Search and taking 20: the problem

[Pielorinho]

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.

Y'know, that might actually be a better way to handle such a trap: if the player activates the trap after failing their search check, give them one last search check once the workings of the trap are visible to them; if they make it, they get one disable device check to prevent its going off. This would be assuming the rogue were cautious.

It's different from my suggestion only in that it requires an additional search check: if the rogue were being cautious, I was assuming that they'd automatically make the search check once the trap's workings were visible and was cutting directly to the DD check.

But requiring an additional search check once the trap's workings become visible might be a better way to handle it.

Daniel

 

[swrushing]

Please re-read the preceding. Not Take 20 on every square. Take 10 in every square and Take 20 on all portals -- 4 minutes to explore a sample room (including Take 20's on any door, chest, or other suspicious item). No wandering monster checks by the rules.

Please note, i did not mention making any wandering monster checks. I mentioned reasonable expectations based on experience.

 

[Nifelhein]

Pielorinho, I agree that might be a good way, a specific search chek to figure what to do then do... interesting one, the player still has a chance too, and that makes a skill mastery in search something a hell good...

Anyway, wandering monsters are just not all that specific in the rules given in the DMG, it is guidelines there, a really dangerous place may have a check once a half hour, a more calm one may have one every night only or noit at all... better stay away from that.

And I agree with swrushing, if there is a possibility that one would come and check, make the skill check, listen for example, then make it happen. Search may cause some noise as it need not be just looking at the whole room without touching a thing.... Else how would one find something under a box.

 

[Henry]

I know that discussions have gotten a little rough in some spots, but I want to thank everyone for keeping it relatively civil.

For my part, I don't have qualms about letting players find traps, because just because they found it doesn't mean they understand its workings, or even can disable it. How about a trap that causes something to happen to everyone BUT the person triggering it? (I'm a Grimtooth's fan. ) But I don't personally believe in a trap with NO DC to detect, assuming the person is in a position to detect (within 10 feet and not robbed of their faculties or possessing absolutely no senses capable of registering the trap).

However, I don't allow disable Device checks if they can't identify the trap - by Pielorhino's same reasoning that you can't see what you can't see, you can't disable what you don't know is there. Disable device covers many things, but disarming something that doesn't exist isn't one of them, and to the PC that trap doesn't exist - how would they even BEGIN to know where to start? Caution is one thing, but to me that needs to be roleplayed, not rolled into that particular skill.

---I do have one question: The rules are very ambiguous on the difference between search and spot: "You can find secret doors, simple traps, hidden compartments, and other details not readily apparent. The Spot skill lets you notice something, such as a hiding rogue. The Search skill lets a character discern some small detail or irregularity through active effort."

Does this mean that you could use Search to detect a hiding rogue? After all, what is picking out a hiding creature but "discerning some small detail or irregularity through active effort"?

 

[Artoomis]

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.

What you have there is a trap that has been set off by the search check - that's really outside of player expectations created by the rules.

I'd acheive that same goal a little differently. Something like:

Step 1: Search. If successful, then disable is available. Maybe this has two DCs - one to find the obvious trap, and a harder one to find the hidden, 2nd trap. Take 20 would only find the obvious trap unless the rogue specifically declared that they would continue searching after finding the trap. (Insidious, ain't it?)

Step 2. Disable device - the "dummy" trap is disabled - the one in place to fool any trespassers.

Step 2: Search again. If not done, then the trap is triggered by the party as soon as they start to move past and the timer starts - some loud click or something is heard by the rogue (who is, of course, paying attention to be sure he has fully disable the trap), which should trigger a new search check. Rogue says something like: "Oh, $%!@#, second trap!! Damn.. that old man warned us about that! Hmm... nothing happened - I better check it out."

Step 3: Rogue realizes (2nd search check made with a +4 circumstance bonus - he's already got a clue from the noise he heard) that he's got only a few seconds before the poison gas that will kill the hostages is released!! Time to act fast!

Step 4: Disable device check made and the hostages are saved!! (Or not - whoops!)

You'd have had to provided some clue to the players as to why a second search check would be needed (the old man's warning, in this case). If they pick up on your clue, great - then disable device check functions normally, if not, -4 circumstance penalty to the check due to extreme time pressure and the unexpected need to disable a device.

 

[Nifelhein]

But I don't personally believe in a trap with NO DC to detect, assuming the person is in a position to detect

Neither do I, but I believe in a trap that one can only detect in a given condition, and that is what I have been discussing about. I am no moderator here but I agree that it is good to know we have been able to keep this without flames floating all around, this assures that we have extraordinary people on it.

On the search for a hiding person, as I see it you can, spot would mean that you see him with a passing eye, search would be required when you know he is there but seeks him with a sharp eye, just what i think of it, spot is much more a reaction, search is an active task. A guard on duty would have a spot check or a search check is what should be bugging you...

And for Artoomis, interesting one, maybe you could set the two DCs for the same check, finding the first would mean nothing but if you got to roll high enough, you can actually get the second one, this would keep the problem with the take 20 thing. What about a trap being possible to actually find only after diabling the first one, I mean, when it is disable the second trap becomes "visible", thus calling another check?

 

[Pielorinho]

But I don't personally believe in a trap with NO DC to detect, assuming the person is in a position to detect (within 10 feet and not robbed of their faculties or possessing absolutely no senses capable of registering the trap).

