Search and taking 20: the problem

[Thanee]

I think one of the reasons, why taking 20 on search checks is such a big issue is, that there is no way to find a trap, except by searching and by springing it - the first being the preferred method by far.

There are - usually - no spot checks or anything else, which would allow any other use of the search skill, but actively searching. And actively searching tends to be thorough, unless time is of importance.

Now, if there was a rule, like when an elf moves past a secret door, he can make an automatic search check, a rogue should be able to do the same for traps. If such a rule was included, the rogue's search skill would not be wasted, even if not using it to search every possible area for traps and whatnot in excessive amounts.

Bye
Thanee

 

[glass]

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

Common sense would dictate that you cannot search a chest for treasure or a chest for traps from 10 ft away, however, if we eliminate the scenarios where the from 10 ft clause is at variance with common sense, we are left with very little: The exception becomes the rule. The word 'generally' does allow exceptions, it does not allow exceptions to be more common that the rule.

Also, the wording 'you generally must be...', implies that sometimes you don't have to be, not that sometimes you have to closer.

Your interpretation would have some merit if the table of examples did not consist of things which quite blatantly could not be done from 10 ft away in real life (especially ransack a chest!), but are clearly the 'general' case.

Like I said, 'bizarre but true'.


glass.

 

[glass]

Furthermore, ruling strictly that you can detect anything within 10' without manipulating objects leads to bizarre situations like the spy's letter. I'd rather avoid that by applying common sense to the idea that sometimes you gotta move things around in the process of searching.

So would I, which is why I have house-ruled it as such, but it is not what the RAW say.


glass.

 

[Pielorinho]

Common sense would dictate that you cannot search a chest for treasure or a chest for traps from 10 ft away, however, if we eliminate the scenarios where the from 10 ft clause is at variance with common sense, we are left with very little: The exception becomes the rule. The word 'generally' does allow exceptions, it does not allow exceptions to be more common that the rule.

Your interpretation would have some merit if the table of examples did not consist of things which quite blatantly could not be done from 10 ft away in real life (especially ransack a chest!), but are clearly the 'general' case.

I don't at all see how they are clearly the "general" case. If you're confused on this, I invite you to email the Sage and ask him if you can ransack a chest from 10' away without touching it.

I looked at the trap rules last night, and here's how I'd price the trap I described above. To restate the trap:

A vial of insanity mist is in a cabinet along with a nice bit of treasure. The cap to the vial is pierced with a thin hole that runs side to side (i.e., along the top of the vial). The vial is on its side, with the cap facing the door to the panel.

A thin metal rod threads the hole in the cap and is attached via gears to the handle of the cabinet door. If the door is opened, the rod pulls the cap out of the vial, releasing the insanity mist into the room.

The cabinet door handle can easily turn 90 degrees clockwise, which unlatches the cabinet door. With greater difficulty it can be turned a further 90 degrees clockwise, which causes the gears to retract the metal rod from the vial's cap; the door can then be opened safely. The handle mechanism does not touch the door anywhere except at its circular base, and is far enough from the door's surface that the user's hand does not touch the door at any point. The trap has never previously been triggered

If you're searching for the trap and you can see any component of the trap, the Search DC is 5 -- it's very obviously a trap if you're looking at it. Of course, you can't search for it if you can't see any components of the trap, and no components of the trap or effects of the trap are visible on the outside of the cabinet. The disable device DC is 15: it's fairly easy to disable. Furthermore, a player who tells the DM specifically what they're doing to bypass it may do so automatically.

Given that, it's a CR 2 trap, according to the chart in the DMG. The cost for it is 1,700 gp, of which 1,500 gp pays for the insanity mist. That's 200 gp to construct a metal dowel that's retracted by a set of gears and a handle that clicks into place in two positions with greater resistance moving from the first to the second position.

Completely within the rules.

Folks may object to the italicized text above, but that's well within the rules, too: although generally you must be within 10' of something to search for it, obviously you may not search for something visually that you can't see, and in this case the PC would need to gain access to the cabinet's interior through another means in order to search for it. Such methods could include:
-Drilling a hole in the cabinet
-Removing hinges and opening the door from the other side
-Opening the door very slightly and peering in.

