

Bizarre, but true.


glass.

Untrue.

"Generally..."
and
"within 10'...."

Together mean you can detect many traps from 10' away, but not all. Some you might be able to detect from further away, some you might have to be well within 10'.

The language is, I believe, intentially vague. This leaves the DM some flexibility within the rules - meaning that the DM can stay within reasonable player expectations created by the rules without having to require every trap be detectable from 10' away.

 

[Nifelhein]

Untrue.

"Generally..."
and
"within 10'...."

Together mean you can detect many traps from 10' away, but not all. Some you might be able to detect from further away, some you might have to be well within 10'.

The language is, I believe, intentially vague. This leaves the DM some flexibility within the rules - meaning that the DM can stay within reasonable player expectations created by the rules without having to require every trap be detectable from 10' away.

And that is where a trap could require an articulated search and disabel device checks to be found/ disarmed, after all, if we ahd to allow that all the time we could just drop the damn trap thing and stick with the monsters behind the door.

 

[Artoomis]

And that is where a trap could require an articulated search and disabel device checks to be found/ disarmed, after all, if we ahd to allow that all the time we could just drop the damn trap thing and stick with the monsters behind the door.

Not really, no. It would be outside player expectations created by the rules to create a trap that required a disable device check to find it - that's what search checks are for.

It's all up to a DM, of course, but the rules create certain expectations with the players, and thus should generally be followed to prevent chaos and hard feelings.

Things like:

A search check is used to find traps.
A disable device check is used to disbale or harmlessly trigger a trap.

Go outside of that a players begin to wonder why they spent time carefully designing their characters and deciding where to spend skill points.

 

[Nifelhein]

Oh, I actually meant a trap that must be disabled right after searching for it, one that could possibly be found and triggered if not immediatly disbaled.

Although that would be a rare one.