Specificicity of the Search skill?

[Jeff Wilder]

One of the very few criticisms I have with 3E is in use of the Search skill. I'm wondering if I'm missing something.

Back in days of yore, a group of PCs might enter a dungeon room to be told, "It looks like long ago this was a sumptious bed-chamber. Apparently it's still serving that function, because the thick dust has been disturbed in several places. There is a canopy bed, a chest of drawers, a desk (though its chair has been smashed to kindling), and a footlocker."

If they wanted to search the room -- and who didn't? -- PCs would divide the work: "I'll search the bed," "I'll go through the drawers of the desk and look especially for secret compartments," "Anything interesting in the chest of drawers?", and "Does it look like the footlocker has a lock on it?"

Under 3E, that's all changed. Not only does searching seem to fall solely upon one or two people in the group -- the ones with maxed-out Search, but players don't seem willing to specify how or what they're searching like they used to. Nowadays it's just, "Okay, Harry the Rogue Takes Ten searching the room. That's a 22. What do we find?"

I wondered for a while if it was just my group who was resistant to being more specific, but it doesn't seem to be the case.

Does anybody else see this as, well, just not as interesting or fun as it used to be, or am I making something out of nothing? Should I just accept the new Search methodology as "correct and okay," or is there something I can do about it?

One thing I've considered is upping the DCs -- probably by 5 -- to find items in specific places -- e.g., a pouch of coins stashed in the mattress of a feather bed. So if the overall DC to find the pouch is listed as 20, if the PCs just toss the room and don't specifically mention searching the bed, it'd be DC 25 to find the pouch.

Alternately, but similarly -- and this would reward PCs also searching who might not have Search skills maxed -- instead of upping the DC for a general search, I've considered lowering the DC for a specific search. So, in the same example, someone searching the bed would need a Search check of 15, while a general search would find it on 20.

Anyway, is there a mechanism to Search that I'm overlooking (other than Aiding a search with a DC 10 check, which does help to a limited extent). Am I wrong that the typical room search has changed? Am I right that it's changed, but wrong that it's for the worse?

 

[andargor]

Upping the DCs is a temporary solution, at best. Wait until your Rogue gets +20 or more on her Search check. You would have to keep upping the DC at each new level, and that's not very realistic.

Perhaps a simple house rule of not allowing Take 10 on Search would alleviate your problem for the time being. Put a little spice in the game...

Eventually, though, searching is not a very big challenge for high level PCs.

My turkish $0.02

EDIT: Or say that 1 minute per 5' square has to be spent for Take 10.

Andargor

 

[Piratecat]

I significantly reduce the DC to find something if the player tells me where they're looking. If you tell your players this in advance, you'll probably have them champing at the bit to specify where they're looking. I agree that the players telling you details is a lot more fun, so I like the idea of a mechanic to encourage it.

I also subtly reinforce this by letting the more specific person find an item. If Fred says "I search the room" and Susan says "I search under the bed," and they both make the search DC (which is arbitrarily lower for Susan), Susan will find the hidden item first. Even if it's party treasure, the exciting payoff of finding something results in all the players doing this as they search a space.

 

[Aaron2]

Am I wrong that the typical room search has changed? Am I right that it's changed, but wrong that it's for the worse?

I'm sure it has but I think your going about it backwards. What you need to do is make searching easier rather than harder. If the search DC are low then every member of the party will have a chance of finding an item. That would encourage each party member to actually try and search (esp. if they use "finders keepers" rules).


Aaron

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Eventually, though, searching is not a very big challenge for high level PCs.

I may not have explained myself very well.

It's not precisely that I want searching to be a challenge ... it's just that I'd like it to be something that requires a little bit of thought on behalf of the players.

Here's another example:

Say the PCs find an in-use kitchen in a dungeon complex. After subduing or killing the inhabitants, they want to search the kitchen. Well, it has all the usual dungeon-kitchen amenities ... fireplace, bread oven, chopping block, pots and pans, and so on.

