Search and taking 20: the problem

[Nail]

So, Darkmaster, would you be willing to assign the same dual-DC to my cabinet-trap above -- a DC of 30-40 to find the trap if you just look at it without touching it, but a DC of 15 or less if you manipulate it?

FWIW, I might.

Again, the caveat has to be: as long as the players know about it beforehand.

 

[The Souljourner]

Here's the thing - your character has 13 ranks in search. You as a player probably do not. That's why we have skill ranks. The rogue knows to not touch the chest until he's sure it's not trapped with contact poison, but the player may forget. Don't punish the players because they're less skilled than their characters. You don't make the fighters describe exactly how they swing their sword right down to the position of their feet and the distribution of their weight do you? Same with search.

Any DM who said "you didn't find any traps because you didn't check the handle to the cabinet" would get an evil look and a talking to after the game, and if such a thing happened again, I would leave the game. It's just too ridiculous to expect the players to know everything their characters should.

-The Souljourner

 

[DarkMaster]

Here's the thing - your character has 13 ranks in search. You as a player probably do not. That's why we have skill ranks. The rogue knows to not touch the chest until he's sure it's not trapped with contact poison, but the player may forget. Don't punish the players because they're less skilled than their characters. You don't make the fighters describe exactly how they swing their sword right down to the position of their feet and the distribution of their weight do you? Same with search.

Any DM who said "you didn't find any traps because you didn't check the handle to the cabinet" would get an evil look and a talking to after the game, and if such a thing happened again, I would leave the game. It's just too ridiculous to expect the players to know everything their characters should.

-The Souljourner

like I said in another thread or maybe this one, what I prefer is hitting my player while I "roleplay" the dragon

 

[drnuncheon]

Here's the thing - your character has 13 ranks in search. You as a player probably do not.

Exactly right. I don't expect my players to describe every thrust, parry, and riposte during combat in order to have a chance to strike, then deny them by saying "Sorry, he was in a high guard, you'd have no chance to get through." Doing that is basically tossing away the rules in favor of the player's knowledge, and would reward the wizard player who knew a lot about fencing while penalizing the fighter's player who'd never touched a weapon in his life.

In fact, I generally don't like it when the players try to bypass skill rolls by describing their actions - if they don't have the skills to back it up, it's poor roleplaying. If they do have the skills, then it's good roleplaying - but they still need to make the roll, and roleplay based on the outcome. To do anything else isn't fair to the guy who dropped the points on the skill.

J

 

[Black Knight Irios]

Exactly right. I don't expect my players to describe every thrust, parry, and riposte during combat in order to have a chance to strike, then deny them by saying "Sorry, he was in a high guard, you'd have no chance to get through." Doing that is basically tossing away the rules in favor of the player's knowledge, and would reward the wizard player who knew a lot about fencing while penalizing the fighter's player who'd never touched a weapon in his life.

In fact, I generally don't like it when the players try to bypass skill rolls by describing their actions - if they don't have the skills to back it up, it's poor roleplaying. If they do have the skills, then it's good roleplaying - but they still need to make the roll, and roleplay based on the outcome. To do anything else isn't fair to the guy who dropped the points on the skill.

My line, I would handle it the same way because everything else wouldn't be fair.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

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.

Daniel

You may not be able to see any of the trap components, but you might be able to feel or hear them with some small amount of manipulation. I agree that you should not be able to detect this kind of trap from 10' away, but at the same time, this kind of trap could be detected by someone with a very deft touch and sensitive ears, perhaps a high level rogue with experience in traps. There is a little extra pull to the lever that does not seem right, or the gear mechanism makes the slightest clicking sound or vibration. At that point in time the trap is found. End of search. The rogue has found a trap, now things switch over to Disable Device - how to bypass the trap. Sorry, you can no longer take 20, you have to truly interact with the trap, not just notice that something about it isn't right.

 

[Pielorinho]

And again tell me, where in the DMG do you find the addable component for traps that makes it undetecable with search?!? -Simply answer this question.

Since I've already answered this question umpteen million times, I'll give it a single-word answer here: nowhere.

