Search Skill and Taking 20:House Rule, no taking 20 on search checks

[imaria]

I was having an issue with this in the game I DM, so I came up with a "mental exhaustion" houserule that the PCs liked.

Every time they took 20 on a Search check, I rolled a secret Will save. The first one was only against DC 2... with a +2 modifier cumulative for every "take 20" after that.

Every time they failed the will save, I applied a -2 modifier to their "taking 20"... not to the skill overall, just the "take 20", to a maximum of -10. Meaning eventually, they would actually only be "taking 10" when they spent the time to "take 20". The penalties and saves reset after rest periods.

They didn't know how many penalties they had racked up at any point, so they had to spend their "take 20" actions wisely. They were a lot more willing to roll or "take 10" on things, unless they had a REASON to search carefully (like a dead end that seemed like it should have a secret door, etc).

I described it as the hazy exhaustion you get after looking at the same thing again and again and again... Taking 20 on a search check is looking at a 5ft x 5ft square for 2 whole minutes. Do that for an entire room, and tell me you won't start glossing over things.

 

[Greg K]

I don't see the problems with search checks

A search check is limited to searching a specific 5'x5' area not 5'x5'x5' area . So you need to search specific areas of floor, ceiling, walls (at least in 3e. I don't know if the same is for 3.5)

If there is nothing there, it does not matter what you roll.

If there is something in another area other than the 5'x5 searched, a successful search roll will not turn it up regardless of the roll.

Successfully, finding something turns up something. However, there may other steps involved. It may turn up a secret door, but not the method to open it. For example, the DMG section on doors, specifically, mentions levers located elsewhere needing to me manipulated in a specific sequence. This can easily apply to pulling sconces or a specific book.
Alternately, the search check might only turn up scratches or worn area around a bedpost cap or, recently, disturbed dust on a book case near a specific book again requiring a certain action on behalf of the character.


Stating specific actions like searching the bookcase (rather than randomly taking 20) when there is a book that opens the secret door may get you a +2 bonus to notice disturbed dust or an out of place book if such a thing exists (see the DMs best friend in the DMG). Stating you are searching a specific shelf the might get you a bigger bonus to notice the dust or disturbed book or become automatic success (see DMs best friend) and save a lot of time

Why use DCs that exceed the characters skill +20?
Describing a certain required action might can bypass the need for a search roll regardless of the DC. If your secret door with the DC 35 check to find requires a specific action to open ( like pulling the sconce), it doesn't matter if the DC to find the door exceeds the ability of the character if a player states the character is performing the required action. For example, if sconce pulling opens the door, stating "Helgor walks to the sconce and pulls on it" automatically opens the door without requiring a roll.

 

[imaria]

A search check is limited to searching a specific 5'x5' area not 5'x5'x5' area . So you need to search specific areas of floor, ceiling, walls (at least in 3e. I don't know if the same is for 3.5)

The problem lies in a player saying "I search EVERY 5'x5' space in the room, taking 20 on each." It takes a metric forever, but without a looming issue (and it's contrived to always have the house on fire, etc) there is no in-game penalty to taking 2 hours to check a room.

That was the idea behind my "mental exhaustion" rule. The reason you couldn't do that in real life and ALWAYS succeed is that you'd get blurry eyes after staring at dirt for the 45th minute. In D&D, you can't walk forever, so why can you LOOK forever?

 

[the Jester]

All eliminating "take 20" on Search does is encourage the pcs to stand around searching each square until they roll a 20.

With aid another actions, they probably don't even need to; but do you want to spend as much time on playing out a search as you do on playing out a combat?

 

[imaria]

The problem lies in the fact that it means hiding things is impossible. No matter what, a system where "it is only a matter of time" is somehow broken.

 

[Ashtagon]

I was having an issue with this in the game I DM, so I came up with a "mental exhaustion" houserule that the PCs liked.

Every time they took 20 on a Search check, I rolled a secret Will save. The first one was only against DC 2... with a +2 modifier cumulative for every "take 20" after that.

Every time they failed the will save, I applied a -2 modifier to their "taking 20"... not to the skill overall, just the "take 20", to a maximum of -10. Meaning eventually, they would actually only be "taking 10" when they spent the time to "take 20". The penalties and saves reset after rest periods.

They didn't know how many penalties they had racked up at any point, so they had to spend their "take 20" actions wisely. They were a lot more willing to roll or "take 10" on things, unless they had a REASON to search carefully (like a dead end that seemed like it should have a secret door, etc).

I described it as the hazy exhaustion you get after looking at the same thing again and again and again... Taking 20 on a search check is looking at a 5ft x 5ft square for 2 whole minutes. Do that for an entire room, and tell me you won't start glossing over things.

What would you have done if a player had said "I'm not taking 20. Just roll that d20 twenty times for me please."?

