Cleric - Spot and Search GOD

C&C discussion. Fantasy roleplaying.
New products, general questions, the rules, laws, and the chaos.
shane

Cleric - Spot and Search GOD

Post by shane »

I pulled this from another thread...
Tropico wrote:
Hmm lets see what else... well, as predicted the cleric with his Prime WIS was the Spot and Search god of the game, with him finding almost every single secret or clue while the others almost never did. Also the rogue failed to take INT as a Prime and this of course resulted in him having some real bad trouble both finding and disarming traps. But the players just seemed to accept this and not have problems with it.

Man, I have a huge problem with it! One class stealing another class' thunder is a pretty serious design flaw, IMO, or the implementation is way off. Granted, I've only read the Collector's Set rules, but it seems any character that has Wis as Prime is going to be at least as good if not better as a Rogue at this sort of thing right out of the gate. Am I missing something?
_________________
::: Shane

::: Rational thought, not superstition

Ghul

Post by Ghul »

My solutions ignore the SIEGE engine in this regard, as I feel the universal mechanic is not suitable for all situations. In the spirit of the game, "The Rules Are Not Your Master" so if something does not fit your style of play, and you it concerns you, simply alter it to your own specifications.

For finding secret doors I use a 1d6. Anyone can find a secret door on a 1. Elves can do it on a 1-2. Some may find this familiar. If, while using the C&C challenge level system, you run into a secret door that is difficult to find (say it is CL10+), then I suggest you bump the die up to a d8 instead of the d6.

Personally, I abandoned the "spot" and "search" checks when I left 3e, and this stemmed from a 2e skill that I found equally annoying: "alertness". This is what I do. If the PCs say they are looking for something, I tell them whether they see it or not. Say it is a vault behind a painting in a room. "I look behind the painting!" says the PC. I tell them the vault is there. This is common sense in my opinion, and requires more robust role play than "I search the room, can I make a d20 roll?"

Traps. In this case, if you don't want to see you thief being outshined by the cleric, I suggest you use a d6 in this instance as well, in which anyone can "find" a trap on a 1 (thief on a 1-2), but only the thief can disarm it. In the wilderness, I would extend this to traps a ranger might be familiar with, such as snares and the like.

So, again, if you find an aspect of the rules not to your tastes, simply change them to your liking. This system, the C&C SIEGE engine, will not break down as a result.

Happy New Year,

--Jeff T.

User avatar
moriarty777
Renegade Mage
Posts: 3739
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by moriarty777 »

On the whole, I feel that there is nothing wrong with the system. The 'spot' and 'search' checks are something that a lot of people continue to use from 3.x but this doesn't mean you shouldn't use them in C&C. The key is *how* you end up using them.

First thing to remember, if you consider 3rd edition, is that Search was an Int based skill... not a Wis based one. And yes... that would mean that a Cleric would be naturally good at Spot checks and Wizards would be naturally good at Search checks since both classes use those respective Primes. The one edge that a Rogue will have has to do with class and expertise. It takes little in terms of logic to reason that a Rogue, with their ability to find devices of doom (aka Traps) would be able to find certain hidden compartments or doors. In fact, one could reason that they get to add their level to the check since it's so closely related to a class ability. The Wizard will never be able to do that.

Besides, by the time the Wizard reaches 2nd level, the party Rogue will probably be hitting third. Issues with search, if you keep these things in mind, will quickly begin to favor the Rogue.

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com
Image

serleran
Mogrl
Posts: 14094
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:00 am

Post by serleran »

More d20 thinking, this.

There are no spot or search checks, therefore, there is no "god" at it. The players declare what they are doing to find these things, and the CK determines if they do... rolls of this nature should never be made, unless one simply assumes random chance has a chance. Lastly, "spot" which I assume means "avoid surprise" is a matter of player action - that is, you must be actively defending against it. This makes all characters "gods" at it, technically.

The CK says what happens. You can simply say: Wisdom applies to saves and ability checks (by the rules this is exactly true) and since "spot" and "search" are universal (ie, not a save or ability check) having Prime in it means nothing. This puts everyone at base of 18, where level is all that matters (and attribute bonus, so still slightly favoring clerics at very low levels) but the rogue will easily win in the end, because they advance much faster.

You can, of course, also apply situational modifiers, or whatever else. For example:

Rogues, rangers, and assassins get a +8 bonus to "spot" an ambush; rogues gets a +6 bonus to "search" for traps (this, by the way, is covered under their class ability Traps, so would be overkill.) And whatever else. That way, for the specific events where you favor another class, your rules favor them too. Since you are already not playing the rules as written, there is no further harm in adding in more.