I play a very description-rich game, and my players will describe actions in the level of detail necessary -- especially if they have a reason to suspect a trap. Again, I'm likely to give them those reasons earlier: they may know that the room they're exploring is the bedroom of a paranoid ruler with a taste for the macabre, for example.

If you play a description-light game, or if you prefer your games to be beer-and-pretzels in which combat is the emphasis, that's totally fine; I enjoy such games sometimes. But in a description-heavy game, such traps can work very well.

Daniel

 

[FireLance]

It is absolutely believeable for me that the rogue has a six senth about traps, that warns him about traps, ooh he has one, the ability Trap Sense, so the question is, why can't the rogue have the intuition he has with avoiding sprung traps by finding them with the serach skill, still remember Trap Sense is an [EX] ability he gets at 3rd LVL, is it unbelievable that he can figure out if there is a trap or not? -I think no. Why, who else can find it, if not him.

Come to think of it, by the rules, only a rogue (or magic such as Find Traps) can find a trap if the Search DC is 21 or higher. It doesn't matter if you're a 20th level elven Ranger with 23 ranks in Search and an Intelligence of 24. Without that one rogue level, you simply cannot detect all magic traps and well-hidden mundane traps.

As such, I'm quite prepared to let the rogue's Trapfinding ability to be somewhat mystical. The trap mechanism can be behind a door and triggered if anyone so much as breathes on the door, but the rogue who searches the door (I won't even attempt to suggest what the rogue might be doing - I'm not a rogue and thus I'm not privy to their guild secrets) has a chance of finding it without setting it off. Provided I don't set the DC too high, of course. And if I do so, I won't even bother to call it a trap. I'll just say, "Suddenly, rocks fall. Everyone takes 4d6 damage."

 

[Nail]

....A vial of insanity mist is in a cabinet ....."(snip)

A wonderful trap. Really! A neat idea, clever, and it might even work in RL (barring the insanity mist, I suppose, and ignoring how those "gears" might work).

But, as you've done throughout this thread, you're clouding the issue, and confounding RL with the Rules of the Game. As you are the DM in your playing group, that's your prerogative. Heck, it might actually be fun! ...As long as the players know ahead of time this is how you will play traps.

In the game, Rogues have powers and skills that have no real-world equivalent. You yourself have given numerous examples! So why (many of us wonder) do you insist that rogues in a fantasy game system have no way of detecting your "unsee-able perfect trap"?

After all, what does a +38 to a rogue's search skill represent? Extra time spend in study-hall? (And are you claiming you have a +38 on your Craft(trap-making) check in RL?)

 

[Pielorinho]

In the game, Rogues have powers and skills that have no real-world equivalent. You yourself have given numerous examples! So why (many of us wonder) do you insist that rogues in a fantasy game system have no way of detecting your "unsee-able perfect trap"?

It's in no way an unsee-able perfect trap. You just can't see it without seeing it. All traps are like that; the only thing that makes this one different is that all its parts are covered even when you're standing next to it.

"Conflating," not "confounding," is the word you're looking for, and in a sense you may be right: as I said before, I try to find ways to make the rules match the game world, not vice versa. However, in this case it doesn't involve any bending of the rules at all: I'm simply interpreting the holes in the rules differently from how other people are, in a specific case. As I've pointed out, other folks' interpretation of the holes lead to such absurd results as being able to find a letter in someone's backpack without opening the backpack up.

Daniel

 

[DarkMaster]

other folks' interpretation of the holes lead to such absurd results as being able to find a letter in someone's backpack without opening the backpack up.

Daniel

Other folks' you probably mean me. It is not that absurd I can personally detect boxes or ball in a bag with my limited search ability, why someone with very high skill could not detect a rolled paper in a case? It depends on the bag but could be done.

 

[Pielorinho]

Darkmaster, I wasn't kidding when I said the conditions under which I'd continue the discussion with you. Sorry to be such a stick-in-the-mud about it, but there it is.

Daniel

 

[DarkMaster]

Darkmaster, I wasn't kidding when I said the conditions under which I'd continue the discussion with you. Sorry to be such a stick-in-the-mud about it, but there it is.

Daniel

If you look at a previous email I edited it with my promess. Now you have to live with what you preach, calling me absurd is not very nice either