As it happens, the head chef keeps a stash of Whatever hidden behind a loose brick inside the fireplace (but within reach from outside).

As players seem to expect things to work nowadays, a Search check of DC Foo should find the stash of Whatever.

I don't like that. I'd like to encourage the players to specifically seach the fireplace, upon which they get a chance for a Search check to find the whatever.

I've tried doing this in games: "Yes, it was hidden in the fireplace in the kitchen." "But we Took Twenty searching the kitchen! We should have found it!"

That's tough to argue with. One tack I've used with some success is pointing out that when they take the time to cleverly hide something -- say in their room at the inn -- then by their logic a thief can find it by Taking Twenty on a search check. That their efforts at finding a clever hiding place are meaningless.

Anyway, what I'm wondering is if the rules (other than Rule Zero) support me in my preference, maybe some place I've overlooked.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I significantly reduce the DC to find something if the player tells me where they're looking.

I also subtly reinforce this by letting the more specific person find an item.

That's exactly what I'm talking about, and probably how I'll handle this in the future.

But is it supported anywhere in the rules? A modification to Search like this won't be a problem for my home players, if I explain it ahead of time, but I also DM a lot at cons. Those of you who DM at cons know that at least one player out of every table or two is a rules-putz, who gets pissed off if he thinks his maxed-out Search isn't doing what the rules say it should do.

 

[RigaMortus]

One thing I find strange is, if someone were to "hide" an item under a bed mattress (for example), all you have to do is lift up the matress and there is the item. But in D&D, the PCs have to do a Search check, and if they roll low, there is a chance they could miss something that is in plain view or right in front of their face...

 

[smetzger]

That's exactly what I'm talking about, and probably how I'll handle this in the future.

But is it supported anywhere in the rules? A modification to Search like this won't be a problem for my home players, if I explain it ahead of time, but I also DM a lot at cons. Those of you who DM at cons know that at least one player out of every table or two is a rules-putz, who gets pissed off if he thinks his maxed-out Search isn't doing what the rules say it should do.

The rules allow a DM to give circumstance bonuses and penalties as he sees fit. In addition to the above suggestions you can just tell players OOC that they will find more things if they specify the locations they are searching.

 

[billd91]

Your players are going about it wrong. Each search check is for a 5' x 5' square in the room and that's a full round action. Taking 20 means each square takes about 2 minutes.
That means that what they could do is have the lower search score characters take 20 on a couple of specific areas--the footlocker, the bed, the wardrobe, while the rogue and ranger check over the rest of the room, and they could be done in a similar time frame and have concentrated their 20s in the appropriate places.
Trying to roll all of the search rolls into one whole room check could be disallowed by you or, if you do allow it, be sure to charge them the appropriate time and noise factors for the purposes of attracting wandering monsters etc. If they find that they are under too much time pressure, then maybe they'll start to concentrate on the searching again.
Any character can achieve a reasonable search score a little over 20 or so, which is good for most secret doors (see the sample DCs in the search skill description). And rogues/rangers who invest in skills really should be dynamite at it because they are effective looters/trap and snare finders. But that doesn't mean you need to rely on just the rogue taking 10 on the whole room and being sloppy about it.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

One thing I find strange is, if someone were to "hide" an item under a bed mattress (for example), all you have to do is lift up the matress and there is the item. But in D&D, the PCs have to do a Search check, and if they roll low, there is a chance they could miss something that is in plain view or right in front of their face...

So you've never searched for 15 minutes for your car keys to discover they were lying in plain side on the hallway table, exactly where you left them? (Or worse -- and I have done this -- in your hand?)

Simple searches are exactly what Take Ten is for. If an item is hidden "under the bed" or "under the mattress," the DC shouldn't be higher than 10 (or 15, at the most). On the other hand, if it's been inserted into the feather mattress inside a cunningly hidden secret pocket, the DC will be significantly higher.