Spot vs. Search results

[Lord Thurham]

Suppose a party of PCs are in battle with a group of Orcs. Unknown to the PCs is the fact that the Orcs were being assisted by an invisible hasted flying spell-caster. The caster casted an "attacking"spell, thus dropping his invisibility, then proceeded to cast invisibility on himself and moved behind to the other side of a wall during the same round. Sounds good to me... here's where it gets sticky... the PC's are now aware there is a spell caster hiding somewhere and asked for spot checks, search checks etc... There was some confusion as to how to address this. One of the PC's rolled a 38 on his spot check... did he pinpoint the spellcaster? Another PC decided to go searching and rolled a 34 on his search check, did this character find this spellcaster? How are the two skills treated when used in this type of situation?

Thanks!

 

[Mr Fidgit]

"the Spot skill lets you notice something, such as a hiding rogue. The Search skill lets a character discern some small detail or irregularity through active effort."

spot is a reactive skill, and search is proactive skill. in other words, a player can ask the DM to search, but a DM asks a player to spot

does that make any sense?

 

[Li Shenron]

You can take a full-round to actively try to spot something you previously missed... or something like this says the PHB.

I'd go for Spot checks if they look around and hope to see some strangeness in the air to notice the invisible creature, or Search checks if they search for a specific trace, like footprints left on the ground or a hole of bent grass (possibly with the invisible feet still inside).

 

[AuraSeer]

If your character is running his hands along the wall to check for secret doors, or digging through a desk drawer for a pen, he's making a Search check.

If he looks around and says, "Hey, look at that over there!" it's a Spot check. Even if he was looking around on purpose.

 

[Dr. Zoom]

the PC's are now aware there is a spell caster hiding somewhere and asked for spot checks, search checks etc... There was some confusion as to how to address this. One of the PC's rolled a 38 on his spot check... did he pinpoint the spellcaster?

No. The DC to notice there is an invisible creature within 30 feet of you is 20 (30 if he is still). It is +20 to the DC to pinpoint the creature, so he needed to roll a 40.

 

[candidus_cogitens]

Dr. Zoom has it right, I believe.

Since the caster is invisible and flying, I would say it would be impossible to use the search skill. In orde to search, there has to be some sort of tangible clue. If the invisible spellcaster were on the ground at least, then MAYBE a search check would work, because you could potentially notice footprints or something like that.

Let's suppose a foe is only hiding, not invisible. In that case, Spot and Search checks could both be used in this situation, though it would be a lot harder to find the target with a Spot check. If I were a DM, I would give a large bonus for a Search check if you already know that there is someone hiding in the area. For Spot it would be simply an opposed role, against their hide skill. For Search, same thing, but with a large circumstance bonus.

 

[Lord Thurham]

Add one more thing to the mix

Thanks for the replies everyone, I agree with the uses of Spot and Search.

The amount of time is still kinda vague, I figure a standard action for trying to spot something you missed before. Possibly a move-equivilant if you are looking around while moving, however, one would lose dex modifier to AC in this situation? Since they are actively looking for this invisible spellcaster and not really paying attention to what's happening around themselves.

Now onto the add one more thing to the mix...
Same situation as my original post, however, in the next round, my rogue does a "Ready" action against this invisible spellcaster. He has his bow out and is actively looking around, up, down, and etc. The second he spots the spellcaster, he wants to shoot him. Will he be able to get a shot off if the spellcaster repeats his attack, go invisible, move action. It is the hope that the rogue can interupt the invisibility spell (forcing a concetration check in other words).


Thanks!
Thanks

 

[Umbran]

Hmm. It seems to me that if you're trying to track down an invisible, flying opponent, Spot and Search are silly skills to use. Listen should be the skill of choice.

 

[Dr. Zoom]

Re: Add one more thing to the mix

The amount of time is still kinda vague, I figure a standard action for trying to spot something you missed before. Possibly a move-equivilant if you are looking around while moving

Full-round action according to the PH, page 74.

however, one would lose dex modifier to AC in this situation? Since they are actively looking for this invisible spellcaster and not really paying attention to what's happening around themselves.

No, they would not lose their dex bonus to AC. The skill would say so if that was the case. Further, consider that a spellcaster does not lose his dex bonus to AC when casting a spell, even though he must concentrate on casting more than what's happening around him.

Now onto the add one more thing to the mix...
Same situation as my original post, however, in the next round, my rogue does a "Ready" action against this invisible spellcaster. He has his bow out and is actively looking around, up, down, and etc. The second he spots the spellcaster, he wants to shoot him. Will he be able to get a shot off if the spellcaster repeats his attack, go invisible, move action. It is the hope that the rogue can interupt the invisibility spell (forcing a concetration check in other words).

Yes, you can interrupt another's action with the Ready action. You would have to specify the condition to be that you will shoot the wizard when he starts casting a spell after he appears, not just when he appears. You can disrupt his spell only if you hit him during the casting of the spell if he fails his concentration check, unless he casts defensively.

 

[Antikinesis]

Re: Re: Add one more thing to the mix

You can disrupt his spell only if you hit him during the casting of the spell if he fails his concentration check, unless he casts defensively.

While casting defensively will negate attacks of opportunity, I don't believe that it will negate prepared attacks.

The spell caster would still need to make the concentration check if he takes damage, casting defensively or no.

-AK