So when the handle turns, the gears turn, right? That has to make some kind of vibration, which is then detectable. It has also added an amount of resistance to the handle - also detectable. When the rogue has determined there are no contact poison type traps on the cabinet, first thing he's gonna do is start checking out the movement of the handle. If safe crackers can feel/hear tumblers moving in a combination lock, the rogue can certainly feel/hear the gears turning when he moves the handle.

Haven't I already said that sometimes to search something you have to futz around with it? We're in agreement.

Assumption: I play a 16th level rogue with maxed out search skill and magic item/spell buffs to increase it even further.

Situation:My rogue comes across your "panel trap" (CR 2?). I (the player) say: "My rogue searches the panel and surrounding area for traps."

Players Expectation: Given possible poor rolls, I would expect to find the trap.

Pielorinho's Expectation: PC rogue can't see trap, so won't find trap. DM says: "You find no traps."

Hilarity ensues.

....do you see how this could be a problem?

Ah, yes! I see how this could be a problem if the DM says, "You find no traps." Remember, I've said I run a description-rich campaign, however. Here's how the conversation would work:

DM: ...And against one wall, there's an oak cabinet with a brass handle on it; it looks big enough to hold a small child.
Player (remembering that the room was inhabited by an insanely paranoid wizard): Hmm. I search it for traps.
DM: You just looking it over, or are you going to mess around with it?
Player: First, I want to just give it a quick once-over, and then I'll examine it very carefully, but i'm not touching it yet.
DM: Regular roll followed by take 20 ifyou don't find anything?
Player: Sure. I get +12 on my search check.
DM: (secret roll) Okay, even after examining it carefully for a couple minutes, the cabinet's exterior looks unremarkable to you -- if this is trapped in any way, you sure can't see it. The handle appears to rotate counterclockwise.
Player: Uhh...wizard, you got a spare detect magic?
Wizard player: Sure. DM, what do I see?
DM: Yeah, there are magical auras in there....three of them...two of them pretty weak, but one very strong. Gimme some spellcraft rolls...Okay. The two weak ones look similar, radiating something like warm sunshine, similar to what those curing potions you found earlier radiated. The strong one seems to glow with swirling dark energy [N.B.: I make item identification with detect magic much easier than normal IMC, and am assuming now the cabinet contains two potions of CLW and a wand of vampire touch or something, for the sake of showing how I'd handle this in-game].
Player: Interesting.

And then one of several things might happen.
Player: I turn the knob. Does the cabinet open?
DM: Yep, the knob turns and you hear a click, and the door is loose.
Player: Cool, let's see what we got!
DM: Oooohkay. As you throw open the door, a sharp chemical scent, like bitumen and oranges, fills the air, and I need you and the wizard to give me fort saves....

or
Player: I turn the knob. Does the cabinet open?
DM: Yep, the knob turns and you hear a click, and the door is loose.
Player: I want to open it a fraction of an inch and peek inside.
DM: Okay. (rolls another search check) You do see some sort of mechanism inside -- a metal rod run from the handle along the inner length of the door, ending in the cap to what looks like a pint-sized glass flask. It looks like the cap on the verge of being pulled out of the flask.
Player: Yikes! Shut the door, shut the door!

or:
Player: I don't trust this. Is there any other way into the cabinet?
DM: Unless you want to go through the wood, not really.
Player: Wizard, where are the auras in there?
DM: They're all in the right-hand side.
Player: Okay, I want to use my thieve's tools to cut a hole in the left-hand side; can I do that?
DM: Sure -- just drill a hole with your hand-drill and then put a sawblade in there. It'll take you a few minutes, but you can do it. Give me a disable device check, unless you want to take 10.
Player: I'll take 10.
DM: No problem: two minutes later, you've got a nice little 4" square hold cut in the wood. As you ease that section of wood out, you're able to see the interior of the cabinet. There's what looks like a jewelry box, two small metal flasks, a long box covered in purple velvet -- and then there's some sort of mechanism inside -- a metal rod run from the handle along the inner length of the door, ending in the cap to what looks like a pint-sized glass flask.

As you see, I'm not ever going to say, "You find no traps." At each stage, the player gets information enough to decide whether to continue being cautious or to throw caution to the wind.