CharlieRock

Post by CharlieRock »

Why is wisdom even used for noticing traps? Batman spots traps left, right, and center. But it is usually due to his knowledge of how things work ("That door is reinforced with lead!"). Some guys can smell people trying to set an ambush ("hmm, that's somebodies aftershave I smell. Must be bad guys out here.") What stat is smelling things? Con?
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Post by Treebore »

I'm thinking I'll go back to how I used to do it in 1E and 2E. Have them average out their INT and WIS scores and have them roll on a d 30. Roll under their average to succeed. I used this for anything that spot, search, listen, and "figure out" was needed for.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

User avatar
DangerDwarf
Maukling
Posts: 5284
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 7:00 am
Location: East Texas

Post by DangerDwarf »

Last time I rolled a d30 it took it 3 county lines to stop. Them things can roll!

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Post by Treebore »

DangerDwarf wrote:
Last time I rolled a d30 it took it 3 county lines to stop. Them things can roll!

They sure can! We often used a d6 and a d10 instead.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

User avatar
DangerDwarf
Maukling
Posts: 5284
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 7:00 am
Location: East Texas

Post by DangerDwarf »

I do like that idea though Tree. I think I'm gonna yank it.

User avatar
Zudrak
Lore Drake
Posts: 1379
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Audubon, NJ

Post by Zudrak »

Ghul wrote:
My solutions ignore the SIEGE engine in this regard, as I feel the universal mechanic is not suitable for all situations. In the spirit of the game, "The Rules Are Not Your Master" so if something does not fit your style of play, and you it concerns you, simply alter it to your own specifications.

For finding secret doors I use a 1d6. Anyone can find a secret door on a 1. Elves can do it on a 1-2. Some may find this familiar. If, while using the C&C challenge level system, you run into a secret door that is difficult to find (say it is CL10+), then I suggest you bump the die up to a d8 instead of the d6.
Personally, I abandoned the "spot" and "search" checks when I left 3e, and this stemmed from a 2e skill that I found equally annoying: "alertness". This is what I do. If the PCs say they are looking for something, I tell them whether they see it or not. Say it is a vault behind a painting in a room. "I look behind the painting!" says the PC. I tell them the vault is there. This is common sense in my opinion, and requires more robust role play than "I search the room, can I make a d20 roll?"

Traps. In this case, if you don't want to see you thief being outshined by the cleric, I suggest you use a d6 in this instance as well, in which anyone can "find" a trap on a 1 (thief on a 1-2), but only the thief can disarm it. In the wilderness, I would extend this to traps a ranger might be familiar with, such as snares and the like.

So, again, if you find an aspect of the rules not to your tastes, simply change them to your liking. This system, the C&C SIEGE engine, will not break down as a result.

Happy New Year,

--Jeff T.

The bolded section above is how I do it. I have to break myself of some 3e habits where I am assuming something's covered by a rule when common sense can save (and ease!) the day.
_________________
AD&D, Amish Dungeons & Dragons.

"Galstaff, ye are in a cornfield, when a moustachioed man approaches. What say ye?"

"I shun him."

-----

"Knowledge, logic, reason, and common sense serve better than a dozen rule books."

-- E. Gary Gygax
Psalm 73:26

"Knowledge, logic, reason, and common sense serve better than a dozen rule books."

"Rules not understood should have appropriate questions directed to the publisher; disputes with the Dungeon Master are another matter entirely. THE REFEREE IS THE FINAL ARBITER OF ALL AFFAIRS OF HIS OR HER CAMPAIGN."
-- E. Gary Gygax

User avatar
Omote
Battle Stag
Posts: 11560
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:00 am
Location: The fairest view in the park, Ohio.
Contact:

Post by Omote »

Like Zudrak and Ghul, I also do it this way. In my games, there is A LOT of 3E mentality, so I had to quickly do away with things such as Seach, Spot, etc. ANYBODY can search or spot, and in my mind I usually give the better chances to finding something to the Rogue. This is done mostly ad-hoc, off-the-cuff, or whatever. When the party searches, if they are not detailed enough in their description of what exactly they are searching, then sometimes the party won't find anything. If the Rogue is in the party, they usually will, of course depending on many, various factors that are buried in my CK brain.

