Search and taking 20: the problem

[Pielorinho]

My apologies for not noticing the edit. That said, I do find the conclusion absurd (that you could detect a specific letter in someone's backpack without opening it). Sure, in some cases you might be able to tell that there was a scroll-case in the backpack -- but that's a different matter than detecting a letter from the queen.

Although I try not to use this argument often, I'd be very upset if that's how the search skill worked in a game I played in. I imagine myself playing a sneaky character trying to smuggle notes out of a palace and being caught by the rogue at the door who "searched" me as I walked past, discovering the notes I'd hidden inside the sheath to my ceremonial sword. I'd find such a game to be so far from my expectations of how a world works that it would be basically unplayable for me.

I think we have very different expectations from the game. I want the rules to serve the story, not vice-versa.

Daniel

 

[Black Knight Irios]

We are discussing and discussing, and nothing really has changed yet. Some of us say you can detect any trap via Search, others say wrong you can't.

@Pielorinho: Looking for holes in rules is nice but once you have found them nobody ever said you should make use of them, isn't it far nicer to pretend having not found that thingie and going on with the rules. I think nobody will change his opinion because we debate the whole time the same thing with the same arguments over and over again, as far as I can see you ignored all my posts regarding CR of traps, their craft DCs and so on. How should this work out, I stick to my opinion. Because I don't like to piss off the only Core Class that can detect traps, with such holes in rules you are creating with your traps.
And finding a letter in Backpack with the searchskill from 10ft. away by only looking at it, sounds pretty stupid at first glance, but given a high enough DC it might be possible, but that's not the matter, we are discussing finding traps with search or elimenating that possibility with holes in rules but holes that you create. You already know what I think about that.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

I want the rules to serve the story, not vice-versa.

Am I wrong or didn't you that already many times in previous posts? -I'm pretty sure you did, somehow I am thinking, might it be that you want that the rules serve especially you as DM. Think about it...maybe I got it all wrong but sounds so a bit.

 

[Pielorinho]

as far as I can see you ignored all my posts regarding CR of traps, their craft DCs and so on. How should this work out, I stick to my opinion. Because I don't like to piss off the only Core Class that can detect traps, with such holes in rules you are creating with your traps.

Huh? My first post today described that per the trapmaking rules, this is a CR 2 trap; I gave the search and DD DCs for it, as well as the construction costs. I didn't list the skill checks to create it, but they're easily extrapolated from page 75 of the DMG (which I don't have here with me).

I didn't create the holes in the rules, nor am I exploiting them; I'm just interpreting them differently. The rules don't say whether or not you can see things you can't see; I simply interpret that omission in a way that strikes me as common sense. Other people are filling that omission with the idea of a sixth sense -- completely unsupported by the rules, but it makes sense to them. And good on them.

And finding a letter in Backpack with the searchskill from 10ft. away by only looking at it, sounds pretty stupid at first glance, but given a high enough DC it might be possible, but that's not the matter, we are discussing finding traps with search or elimenating that possibility with holes in rules but holes that you create. You already know what I think about that.

We're discussing the search skill, and I used this as an example of what happens when you rule that you can visually search for things that you can't see.

What about the DC for ransacking a chest? I believe it's a DC 15 search check; is this another one you can do from 10' away? In other words, it's DC 15 to stand 10' away from a chest and, without touching it or bothering to open the lid, know everything that's in it?

I say no: I say that in order to make this search, you gotta open the chest and rummage around. Although generally you can search things from 10' away, sometimes you gotta get your hands dirty.

And sometimes that entails a risk.

Daniel

 

[DarkMaster]

My apologies for not noticing the edit. That said, I do find the conclusion absurd (that you could detect a specific letter in someone's backpack without opening it). Sure, in some cases you might be able to tell that there was a scroll-case in the backpack -- but that's a different matter than detecting a letter from the queen.

