D&D 3.5: Skill questions (Search, Spot, Listen)

[midnight42]

A couple of issues have come up recently in games I've DMd. I'm unclear as to how to adjudicate those skills in some cases. Specifically:

A) If you look at the SRD, it's a full-round action to Search a 5x5 area. Here's the thing: This slows dungeon delving to a crawl. In one case, there was a 100' passage; the PCs were worried about traps and wanted to check. Doing the math, to clear a 5' path down that 100' passage would have taken 20 rounds: 1 round for each 5'. The PCs didn't want to take this much time.

The question: What's the logic of trap placement? If I just place a couple of traps in various corridors, the PCs have to either A) check EVERYWHERE and slow the party to a crawl or B) just not bother checking and run into the traps, in which case, why bother to search at all? This seems unfair to the PCs. I suppose I could place traps in more standard places (in front of important doors, obviously major corridors, etc.). Possibly allow the rogue to move at half rate while searching at a -10 or -15 penalty? Or just let the PCs try to guess?

B) Similarly: Imagine PCs going through your typical dungeon. A group of enemy rogues is sneaking up on them for an ambush. What sort of Spot/Listen checks do I allow?

Imagine 5 rogues each with a Move Silently/Hide bonus of +10, and 5 PCs with Spot/Listen checks of +0 each, for simplicity. You would think that the odds of a successful ambush are overwhelmingly in the rogues' favor. However, if every MS/H/S/L check is rolled randomly, the odds that at least 1 PC will spot/hear at least 1 rogue are about 70%. (Each individual check, with the rogue having a +10 advantage over the PC, has odds of 45/400, about 11%, of having the PC win. However, the odds that EVERY such check will fail is ((400-45)/400)^10 (for 10 opposed skill checks)=30.3%, leaving a 70% chance of at least one PC success.)

So what do I do about this? Perhaps give the PC a -10 penalty to Spot/Listen if they're not _specifically_ doing Spot/Listen checks to detect an ambush? In that case, what if the PC response is "OK, we ALWAYS expect an ambush at ALL times?"

Thanks for any thoughts.

[midnight42]

A couple of issues have come up recently in games I've DMd. I'm unclear as to how to adjudicate those skills in some cases. Specifically:

A) If you look at the SRD, it's a full-round action to Search a 5x5 area. Here's the thing: This slows dungeon delving to a crawl. In one case, there was a 100' passage; the PCs were worried about traps and wanted to check. Doing the math, to clear a 5' path down that 100' passage would have taken 20 rounds: 1 round for each 5'. The PCs didn't want to take this much time.

The question: What's the logic of trap placement? If I just place a couple of traps in various corridors, the PCs have to either A) check EVERYWHERE and slow the party to a crawl or B) just not bother checking and run into the traps, in which case, why bother to search at all? This seems unfair to the PCs. I suppose I could place traps in more standard places (in front of important doors, obviously major corridors, etc.). Possibly allow the rogue to move at half rate while searching at a -10 or -15 penalty? Or just let the PCs try to guess?

B) Similarly: Imagine PCs going through your typical dungeon. A group of enemy rogues is sneaking up on them for an ambush. What sort of Spot/Listen checks do I allow?

Specifically, imagine 5 rogues each with a Move Silently/Hide bonus of +10, and 5 PCs with Spot/Listen checks of +0 each, for simplicity. You would think that the odds of a successful ambush are overwhelmingly in the rogues' favor. However, if every MS/H/S/L check is rolled randomly, the odds that at least 1 PC will spot/hear at least 1 rogue are about 70%. (Each individual check, with the rogue having a +10 advantage over the PC, has odds of 45/400, about 11%, of having the PC win. However, the odds that EVERY such check will fail is ((400-45)/400)^10 (for 10 opposed skill checks)=30.3%, leaving a 70% chance of at least one PC success.)

So what do I do about this? Perhaps give the PC a -10 penalty to Spot/Listen if they're not _specifically_ doing Spot/Listen checks to detect an ambush? In that case, what if the PC response is "OK, we ALWAYS expect an ambush at ALL times?"

Thanks for any thoughts.

[Eloel]

In case of ambush, rolling the highest Spot/Listen vs the lowest Hide/Move Silently should do the trick.

[Divinech]

A)
I always thought the rogue simply moves at half speed while searching for traps, with no specific action needed. But I can't find anything about that on SRD.
Oh by the way, my PCs like to Take 20 on their search checks. So sometimes is goes like this.

DM (me): You see an about 80 ft long and 20 ft. wide corridor,
PCs: We progress slowly and search each 5x5ft square and all walls. We Take 20.
DM: Ok, an hour later you arrive at the end of the corridor.

B)
Being distracted incurs a -5 penalty. But I wouldn't give that penalty to players during a dungeon crawl. To simply things, you could assume the rogues take 10 on their Move Silently/Hide checks (dunno if this is possible by RAW).

[ericgrau]

A) Roll secretly for each trap (using a fake roll if there is no trap) or ask the PCs to roll once for the entire corridor. Or they may take a 10 for the entire corridor. It's no more or less random than rolling for every square. 20 rounds is only 2 minutes, which is quite feasible. They could even spend 40 minutes taking a 20 if they're really paranoid, and even that is feasible. Out of game either takes about 10 seconds since it's only 1 roll or statement, which is also practical.

B) The spot and listen rules have optional rules that let you roll once for an entire group, using the same roll for everyone in that group plus each modifier (using the best and worst of each, as ozgun92 said). Additionally the rogues may choose to take 10s on their skill checks (sine they are not yet threatened nor distracted), to minimize the randomness. Don't forget that the rogues need cover or concealment to lay their ambush and place their minis accordingly. They can't ambush from an empty well lit hallway with no bends.