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society
@-Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society-@
VAE VICTUS!
>> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <<

User avatar
Breakdaddy
The Castle Keeper
Posts: 3890
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 7:00 am

Post by Breakdaddy »

If it bothered me that much, I would add a 7th attribute called Perception and either make them roll it like any other or make it the average of their int and wis scores. Then they could select is as an optional prime like any other score. I would then use the Perception attribute for any non class-based search, spot, or listen checks.
"If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you."
-Genghis Khan

shane

Post by shane »

Quote:
]Personally, I abandoned the "spot" and "search" checks when I left 3e, and this stemmed from a 2e skill that I found equally annoying: "alertness". This is what I do. If the PCs say they are looking for something, I tell them whether they see it or not. Say it is a vault behind a painting in a room. "I look behind the painting!" says the PC. I tell them the vault is there. This is common sense in my opinion, and requires more robust role play than "I search the room, can I make a d20 roll?"

That's not role play. Thats relying on the player's ability instead of the character's ability to determine the outcome of something. Character's have abilities, skills and knowledge we don't. That's why player's make a d20 roll. The player doesn't run down the hall and try to jump 20' feet to see if his character can do it. The player doesn't pull out the boyscout archery set and try to hit a target at 50' to see if his character can do it. The player doesn't try to scale the side of his house to see of the character can do it. No, the player doesn't. The player rolls a d20. Why should searching for hidden items (or bluffing, negotiating, trying to be diplomatic, etc) be any different? The character, especially if they're a rogue, is certainly much, much better at it, has much more experience doing it, and would know how to do it more effectively. So why have a character effectively do the search instead of the character?
_________________
::: Shane

::: Rational thought, not superstition

User avatar
Omote
Battle Stag
Posts: 11560
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:00 am
Location: The fairest view in the park, Ohio.
Contact:

Post by Omote »

C&C does not have skill sets such as spot, listen, search, diplomacy, etc. This has to come out through roleplaying. This type of roleplaying needs to be taught to the PLAYER that with a character of low WIS and low INT is probably not going to check for such things as "search" and "spot." Players have to play up, or down play these aspects in the C&C game.

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society
@-Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society-@
VAE VICTUS!
>> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <<

shane

Post by shane »

Omote wrote:
C&C does not have skill sets such as spot, listen, search, diplomacy, etc. This has to come out through roleplaying. This type of roleplaying needs to be taught to the PLAYER that with a character of low WIS and low INT is probably not going to check for such things as "search" and "spot." Players have to play up, or down play these aspects in the C&C game.

Ok, but how to handle a smooth talking character who could talk the queen into bed, but who is run by a player who couldn't talk himself out of a paper bag? How do you guys handle that sort of thing?
_________________
::: Shane

::: Rational thought, not superstition

serleran
Mogrl
Posts: 14094
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:00 am

Post by serleran »

Easy: you have the player do his best. If you thought he did his best, you have it succeed. If you think he could have done better, you get him right to the edge of success, and then have something interrupt it, like, say, the royal guard busting down the door because the queen is late for a very important date...

You only need dice if you need to rely on something external to your own judgment. And before it gets said: yes, that can apply to any roll. Encourage your players to get creative. See what they can do. It will only make your game more interesting.

jman5000

Post by jman5000 »

[quote="serleran"]Easy: you have the player do his best. If you thought he did his best, you have it succeed. If you think he could have done better, you get him right to the edge of success, and then have something interrupt it, like, say, the royal guard busting down the door because the queen is late for a very important date...

[/quote]

so if a player was really awesome at describing when and how a blow hits a monster, do you automatically allow it to hit, without rolling the dice?

if not, why the distinction between one form of GM fiat and not another?

all these suggestions are kludges to a part of the game that is broken.

Cheers,

J.

Catweazle

Post by Catweazle »

No, it's not in the least broken. The problem arises from trying to ram a rule from one ruleset into a completely different one.

So, why should an attack roll be rolled rather than described? Well, that's simple. An attack roll is being defended against, so there is an opposition. Therefore, the character's skill must be tested with a roll. However, I wouldn't require a roll to cut a bound prisoner's throat, for example.

The strongbox hidden behind the tapestry isn't trying to hide, so anyone who looks behind the tapestry will find it. In terms of bluffing and other acts of diplomacy, the need for a roll depends entirely upon the circumstances. A hostile audience will require a roll (with optional bonuses depending on the player's performance, if you like), while a neutral or receptive audience just requires the player to Not Screw It Up.
_________________
History teaches us that men behave wisely once they've exhausted all other alternatives.

rabindranath72

Post by rabindranath72 »

I posed this same question some threads ago, and this is my solution. It is working really well.
Quote:
I was thinking of late that I do not like that perception-based checks (like listen, or surprise) depend on wisdom. It just does not seem right that a cleric can be better than a rogue or ranger if these do not choose wisdom as prime.