I agree with everything outside of the parentheses . In other words, being "in position to detect" necessarily involves "having line of sight," if you're using sight to detect the trap. If you want to use other senses, the trap must be detectable by these other senses -- it must have a peculiar smell, or it must make noise, or you must touch it. And touching it may risk triggering it in some cases. Although being within 10' is generally necessary and sufficient, it's not always necessary or sufficient.

However, I don't allow disable Device checks if they can't identify the trap - by Pielorhino's same reasoning that you can't see what you can't see, you can't disable what you don't know is there.

True -- what I'm suggesting is a minor stretching of the rules for disabling device, to allow for handling thing verrrrry carefully. In the panel-trap example I gave, a successful DD check wouldn't disable the trap, but rather would enable the rogue to pull the panel back far enough to see the trap (or otherwise sense it -- maybe by feeling the pull of the cap as it separates from the vial) before it goes off.

As the rules are written, there's no real check that allows for this, so it makes sense to put it either under search or DD. I'm figuring that it's all a matter of finesse in this case: once the trap's visible, it's completely obvious to everyone, and the only question is whether the rogue can reveal the trap without setting it off.

As a player, I've set off more than my share of traps, and I figure that's part of the fun of them. If they're gonna be interesting, they need to be substantially different from one another, and new traps should require new techniques for overcoming them. "Take 20 on a search check" can become a magic bullet technique, one that overcomes every trap that is overcomable. I don't like that as a player or a DM, and am happy that the rules don't pigeonhole all traps into this situation.

Daniel

 

[Ranes]

Argue against what I'm actually saying, or else don't address me, please....

-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.

-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).

1. In your previous post, what you were arguing would have made Search useless on a whim, not unilaterally useless but unpredictably so. I never said you were making Search entirely redundant. I was taking issue with your example that it could be made redundant by sufficient trap making skill. I think I've fairly paraphrased your argument.

2. No argument from me.

3. I refer you again to your previous post. In that, the only way you gave for a PC to interact with the trap in your example was via Disable Device. You specifically circumnavigated the possibility of the trap being detectable until it was being interacted with.

4. No argument from me.

5. No argument from me.

6. I agree but my agreement hinges on your use of the word 'visually'. I think any time you have a trap, there should be some chance, however slim, that it can be found by a Search check. There may be no visual clues but there should be some clue; see my previous post or below.

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.

Not necessarily to all of the above. I catch your drift but I can think of exceptions.

-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.

Yes. I agree. Some interaction is required. Search should be allowed for this but wait...

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.

Well yes. Quite. You didn't exactly make that point your last post though. The absence of that Search check makes all the difference. I have no argument with you or anyone handling particularly cunning traps in this manner.

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.

Wait. Don't backtrack. Sounds like you want to find another way of skipping the rogue's search. Why can't he have a search check for testing the weight, balance or sound detectable by slight movements of the dial (or some aspect of of the trap mechanism at work behind the dial). Going back to your previous paragraph, you're allowing some manipulation of a suspicious panel with a secret search check. Good. But if the search check fails, the character detects nothing. He doesn't necessarily set off the trap. Consider:

Rogue: I'm going to inspect that panel with the lever. Check it for traps. [Rolls.]

DM: You find no evidence of any trap mechanism.

Rogue: I'll turn the lever, carefully.

DM: [Makes secret search check - rogue fails] The dial clicks.

Fighter: Wait a moment. Maybe we should do this later. I don't like it. Maybe we should try and find out what that panel is for.

Rogue: Everyone else? Yeah? Okay then, let's check the other door. I don't open the panel yet.

So, the rogue has failed the search check. If he had opened the panel then (or if he comes back later and does so), there's no need for a Disable Device check, because he doesn't know there's a device to disable. He will trigger the trap and you've got him. There's the danger. Well done. Nice trap.

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.

Me neither.

 

[heirodule]

It's just automatic true-or-false. I might as well just write down a number of damage points I want the rogue to take from traps before the BBEG. My power-gamer player gets upset anytime there's a high-DC trap in a corridor, because I must have picked it just to screw him, and in some sense he's right, because I did know in advance that would happen.

Summary: Take 20 Search in every square is a nonissue. Predictability of the Search that will occur in every square of the dungeon (combination of Take 10 & Take 20) is a big issue.

A smart rogue under these conditions might instead decide to take 10 and do ONE d20 roll in every square. Only twice as slow as taking 10, and a 50% probability of finding the trap the GM put to gull the 10-taker.

Sometimes I wonder about adding a "take 15" as a rogue ability along the lines of Skill Mastery.

Another idea for the rogue is to take 1 level of wizard and get a familiar. The Rogue can take 10, and the familiar can roll its search.

Paul

 

[Artoomis]

...And for Artoomis, interesting one, maybe you could set the two DCs for the same check, finding the first would mean nothing but if you got to roll high enough, you can actually get the second one, this would keep the problem with the take 20 thing. What about a trap being possible to actually find only after diabling the first one, I mean, when it is disable the second trap becomes "visible", thus calling another check?

Actually, in my scenario when you "take 20" you find only the first trap unless the player indicates they have a reason to search further (they pick up on the hints dropped earlier). That's because when you take 20, you'll find the easy stuff first and the, normally, stop there. I mean, who looks for a second trap?