Take 20 on Open Lock?

[Christian]

(1) They're happy to proceed at 5 ft/round so the Rogue can take 10 Search in every space. His total skill makes this result over 20, so every average trap and secret door is found.
(2) He definitely sees no drawback to a Take 20 on every Open Lock check for 2 minutes, automatically opening those.
(3) A 30x30 room, they're happy to have everyone divide up the walls and Take 20 to Search those if it's a dead-end. This takes less than 10 minutes, which they see as reasonable, and turns up any secret doors in the walls.
(4) When they're low on spells, they expect to barricade themselves in a room and sleep for 8 hours and re-achieve full strength.

Now, admittedly this is not a zone of active counterdefense or a race situation, but frankly I see those as the exception and not the rule. I apply additional wandering monster checks, and when those appear they snicker a bit at that being old-school. If I were to interrupt the 8 hour rest period with a counterattack, they'd perceive that as a cruel interruption which slows down the pace of the adventure/exploration -- I can't imagine they'd ever be persuaded to leave the dungeon to camp (the statement last night is that that would open them to attack from any side).

(1) Less than 5' per round-the rogue would have to be searching only one space to move that quickly, and a 5' stretch of corridor will have more than one 5'x5' square. (Preview-I see Hyp. beat me to this one. 40' per six minutes-shades of 1st Edition, eh?)

(2) Good. That's a perfectly reasonable use of Take 20. Ultimately, either you're good enough to open a given lock or you're not ...

(3) They would only 'automatically' find the door/treasure/whatever if they all have a very high Search skill. At third level, an elven Rogue might easily have a +10 Search check-a DC 30 secret door would only be found this way if it happens to be in the elf's part of the room. If the half-orc barbarian happens to get that wall, he's out of luck, even using take 20.

(4) I think this is my biggest concern with your post. Wandering encounters in an occupied building are 'old school'? So the modern idea is that every occupant sits in his/her assigned room 24x7, then? Let 'em snicker-but don't let 'em off the hook. If they're invading someone's home, sitting around to recuperate is and ought to be a disastrous strategy. It gives the occupants time to discover the intrusion and prepare a response. And if it's not clear that the intruders exited, they're going to be the subject of some Search checks on the enemies' part ...

 

[dcollins]

That's a round to Take 10 on a 5'x5' area.

If you have a ten foot wide corridor with a ten foot ceiling, every five feet of forward progress contains eight 5'x5' areas. Two on the floor, two on the ceiling, one on each wall at ground level, and one on each wall from eye-height to the ceiling.

Frankly, that wasn't how I or my players read that language, but for discussion's sake I'll assume you're correct.

The current goblin dungeon does not have 10 ft. wide corridors, they're only 5 ft. wide. In fact, most complexes I run and see nowadays have 5 ft. wide corridors -- that's even more realistic if one compares medieval castles and dungeons and so forth.

Now, my player's mostly just interested in traps, and he would make a very solid argument that regardless of where the trap actually is (ceiling, wall, or floor), the trigger must be on the floor itself (catch plate, trip-wire, etc.). Thus he would be happy to just check the floor and thereby find all the traps effectively automatically, at the same 5 ft. per round rate of progress.

And you know what? Even if it took ten times longer than that, I think they'd still do it. It sounds utterly unrealistic, but there's no in-their-face penalty that is obviously a consequence of moving slowly.

DM: "Oh, doing that will take a minute per 5 feet."
PC: "So? Then we take a minute per 5 feet."

That having been said, possibly the suggestion for more hit-and-run tactics would be helpful. Maybe I'll try that next week, and if it draws them into running off piecemeal into an ambush, we'll see if the players count that as playing unfairly. However, I'm still not sure they'd recognize that as an actual consequence of slow movement.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Now, my player's mostly just interested in traps, and he would make a very solid argument that regardless of where the trap actually is (ceiling, wall, or floor), the trigger must be on the floor itself (catch plate, trip-wire, etc.). Thus he would be happy to just check the floor and thereby find all the traps effectively automatically, at the same 5 ft. per round rate of progress.

"Stop," Indy warned Satipo. "Stay out of the light..."

-Hyp.

 

[hoyerhan]

The current goblin dungeon does not have 10 ft. wide corridors, they're only 5 ft. wide. In fact, most complexes I run and see nowadays have 5 ft. wide corridors -- that's even more realistic if one compares medieval castles and dungeons and so forth.

Well, that's still 6 5x5 ft squares. 50ft in six minutes isn't fast. It's dead slow! This doesn't sound much like good role-playing to me. I think you should somehow make them realise that this is not very realistic. I bet they're just searching when you are drawing a map, heh? You can just extend some of the corridors if they insist on searching every inch.

Someone mentioned concentration checks for long search periods. I think that may be a good idea. Besides, I can't imagine the eager dwarf to accept this slow pace.