Daniel

 

[Nifelhein]

Okay I see there are somethins we have as premises that are very very different, and that can lead to very different ways of interpreting the rules and make them fit our game, this is great as this is exactly what makes this kind of discussion teach me more than reading the book.

In a game I like to have the swings and defenses described, but not as described here, we may speak and roll, but then the outcome of the die will tell if the swing is sucessful or not, you may roll and describe and that is still okay. I know that this requires people who know not a thing of combat to say something that would not work, but that is not a problem for me and has never been with my players, thankfully, if it were we would talk.

For skill checks I usually let the player first describe what they want to do, what they will say and the like and then call for a die roll, the rogue in the example would say that he gives a quick glance in the room looking for suspicious spots and the like, I would roll his spoot check, if the panel that pielorinho is detected he could go and check it for traps. How he woudl describe that would indeed be important but most important would be what he describes he will not do.

A player would check a door for traps, he says he will do so without touching the door, that means he will not open it, if the trap is visible only to those on the other side and affects people on the otehr side, no problem, he doesn't find a thing.

A thing I don't consider is that skills can do what magic should be the only thing to do, no swim up a waterfall, hey it is in the rules! Doesn't matter, the rules say that skills do only possiblee things, that is not there for me. I don't think of trapfinding as preternatural sense, that may be a problem, I don't like the magical feel of skills and "common" abilities too.

Anyway, I like Pielorinho's trap, a good one indeed, but to find it I would consider the description of the player and due to the type of game we have, no player would say that he checks it for traps, he would indeed try and say what he would be attempting and what not, the die roll would make it sucessful or not... if there is contact poison and he said he touched it I would consider that a roll would save him the rtouble and he woudl detect the poison before touching... and so on.

Anyway, guys, I have really liked this all, it ahs improved my sense of the rules and Darkmaster has greatly contributed to this, specially with his idea of how search and spot are different.

Cheers,

Nif.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

Player: I don't trust this. Is there any other way into the cabinet?
DM: Unless you want to go through the wood, not really.
Player: Wizard, where are the auras in there?
DM: They're all in the right-hand side.
Player: Okay, I want to use my thieve's tools to cut a hole in the left-hand side; can I do that?
DM: Sure -- just drill a hole with your hand-drill and then put a sawblade in there. It'll take you a few minutes, but you can do it. Give me a disable device check, unless you want to take 10.
Player: I'll take 10.
DM: No problem: two minutes later, you've got a nice little 4" square hold cut in the wood. As you ease that section of wood out, you're able to see the interior of the cabinet. There's what looks like a jewelry box, two small metal flasks, a long box covered in purple velvet -- and then there's some sort of mechanism inside -- a metal rod run from the handle along the inner length of the door, ending in the cap to what looks like a pint-sized glass flask.

Yes, could be a way, but what if there was a part of the trap at the left hand, where he is cutting the hole, I'll be sure you would give him a hint again, but that all makes it more and more complicated, your rogue can struggle for a really long time with the trap because of your decision to handle search a bit different.
All these scenarios are just imagined but might happen and in that case the rogue in your group would be struggling how to get past that trap and my rogue would already loot the treasure inside.

 

[Pielorinho]

All these scenarios are just imagined but might happen and in that case the rogue in your group would be struggling how to get past that trap and my rogue would already loot the treasure inside.

Exactly -- what presents a challenge to my group is a single non-dice-roll to your group. And that's fine, but that's not what I'm interested it. I'm not going to put a trap in the game unless I think interacting with the trap is going to be fun and interesting for the group.

Note that with this trap, if the PCs successfully disarm it, they end up with an additional 1,500 gp worth of treasure -- a vial full of insanity mist that they could chuck grenadelike at an enemy.

Furthermore, as a player of a rogue, I'd feel a lot more smug about disarming a trap through quick thinking on my part than I'd feel if I just took 20 on a search check to find one. Just as fighter characters get off on doing cinematic stuff in combat ("I run down the hallway, leap from the top of the stairs, and slash my dagger at the barbarian's head on the way down!" shouted a player of a halfling swashbuckler in a game on Monday), rogues oughtta get off on doing cinematic stuff with their skills.

Daniel