So, I thought, why not "going back" to the (A)D&D system? This could easily be made to work with C&C.

So, basically, a perception check is not based on any stat (much like a SR check), and the CB is always 18. This can be modified by racial attributes (like for elves, who add +2 due to their keen senses) or class characteristics (like rogues or ranger who add their level).

The CB 18 nicely approximates the "1 in d6" of classic D&D, the chance humans have of hearing noises.

The same would be for surprise checks.

Turanil

Post by Turanil »

I have no problem with a prime in Wisdom making someone much better at noticing things. I see this as intuition enhancing perceptions. In this view, where clerics and druids are concerned, this is like divine inspiration helps them notice things they would have not been aware of otherwise. This is not so much a cleric having very keen hearing, as their deity alerting them about something important to hear, in directing their attention toward important things.

As for rogues not choosing Wisdom as one of their prime, well, there is uncaring or distrait thieves too. On the other hand, for rogues and other classes who take Wisdom as prime, I would say that rather than intuition, in their case this is focusing on being observant and aware of one's surroundings.
_________________
Homebrews Wiki a list of campaign settings on the web.

User avatar
Breakdaddy
The Castle Keeper
Posts: 3890
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 7:00 am

Post by Breakdaddy »

There have been some good ideas worth thinking about on this thread. The bottom line is this: if you as the CK find it broken, then it is broken. What follows logically is to fix it. How would you fix it? Well, that is an individual answer and not something anyone can force upon you. You should find two or three ideas that you kind of like and either pick one or morph them to your liking. C&C was never meant for spot or listen checks, but I use them and like the added mystery they bring to the game. You obviously like them as well. Find a good solution either here, or on DF, or wherever. Then make it your own. I find arguing the point of whether you "should" be using these kind of rules futile. You want it in your game, so it damn well IS in your game. Neither Serleran nor myself nor anyone else for that matter is running or playing in your game so our opinions should be digested as you would any outside opinion. I hope you find your solution!
"If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you."
-Genghis Khan

serleran
Mogrl
Posts: 14094
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:00 am

Post by serleran »

Jman, you might try reading my entire post.

But, essentially: yes a player could (if they were extremely good at descriptions) get a "free hit" with no attack roll. Its not likely, because I am not that easily impressed, but, I leave the option open for it. In fact, I encourage it by giving modifiers to the dice roll for the description. Maybe that's a dead art in the time of "roll, roll, roll - we don't need to think."

shane

Post by shane »

Breakdaddy wrote:
There have been some good ideas worth thinking about on this thread. The bottom line is this: if you as the CK find it broken, then it is broken. What follows logically is to fix it. How would you fix it? ...SNIP...

I sure wish my C&C xmas stuff gets in soon so I can start tinkering.

Is it all that different in the PHB than in the collecter's set?
_________________
::: Shane

::: Rational thought, not superstition

shane

Post by shane »

serleran wrote:
But, essentially: yes a player could (if they were extremely good at descriptions) get a "free hit" with no attack roll.

There certainly are a few games are there that at the least give bonuses to combat rolls if the players put in a good description (Exalted springs to mind).
_________________
::: Shane

::: Rational thought, not superstition

serleran
Mogrl
Posts: 14094
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:00 am

Post by serleran »

Wouldn't know about Exalted. That's a White Wolf game, right? I stopped looking at them in 1998. All the games were, essentially, the same: some mysterious group of supernatural beings riddled with angst and impending doom vs humans and possibly some other supernatural group riddled with angst and impending doom.
But, the point is still there: encourage your players to get into the game, and the best way they can do that is by describing their actions. As a CK, you take those descriptions and decide what happens from them. The dice are there if you need them, but they shouldn't be used "just because."

shane

Post by shane »

Quote:
This is what I do. If the PCs say they are looking for something, I tell them whether they see it or not. Say it is a vault behind a painting in a room. "I look behind the painting!" says the PC. I tell them the vault is there.

I mentioned this to a pal and he recalled a 1s Ed game we played in long, long ago where the characters knew there was some sort of secret entrance in a room, they just didn't know where. The room had lots of stuff in it so there were many possibilities. For about 20 minutes the game went like this:

Players: We look here.

DM: Nope.

Players: Ok, we look over here then.

DM: Nope.

Players: Over here?

DM: Nope.

Players: How 'bout here?

DM: Nope.