Although I try not to use this argument often, I'd be very upset if that's how the search skill worked in a game I played in. I imagine myself playing a sneaky character trying to smuggle notes out of a palace and being caught by the rogue at the door who "searched" me as I walked past, discovering the notes I'd hidden inside the sheath to my ceremonial sword. I'd find such a game to be so far from my expectations of how a world works that it would be basically unplayable for me.

I think we have very different expectations from the game. I want the rules to serve the story, not vice-versa.

Daniel

It actually does if you know that there is that epic spy who has unbelivable search check and verify everybody getting in the king rooms, the you would think twice of how you would hide your stuff, not just say I hide it in my belt. Then I could associate a DC to your masquarade. That would put time pressures on your action since you don't want the spy to have enough time to observe you and detect it (basically taking 20). If you took enough precaution I would judge that the DC is way above his skill but you don't know that and will still be under a lot of pressure. People on pressure have a tendency of making mistakes, or can prevent you from taking 10 in your diplomacy check with the king. Seen on that aspect it actually had to the story and to the stress level. I really like to keep my player heart rate high during the game

 

[Pielorinho]

Am I wrong or didn't you that already many times in previous posts? -I'm pretty sure you did, somehow I am thinking, might it be that you want that the rules serve especially you as DM. Think about it...maybe I got it all wrong but sounds so a bit.

You got it all wrong . See above, where I told Darkmaster why I would hate playing in a game where search works as y'all are suggesting. I want the rules to serve the story, and if they lead to completely counterintuitive results, I as a player can't plan my actions out intelligently.

As both player and DM, the rules should serve the story.

Daniel

 

[DarkMaster]

You got it all wrong . See above, where I told Darkmaster why I would hate playing in a game where search works as y'all are suggesting. I want the rules to serve the story, and if they lead to completely counterintuitive results, I as a player can't plan my actions out intelligently.

As both player and DM, the rules should serve the story.

Daniel

Also what skill would you use in the case of my wife's uncle who can identify the design of a plastic mold without ever seeing it, just looking at end result?

 

[Pielorinho]

It actually does if you know that there is that epic spy who has unbelivable search check and verify everybody getting in the king rooms, the you would think twice of how you would hide your stuff, not just say I hide it in my belt. Then I could associate a DC to your masquarade. That would put time pressures on your action since you don't want the spy to have enough time to observe you and detect it (basically taking 20). If you took enough precaution I would judge that the DC is way above his skill but you don't know that and will still be under a lot of pressure.

The problem is this: if you set the DC too high, then he can't find it if he does a full-cavity search on me.

The closest DC in the rules to finding notes hidden in a sword-scabbard is probably 15, for "ransack a chest" -- if you actually look inside, the notes are obvious.

Your interpretation of the rules doesn't, as near as I can tell, allow for separate DCs for searching for things by rooting around through them, and searching for things by looking at them. So either the guard easily finds the plans by looking at me, or the guard can't find the plans if he cuts my sword-scabbard apart and looks inside.

Or am I missing where you assign different DCs based on different search techniques?

Daniel

 

[DarkMaster]

You got it all wrong . See above, where I told Darkmaster why I would hate playing in a game where search works as y'all are suggesting. I want the rules to serve the story, and if they lead to completely counterintuitive results, I as a player can't plan my actions out intelligently.

As both player and DM, the rules should serve the story.

Daniel

The other explanation I would like to get from you is the difference between spot (WIS) and search (INT), from your post, it seems you counfound the two. I would like to understand how with your explanation you justify the INT modifier to search instead of WIS, maybe you changed that too.

 

[Scion]

of course in a story I prefer the heros to find the trap, and then sweat over what to do about it, rather than stagger across it

The story should be fun and interesting for all involved, if the rogue starts feeling pretty worthless because he cant find traps (his class skill) then, since the rules were changed, he should probably get another ability to take its place. A little give and take.

Still though, I think the story is better served by the raw in this case. Every trap can be found, no matter how well hidden, if you have enough skill. And you wont set it off.

Sometimes you dont have time, othertimes you dont have the skill, and sometimes it is actually a hazard and not a trap.

Still others people get to use their skills, do interesting things, further the plot, and get to feel as though they arent being stabbed in the back