Now, my player's mostly just interested in traps, and he would make a very solid argument that regardless of where the trap actually is (ceiling, wall, or floor), the trigger must be on the floor itself (catch plate, trip-wire, etc.). Thus he would be happy to just check the floor and thereby find all the traps effectively automatically, at the same 5 ft. per round rate of progress.

Let them believe it is so. There are magical traps too, you know.

And you know what? Even if it took ten times longer than that, I think they'd still do it. It sounds utterly unrealistic, but there's no in-their-face penalty that is obviously a consequence of moving slowly.

DM: "Oh, doing that will take a minute per 5 feet."
PC: "So? Then we take a minute per 5 feet."

That having been said, possibly the suggestion for more hit-and-run tactics would be helpful. Maybe I'll try that next week, and if it draws them into running off piecemeal into an ambush, we'll see if the players count that as playing unfairly. However, I'm still not sure they'd recognize that as an actual consequence of slow movement.

There are times when you should take your time, and times when quick operations should be rewarded.

If they continue to go at that slow pace, I think that hit-and-run tactic is fine. If so, I would (often) rule that the player are caught flatfooted, as it is the enemies who decide when to attack. That is a nasty drawback.

And if the players decide to charge in, make them know the advantage of surprise (enemies flatfooted, maybe unarmed, etc).

That is how I would have done it. Hope this helps.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

It may all be a moot point in 3.5 if the new trap sensing rogue ability allows them to move quickly and search for traps in a reasonably wide radius. Our group plays this way already, but it will be nice if it is made official. It should be a given that a rogue will be searching for traps all around them as they advance. Make a Search check and if a trap was present the DM tells them, if the check didn't make it, the trap is set off. Keeps the game moving.

I am a big fan of tempo. I prefer games with a fast tempo that keep the plot and action moving.

 

[Norfleet]

I think oftentimes, the use of "Search" for everything is misused. I personally rule that the search skill is used for when the character in question is searching for something of unspecified location and unspecified nature. If the character has fallen back on his search skill, he doesn't know what he's looking for, or even what the plausible location of it is.

If I'm looking for a secret door, I don't say "I search the room for secret doors". I say things like, "I yank the rug off the floor. Anything there?". This isn't really a search check. A big dumb fighter could do this. If there's something under that rug, I've now found it. If there's nothing there, then I've just wasted a round yanking a rug off the floor. Search is one of those things you pull out when you've exhausted all of the obvious leads for manipulating anything apparent, and are now resorting to examination of what appears to be empty pieces of wall.

 

[Staffan]

Re: Re

It may all be a moot point in 3.5 if the new trap sensing rogue ability allows them to move quickly and search for traps in a reasonably wide radius.

I would much prefer this way of showing that rogues are better at dealing with traps than the totally arbitrary rule in the PHB about them being the only ones who can deal with DC 21+ traps. Though perhaps not a very wide radius - how about 5', which would give them the same ability with traps as elves have with secret doors.

 

[LokiDR]

Frankly, that wasn't how I or my players read that language, but for discussion's sake I'll assume you're correct.

The current goblin dungeon does not have 10 ft. wide corridors, they're only 5 ft. wide. In fact, most complexes I run and see nowadays have 5 ft. wide corridors -- that's even more realistic if one compares medieval castles and dungeons and so forth.

Now, my player's mostly just interested in traps, and he would make a very solid argument that regardless of where the trap actually is (ceiling, wall, or floor), the trigger must be on the floor itself (catch plate, trip-wire, etc.). Thus he would be happy to just check the floor and thereby find all the traps effectively automatically, at the same 5 ft. per round rate of progress.

And you know what? Even if it took ten times longer than that, I think they'd still do it. It sounds utterly unrealistic, but there's no in-their-face penalty that is obviously a consequence of moving slowly.

DM: "Oh, doing that will take a minute per 5 feet."
PC: "So? Then we take a minute per 5 feet."

That having been said, possibly the suggestion for more hit-and-run tactics would be helpful. Maybe I'll try that next week, and if it draws them into running off piecemeal into an ambush, we'll see if the players count that as playing unfairly. However, I'm still not sure they'd recognize that as an actual consequence of slow movement.

Actually, medieval castles didn't use hallways, they just connected all the rooms by doors. This is why the cannopy bed became popular.

That asside, if the party wants to move slowly and doesn't accpet that this is a problem, tell them. Have a goblin be captured and mention that the remaining goblins are massing for an assult on them. Have them find rooms where the residents have taken their treasure and left. Have a different adventuring party pass them up. I think there are many ways to get the point across that moving too slowly is a bad idea.

As for only searching the floor, there are proxcimity traps for creatures that fly. This is fairly well documented in Song and Silence. Have a secrect door set 5' up can be an interesting twist. I don't know if I believe either in the interpretation of a 5'x5' area does not include everthing in a square, but it would teach players the value of speed.