It went on like that for quite a while. Finally, the DM got frustrated and just told us how to open the secret door. Heh, I'd forgotten about that game.
_________________
::: Shane

::: Rational thought, not superstition

User avatar
Fiffergrund
Lore Drake
Posts: 1118
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Post by Fiffergrund »

shane wrote:
That's not role play. Thats relying on the player's ability instead of the character's ability to determine the outcome of something. Character's have abilities, skills and knowledge we don't. That's why player's make a d20 roll. The player doesn't run down the hall and try to jump 20' feet to see if his character can do it. The player doesn't pull out the boyscout archery set and try to hit a target at 50' to see if his character can do it. The player doesn't try to scale the side of his house to see of the character can do it. No, the player doesn't. The player rolls a d20. Why should searching for hidden items (or bluffing, negotiating, trying to be diplomatic, etc) be any different? The character, especially if they're a rogue, is certainly much, much better at it, has much more experience doing it, and would know how to do it more effectively. So why have a character effectively do the search instead of the character?

That description most certainly IS roleplay. What you're describing is ROLL play, and I think this is a flawed way of looking at it.

C&C is a game. Games have players. If you roll dice for every single thing that a character does, you then have a simulation, not a game. Last I checked, "Spot" and "Search" don't exist in C&C, nor should they. To some degree, the player in a game has to actually *play* the game, and not rely on game mechanics as an excuse to not have to think their way through a game session.

What's wrong with requiring players to do a little thinking or speaking as their character, rather than "pushing buttons" and rolling dice?

Quite frankly, one of the goals of C&C was to get away from this sort of mentality. Yes, there will always be this dichotomy between player ability and character ability, but it's a role-playing game.

A skilled player and referee can play off each other to account for the actual ability scores of on the character sheet. Bonuses or penalties can be applied to certain rolls, for example. The section in the PHB on how to use the SIEGE engine covers this in detail.

Players should at least *try* to roleplay. Roleplaying means, naturally, to step into the role of the character and speak as if the character were speaking. If they make a mess of things, the astute CK should allow a SIEGE check to mitigate the mess, due to the Charisma stat. HOWEVER, the Charisma stat's existance doesn't replace the player's requirement to actually roleplay.

The same principle applies to Intelligence and Wisdom. As CK, I allow checks against those stats if a player is about to make a character do something intensely stupid or unwise. Otherwise, I let them do as they will. Why? Because it's more fun that way, and the game keeps moving rather than getting bogged down with simulation rolls.

It's *really easy* to handle things this way, provided one can get past the damnable Spot/Search mindset. That crap has poisoned the well.
_________________
Sir Fiffergrund, Lord Marshal of the Castle and Crusade Society.

He Who Hides Behind The Elephant's Back
Marshal Fiffergrund, Knight-Errant of the Castle and Crusade Society

User avatar
Fiffergrund
Lore Drake
Posts: 1118
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Post by Fiffergrund »

shane wrote:
I mentioned this to a pal and he recalled a 1s Ed game we played in long, long ago where the characters knew there was some sort of secret entrance in a room, they just didn't know where. The room had lots of stuff in it so there were many possibilities. For about 20 minutes the game went like this:

Players: We look here.

DM: Nope.

Players: Ok, we look over here then.

DM: Nope.

Players: Over here?

DM: Nope.

Players: How 'bout here?

DM: Nope.

It went on like that for quite a while. Finally, the DM got frustrated and just told us how to open the secret door. Heh, I'd forgotten about that game.

Quite frankly, your DM sucked.
_________________
Sir Fiffergrund, Lord Marshal of the Castle and Crusade Society.

He Who Hides Behind The Elephant's Back
Marshal Fiffergrund, Knight-Errant of the Castle and Crusade Society

User avatar
Fiffergrund
Lore Drake
Posts: 1118
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Post by Fiffergrund »

I apologize in advance if I came across as snarky (except for the lousy DM crack - that I meant).

I've had it out about this Spot, Listen and Search stuff more times than I can count, and it frustrates me when people claim it's necessary as part of the game.

Regardless, my attitude was lousy in my reply.
_________________
Sir Fiffergrund, Lord Marshal of the Castle and Crusade Society.

He Who Hides Behind The Elephant's Back
Marshal Fiffergrund, Knight-Errant of the Castle and Crusade Society

serleran
Mogrl
Posts: 14094
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:00 am

Post by serleran »

Fiffergrund wrote:
I apologize in advance if I came across as snarky

Yeah, damnit. Leave that to me.

Post Reply