Take 20 on Open Lock?

[Celtavian]

I don't have a problem with people finding traps if they take the time to look for them.

"I check the chest. Do I think it's trapped?"
"No."
"No poison needles or anything?"
"No."
"So looking through my Lens of Detection around the lock, there are definitely no holes for needles?"
"No holes."
"I look really, really hard."
"Yup."
"Okay, I open the lock."
"A needle shoots out of a little hole and stabs you. Make a Fort Save."

Meh. Don't like it.

But once they know it's there, they have to disable it. And on that, you can't Take 20...

-Hyp.

They are doing this all the time when checking for traps, always looking with extreme caution. I assume that anyone searching for traps is always being as careful as possible and searching the best that they can. Whether they roll or take 20 does not mean they are taking anymore care in my campaign.

For example, do you think a guy from the bomb squad looks casually for bombs? I don't. They do their best to find or figure out the bomb all the time. It simply depends on their skill and experience and a good portion of luck. If the guys skill is high enough, he is going to find it, if he is inexperienced, then he may not if the person who placed the bomb is better at hiding it.

That is how I look at it. Both the person Searching for the trap and the person placing the trap are skilled. The person looking must have enough skill to find it, no matter how long he looks.

Thieves never search casually for traps, period. An experienced thief with a high search skill will rarely, if ever, fail to find a trap, especially if they take the Rogue special ability that allows them to take 10 on a few skills at a time. The way I run it, Search is actually a skill that would be useful to take for this special ability.

 

[Hypersmurf]

For example, do you think a guy from the bomb squad looks casually for bombs? I don't. They do their best to find or figure out the bomb all the time.

I suspect they take more than 6 seconds, though.

Rolling a 20 on a six-second check is luck. Taking 20 - and taking two minutes - is being thorough about it.

-Hyp.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

2Celtavian:
But do you expect a rogue to do the best he can do in 6 seconds? (I am not sure about the exact time for checking a presumably trapped chest)

A Bomb Squad Expert won`t have the job done in 6 seconds, at least not usually - more probably it might take minutes or even hours, depending on the situation.

So, if you don`t want to use the "take 20" mechanic, you should at least check your allocation of time for these jobs..

Mustrum Ridcully

 

[Celtavian]

2Celtavian:
But do you expect a rogue to do the best he can do in 6 seconds? (I am not sure about the exact time for checking a presumably trapped chest)

A Bomb Squad Expert won`t have the job done in 6 seconds, at least not usually - more probably it might take minutes or even hours, depending on the situation.

So, if you don`t want to use the "take 20" mechanic, you should at least check your allocation of time for these jobs..

Mustrum Ridcully

I don't really follow specifically the 6 second rule. Just like with Move Silently or Hide, you are actually doing it for longer than 6 seconds, but only making one roll for when a person actually opposes you. You could be hiding in the same place for hours, but only one roll would be made.

Same with any skill check. The skill system is very abstract. And as Hypersmurf stated, a bomb disposal person would not be searching for 6 seconds, why then should we assume a rogue is only Searching for 6 seconds?

This is really all my opinion. Anyway a person wants to run it is reasonable. I take into account alot of factors when determining how to arbitrate a rule such as my real world experience, affect on the game, player agreement and other factors. Its just the way I like to play.

There are good arguments either way. I just prefer to do things the way I see them.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

There are some "dynamic" situations in which the actual length of an action is important.

Imagine the rogue tries to open a door so the group can escape an overpowering enemy - if you assume it takes a base time of 1 round (6 seconds), it makes the thing easier to figure during combat.
If you assume a usual amount of time for it of, say, 1 Minute (10 rounds), then the group is in trouble. But then, the Rogue might ask - can`t I try a bit faster?

Most DMs probably will think - hell, sure, but it will be more difficult - but now the DM has to figure out the penalties.