 

[imaria]

In my group, it's thankfully not a situation that would come up. But it a more lawyerly group, I'd have defined the exhaustion rules more rigourously (and punitively) where if you wanted to do that, you flat-out took a -1 penalty on check for every 10th roll of the same square. Either admit you're taking 20 (and only have the RISK of taking a -2 penalty, and only on taking 20) or take more overall penalties for wasting time.

 

[TKDB]

The problem lies in the fact that it means hiding things is impossible. No matter what, a system where "it is only a matter of time" is somehow broken.

Frankly, I beg to differ. If something exists, it stands to reason that it can be found if you look hard enough and know what clues to look for. The Search skill entails having an understanding of what to look for (there's a reason the key ability is Int), and beyond that it's a matter of equipment and effort. Taking 20 means giving it maximum effort, being as thorough as possible. And it's not simply "a matter of time", because there is an upper limit to what a character can accomplish by taking 20 at any given point in their career. If you absolutely need to have something that absolutely under no circumstances can be found by the PCs, (1) you better have a good reason for why this is the case, and (2) you simply set the DC above the maximum your PCs are capable of hitting given their current level and gear -- or just don't set a DC at all. Just as you don't require rolls for something where there is negligible chance of failure, likewise a roll shouldn't be allowed for something where success is supposed to be possible.

And also, while 3.x isn't quite as emphatic on this point as other games are, the fact is that in any gaming context, common sense comes first. Even if there isn't an urgent time constraint, is it really reasonable in-character that you would spend such a tremendous amount of time on poring over every square inch of the dungeon in excruciating detail? Like I noted earlier, doing this would take days even for a modest-sized dungeon (the one I was working with was for a short one-shot, not very large at all). Plain and simple, unless there's something very important that you're looking for, going to that kind of extreme is just acting out-of-character.

You could say there's a problem with the system in that there's no mechanical method to represent/enforce the in-character mental fatigue that would certainly accompany extended periods of such thorough searching, but to say that the problem lies in the fact that you "can't hide anything" is just silly. If you invest character resources (skill points) into being good at noticing subtle details, you get a commensurate ability to notice those details; likewise, if you invest in-game time into being particularly thorough, it's only right that there's a payoff for that.

 

[imaria]

In our campaign, it came up because taking 20 removed the possibility of most traps. A rogue with a moderate Int score (let's say 10, even though in practice that's usually low for a rogue) can find magic traps (DC 25+spell level) high above their level EVERY TIME with taking 20, at no cost.

Example: A level 10 rogue taking Search with 10 Int has a +13 to Search. Taking 20, that finds a 8th level spell trap every time, which would take a 15th level caster to place. A fantastically-hidden mechanical trap is given a DC of 30, which that same level 10 rogue now finds every time. (In fact, a level 7 rogue finds it every time.) And this is assuming a lower Int score than is likely.

Why ever trap a door in that case? Trapping a random square in the dungeon still works fine, but trapped doors become a hilarious waste of time because they'll ALWAYS take 20 to search one. It makes the entire mechanic redundant. I understand that as you get better, you SHOULD do better in the rock-paper-scissors of the game. But anything that lets you succeed against an opposing force every time, with no cost? That just seems sloppy from a mechanical and balance standpoint.

 

[TKDB]

But anything that lets you succeed against an opposing force every time, with no cost? That just seems sloppy from a mechanical and balance standpoint.

But the thing is, there is a cost: time. Especially if it's traps in particular that you're concerned about, I would assume you haven't cleared the dungeon of monsters/enemies yet. Taking the time to thoroughly search every potentially trapped square is simply not practical in those circumstances. In this case, having a time limit of sorts isn't contrived -- to the contrary, it would be far more contrived for there to be no risk of discovery or ambush if you're taking that much time to thoroughly search everything for traps.

If there's been any combat at all so far, that will have made noise, which will draw both intelligent and unintelligent foes. If the enemies are intelligent, they'll probably have some kind of communication system, at the very least a series of regular patrols -- and if one of those patrols goes missing, that's going to get attention. For mid- to high-level dungeons, magical surveillance is definitely a possibility. If you're spending loads of time scouring the place for traps, you're a sitting duck for whatever hostile critters might inhabit the dungeon.

Also, just because you find a trap doesn't mean you can avoid it. You may be able to take 20 on a search check, but you can't do that for disable device. Now, the stated DCs for disable device are perhaps a bit on the low side -- a competent rogue can foil most any level-appropriate trap simply by taking 10, which is allowed -- but in this case all you have to do is add a little to the DC. Set it above the take 10 result, and there you go -- your trap is a legitimate threat even if they do find it.

Finally, bear in mind that rogues are supposed to be able to deal with traps easily. That's the main point of the class. It's funny that you mentioned rock-paper-scissors, because that's more or less the sort of relationship you're dealing with here -- traps beat non-rogues, but rogues beat traps. I would expect a class dedicated to detecting and bypassing traps to be able to do so without difficulty provided they have the time to be careful and thorough about it.