Spot and listen happen automatically without the need to declare an action. You may even roll them secretly (find out the PCs modifiers ahead of time) so the PCs don't know something is coming. If the PCs are distracted by some other event they get a -5. As for actively looking, if they take a move action they may get an extra spot or listen check in addition to the passive free one.

[Pisha]

For the first question, it comes down to game time vs. real time. If you're not in combat, there's no real reason to be in rounds. Yes, it takes 20 rounds (roughly 2 minutes) for the PCs to go through that hallway, but there's no reason for the players to take that long. Have the rogue roll a handful of search checks (say, one for each hidden thingie plus a couple extra so they can't guess how many things they're actually looking for), or even one overarching search check to represent searching the entire hallway, and then move on.

For the second - spot and listen are essentially "passive" skills. You can choose to make a spot or listen check if you're trying to notice something, but in general those are the skills you use when you're not actively looking for anything. So no, I wouldn't give a negative modifier for not expecting an ambush.

However, I think you're making it overcomplicated. If all the rogues have the same bonus to Hide/Move Silently, roll for them as a group and have the party roll against that. It's not perfect, but neither is the other method, and this option tends to keep the game running more smoothly.

[Amphetryon]

For A), remember that the owner of the trapped corridor probably has a reason besides sociopath-level cruelty for placing traps; there should be a legitimate reason for a particular trap to be where it is. That reason may be protecting a significant door or room, or herding intrepid adventurers into a single entrance, but it should be more rational than a randomly selected square of tile on the floor. If it IS a randomly selected square of tile, that fact should, of itself, be significant, indicating something about the owner's state of mind.

For B) many advocate the 'Take 10' approach when the players have not explicitly stated they're making checks. The DM just keeps a record of Search, Spot, and Listen modifiers for the group, and presumes an average roll of 10 when appropriate. This prevents the players from getting paranoid about the DM rolling dice without a stated purpose. Of course, player paranoia can be fun... :smallamused:

[Edhelras]

I have the same problem, so good to get a discussion on this. I too tend to make things overly complicated - but how else to make searching and spotting a real, but overcomeable challenge?

As for traps - I think one good thing is that those making traps would place them at important places - and notably - arrange them so that the dungeon inhabitants can bypass them easily enough. So, the actual placement of traps becomes a very important point - and consequently, players should in fact be able to metagame a bit when deciding when to do the most thorough searching. And therefore - it should be OK to have quite easy detectable traps if A) it's place in a spot where PCs don't expect it and/or B) you don't specificaly want them, as the DM, to walk right into it.
If you come into the situation where the party takes 20 on an entire, non-distinct corridor, paranoia and realism have gone a step too far.

The same problem goes for Detect secret doors, I think. In our party, the cleric has Knowledge domain and has prepared that spell in his Domain slot. But when should he cast it? How much time should he spend looking for secret doors?
For Elves - the same. Should they always cling so close to the walls that they're guaranteed to get to use their racial ability to find secret doors? So at least vital secret doors should be placed in spots where you really could expect there to be one, or in corridors narrow enough for the Elves to find them, or you should provide clues so that casters understand that now's the time to cast the Detect spell.

Handling spot and listen checks is really difficult, as well. I think that taking 10 for ordinary situations, unnamed guards, the party just travelling along, is OK.
Let's look at it this way: Unless you're prepared to role play the party stopping to Spot and Listen for every 5 ft they move, you'll have to accept that they will roll some random roll at one point where it's actually needed - but without the DM in fact informing them to look for the enemy. It's only fair, IMO, if you decide that the roll they made at that particular point was average - i.e. a Take 10.
And still the d20 is great to have for particular, well-defined moments where you get the chance to either fail horribly or succeed dramatically with a low or a high roll.

[Coidzor]

B) Similarly: Imagine PCs going through your typical dungeon. A group of enemy rogues is sneaking up on them for an ambush. What sort of Spot/Listen checks do I allow?

Well, first off, you pre-roll the ambush unless it's extemporaneous and determine when/if the PCs detect the ambush. Secondly, even if it's extemporaneous, you should probably roll for them anyway for atmosphere concerns.

Hence why you have copies of their sheets, at least electronically, or at least the important bits.

Alternatively, you could give them a "passive" spot/listen score for such things, which is basically their listen modifier +10 for normal, aware of potential danger circumstances(so like they take a ten, so no spectacular rolling potential), maybe a listen modifier+5 for when they're maxing and relaxing. Could have one for more alert, active times as well, maybe a 12. Anything more and they have to be actively rolling. And don't forget to include their full bonii and penalties.

[kestrel404]

While going through the 2nd map of the World's Largest Dungeon, which was absolutely full of traps, we told the GM that the Rogue (me) would be searching every spot the party went before we went there. Instead of rolling individually for each 5x5 square, I took 10. If we were in a hurry and didnt want to take 6 seconds to move 5 feet (i.e. slow crawl speed), the GM took that into account by giving me a -5 penalty to my search checks and I could do 2 squares per round or a -10 and I could move at my normal speed (but not double move) and still search at the same time.

So, as a couple of 'house rules that worked', I say that you can take 10 while searching unless in combat (not really a house rule, this is pretty much the perfect opportunity to take 10), you can search 2 squares at a -5 penalty and you can search as a free action at a -10 penalty.

Of course, if you're a rogue, below level 10 and not heavily optimized for searching, don't expect to find any magical traps at a -10 penalty!

For your purposes, you should probably record your Rogue's search bonus, add 10 to that, and then ask him how fast he's moving and apply the appropriate penalty.