In the standard system, they shortened the amount of time to the single round and assumed that wouldn`t be the best possible effort, just a more or less lucky try (at low level, this is especially true when you roll a D20 generating a range from 1 to 20 compared to a pathetic +4 modifer from Open Lock)
But if our Lockpicker really has all the time in the world, he can just take 20, and take the amount of time he needs to get the job perfectly done...

Mustrum Ridcully

 

[Hypersmurf]

And as Hypersmurf stated, a bomb disposal person would not be searching for 6 seconds, why then should we assume a rogue is only Searching for 6 seconds?

"It takes 1 round to search a 5-foot-by-5-foot area or a volume of goods 5 feet on a side; doing so is a full-round action."

That's why we should assume he's only searching for 6 seconds.

If he searches for 30 seconds, he should get 5 rolls of the die. If he searches for two minutes, you may as well just Take 20.

-Hyp.

 

[RigaMortus]

Riga
Haven't you ever lost something? I was looking for a computer game in my office, and I was trying my best. But I didn't find it; so I started looking again, and again. I even came back later and looked again. Apparently I finally rolled high enough, since I found it. Athletes/craftsmen/gameplayers/writers/etc. are always trying their 'best'; yet sometimes they perform better than other times.

The difference here is that you KNEW there was something to be found. You are the one that misplaced the game.

Now if you Search a room for a hidden passage, but you don't really know if there is one in the room or where it would be located, you roll the die. Whatever your result is, you would assume you gave it your best shot since you don't exactly know what you are looking for (are you looking for an out of place book on the bookshelf which activates the hidden passage, or are you looking for a lose torch holder on the wall? You don't know). If you roll the die and fail to find what you are looking for, then that indicates that you either missed something (rolled low) or there was nothing to be found (rolled well enough, but there really is nothing there). But you shouldn't know which it is, otherwise it would be considered metagaming IMO (oh I rolled low, let me check again until I roll high enough that I am sure there is nothing there--- doesn't make sense, becuase you wouldn't really know if you rolled low or if there really is nothing to be found).

In your example, you know there is something to be found, so of course you are going to keep Searching until you find it.

 

[RigaMortus]

So, when you look for your keys, you only spend 6 seconds? (per 5' square of room) And if you don't find them, you assume you did your 'best' and stop?

No, because I am not bound by DnD physics/rules...

Now, I agree; to save from metagaming, the DM could roll behind a screen each time. The player would never know why he didn't find anything.
And if the player said "I 'know' something is here, I keep looking until I find it" (ie role-play speak for 'take 20') then the DM says "Well, you have been searching for 15-20 minutes, and you find nada.... what'cha wanna do now?"

And that's my point... The person either KNOWS there is something there, in which case it makes sense to keep rolling until you get high enough (or simply Take 20) or they don't know there is something there, in which case it makes no sense to keep rolling.

 

[bret]

And that's my point... The person either KNOWS there is something there, in which case it makes sense to keep rolling until you get high enough (or simply Take 20) or they don't know there is something there, in which case it makes no sense to keep rolling.

The other point of view is that you can't complete a search in 6 seconds. In order to completely search something takes much longer.

I have searched for things where I didn't know exactly where they were, just knew they were in a rather large area. I think a number of people probably have, if they just think about it. An example of this would be an Easter Egg hunt.
If you don't find something in an area, you move on for the moment. If you still aren't finding anything, you come back and search more carefully. You start by looking in the areas with the best hiding spots, but that doesn't mean you ignore the other areas completely.

I really think that the rules are correct in allowing you to retry search checks. The Take 20 rule is just a way for the GM to speed up the game.

 

[hoyerhan]

If he searches for two minutes, you may as well just Take 20.

-Hyp.

I believe this is where the disagreements lies. A Search check for 2 minutes would correspond to 20 checks. However, 20 checks doesn't automatically mean that you have trown a 20 on your dice.

I don't know how to rule this in another "more correct" way than making the DM secretly throw the dice for each trial, but that would be extreemly boring.