[Skill] Search

[Selveem]

Currently, search can be hindered by heavy armor.

I'm not really understanding how looking around would be hindered by wearing heavy armor.

Discuss?

[Raona]

I'm looking for a hidden key in an abandoned room. I need to look at the underside of the table, bend over to pick up the rug, pull myself up to see the top of the mantle...Yes, doing things like looking behind the books in the bookcase isn't going to be hindered by heavy armour, but most searching is. (Actually, gauntlets would certainly make handling the books an additional challenge, too.)

[Isaldur]

I'm looking for a hidden key in an abandoned room. I need to look at the underside of the table, bend over to pick up the rug, pull myself up to see the top of the mantle...Yes, doing things like looking behind the books in the bookcase isn't going to be hindered by heavy armour, but most searching is. (Actually, gauntlets would certainly make handling the books an additional challenge, too.)

I think the two questions that come out of this are..

A) Has anyone ever actually worn a medieval harness before?

B) What exact actions does one truly do when "Searching"?

My input..

A) The parts of the gauntlet are leather, and it is backed with steel covering. If you can manipulate an item wearing leather gloves, you can manipulate it wearing full platemail gauntlets.

B) Looking at something. Lifting something. dragging/pushing something....

So how does wearing a full medieval harness hinder you from looking, lifting, or dragging/pushing something?

[Harroghty]

Complete field armor from the 15th and 16th century weighs about 60 pounds, give or take a few pounds. (I am using the Scott Collection, Wallace Collection, and the collection at Schloss Churburg in Tyrol as evidence. Harnesses in those collections are between 41 pounds 13 1/2 ounces (c.1525) and 71 pounds 4 ounces (c.1590). The majority are around sixty pounds.) A helmet adds a few pounds, maybe seven for a war helmet, and if your searcher is wearing mail then its maybe thirty pounds. So, total, you are looking at seventy or forty pounds, depending on the style of armor.

Why all that? The armor that I wore searching houses in Iraq weighed about eighty pounds (minus helmet). Sometimes you took your helmet and glasses off (if the threat seemed to warrant that) so that you could see better but gloves and body armor stayed on. The Marine Corps site exploitation program (SE, previously SSE) doesn't advise taking anything off at all. The point is that people wearing heavier armor, more awkward armor (modern armor isn't tailored to your every measurement like medieval armor was), and searching in similar scenarios (hidden compartments, trapdoors, looking for booby-traps) are having success daily. Why should medieval-style heavy armor limit searching in this game?

[Horace]

Armor Check Penalty

Any armor heavier than leather hurts a character’s ability to use some skills. An armor check penalty number is the penalty that applies to Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Hide, Jump, Move Silently, Sleight of Hand, and Tumble checks by a character wearing a certain kind of armor. Double the normal armor check penalty is applied to Swim checks. A character’s encumbrance (the amount of gear carried, including armor) may also apply an armor check penalty.

-------------

It shouldn't apply to search...not that it matters much, but seems like a simple fix.

[Erwyth]

I always thought of the 'search' skill as noticing subtle differences in your enviornment. The differences in grains of wood for a secret panel, a slight draft coming from, seemingly, nowhere, the extremely tiny hole, which appears to be a knot; in the wood, of a treasure chest... In PnP version, I believe the skill 'search' is pretty close to this...

But, in FK I don't see why the search skill should be hindered by heavy armour. Especially if you note his post on armour check.

So, IMO, search needs to be removed from specific classes or armour checks should be removed.

[Selveem]

So, IMO, search needs to be removed from specific classes or armour checks should be removed.

I'd suggest the latter. Search is a requirement for many, many quests. Taking it away from classes would be a very bad thing because only the person on the quest can attempt the search for the quest to proceed.

[Tavik]

I'd favor removing the armor checks as well. While it does make sense that armor should play a factor into searching, it really just ends up being more of a hindrance than anything that adds to immersion or RP. What you are ending up with right now are people simply removing their armor, searching, and putting it right back on. So long as search is still dependent on skill level, I don't think it hurts anything at all by removing the armor check. In short, this is one of those occasions where I think player convenience outweighs the tiny RP potential (if it even exsists here).

[Alvirin]

Search skill is ruled by INT so it means that dexterity and so heavy armor shouldn't affect it but since not only the classes that are meant to have it (Thieves, Rangers) have it, but all of them, being hindered because using heavy armor is still in my eyes a very good trade-off. (Specially since the clases meant to have to skill will not affected by it)

[Selveem]

The skill is _needed_ for all classes the way quests are coded. Having a rogue with you will _not_ help _you._

That being said, I don't feel it's a very good trade-off. All it causes is more spam and less PC interaction while you spam it.

[Saranya]

Sorry, but it's a no-brainer to me that a search could be performed faster with far less effort by someone in plain clothes than a paladin in full plate. I also have had the RL experience of searching unfriendly locations wearing full field armour...Though the task must be done thoroughly in any case, it would be hella faster and easier if you weren't wrapped in a 30 kg kit! (Mind you, I'm not saying that everything in the game has to coorespond to RL, but come on folks! )

Additionally, a skill may be coded primarily to two attributes (eg. int, lck) for code and other reasons, but that does not mean other game aspects do not have an impact. Gamewise, there should be a trade-off for those who wander around in the safety of complete armour. (Sweating and knocking things off tables at the very least!)

[Horace]

(Mind you, I'm not saying that everything in the game has to coorespond to RL, but come on folks! )

It doesn't need to correspond to real life, but it should correspond to the core dungeons and dragons rules when possible.

Armor check penalty does not affect search. I don't understand why there's all these points being made. It's black and white in the open source.

[Erwyth]

My next statement applies to other skills besides search:

I have been told that the "armour check penalty" is being looked into. When you wear light, light studded, newbie gear in the temple; which is light, you receive checks when hiding, sneaking, peeking, stealing, etc.

So I am fairly certain that IMMs are knowledgeable about the skill checks against certain skills. I doubt that an armour check penalty was intended for the skill search, since it uses int and luck. Little input from someone with more knowledge?