Minor question: Why do we need both Spot and Search?

One of the awesome things about skills now is that they can be modified by whatever ability score is more appropriate to the situation. That being the case, why do we need both Search and Spot as skills? I get that there's probably some subtle, pedantic little difference, but isn't the main difference just that one uses INT and the other WIS? What really separates a WIS check using Search from a WIS check using Spot or an INT check using Search from an INT check using Spot? I'm just not seeing the point in having both skills anymore.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Indeed, I don't see why they need to be called out as different things.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
+1.
yeah, probably unnecessary. What would you call the check? Perception could do it but it sounds a bit vague.
If one were passive and the other one active, then I could see the need for them to be seperate. Please oh please dont let this thread turn in to another "Use Rope" argument.
Because 5E is 3.5E redux.
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
Sight, spot, perception, or something like that would work I think...
+1 as well.

It might make more sense if Search was the "tacticle sense" skill, and was tied explicitly to the act of physically searching and touching things.  I mean, that sounds like a terrible waste of a skill, but wouldn't actually be out of line with many of the other skills on the list.

And it would beg the question of "Why don't we have a Taste skill?" - especially since even that wouldn't be too out of line with many other skills on the list when it comes to usefullness or "adventuring usefullness".
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
I'm not convinced all skills need to be balanced, though.  There can, in fact I believe there should, be the option to choose what CharOp might consider to be 'crap' skills that make sense for your character.  Juggling, to use an example.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Indeed, I don't see why they need to be called out as different things.

I kinda do, surprisingly (to me). I've been pretty avid in the past about reducing the overall skill list, but I can see why they would/should be separate. Yes, there could be a single "Awareness/Perception" skill, but then pretty much everyone and their brother would take it. Perception in 4e was problematic for the same reason, it was TOO good. Both spot and search are high-value skills, and I'm sure most rogues would take them as "gotta-haves". Other classes might only focus on the near or far, and not both.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
I think the difference is one is your ability to notice something you aren't looking for (spot). Searching is when you are actively trying to find something.

There is a secret door.

You walk into the room, you notice that there is an oddly straight crack in the stone wall (spot).
You walk into a room. You start tapping on the walls and pressing random stones to see if a door opens (search).

There is an ambush.

You are walking through the woods, you may notice the sunlight reflect off of a shoulder plate of an ambushers armor (spot).
You have reports of ambushers in the area, you are looking for footprints, likely ambush points, and other clues to figure out where they are before they get the jump on you (search).
I think the difference is one is your ability to notice something you aren't looking for (spot). Searching is when you are actively trying to find something.

Then what's an INT check using Spot if not actively trying to spot something or a WIS check using Search if not passively noticing something? Also, aren't there (and haven't there traditionally) been rules for actively using the Spot skill to actively look for things like in combat?

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!

Mithrus hit on what's bugging me about unifying them, actually.


Like, I think the diversification is good but perception in 4e is insanely good. Splitting them up keeps a person from always grabbing that skill if they can at all help it.


I dunno, I guess I'm on the fence.

Yeah, I'm with mithrus.  The big thing is that they're two of the most useful skills in the game, and combining them into one skill just pushes them further off the bell curve.  Sure, there's not really much reason to have an INT based spot check, but then there's not much reason to have an STR based stealth check either.  Just because we're not locking skills to abilities as a rule doesn't mean every skill needs to be useful with every ability, or even with more than one ability.  Just means that, if you come up with a sitution where it makes more sense to use a different ability, you don't have to "break the rules" to use it.
The big thing is that they're two of the most useful skills in the game, and combining them into one skill just pushes them further off the bell curve. Sure, there's not really much reason to have an INT based spot check...

I think that the problem, though, is that Search is the only reason not to make an INT check using Spot for the exact same purpose. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear initially, but the problem as I see it isn't so much that the capabilities of the skills are split but rather that the capabilities of the skills are redundant with one another. Why would I ever want to be trained in both when I could just take Spot and do the exact same thing that Search already does when I make an INT check with Spot? Or why would I ever want to be trained in both when I could just take Search and do the exact same thing that Spot already does when I make an WIS check with Search? The the problem in question for some people is this skill being too useful, then all that this split does is make two skills that are too useful, of which you only really need one anyway to do what both do. As long as an INT Spot check or a WIS Search check are allowable, the skills already do the exact same thing.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
The big thing is that they're two of the most useful skills in the game, and combining them into one skill just pushes them further off the bell curve. Sure, there's not really much reason to have an INT based spot check...

I think that the problem, though, is that Search is the only reason not to make an INT check using Spot for the exact same purpose. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear initially, but the problem as I see it isn't so much that the capabilities of the skills are split but rather that the capabilities of the skills are redundant with one another. Why would I ever want to be trained in both when I could just take Spot and do the exact same thing that Search already does when I make an INT check with Spot? Or why would I ever want to be trained in both when I could just take Search and do the exact same thing that Spot already does when I make an WIS check with Search? The the problem in question for some people is this skill being too useful, then all that this split does is make two skills that are too useful, of which you only really need one anyway to do what both do. As long as an INT Spot check or a WIS Search check are allowable, the skills already do the exact same thing.




The difference here for me, is if you don't have search, and you tell me you are going to tap the walls and try to look for the secret door, I'm going to tell you to make a int check, and skill dice would not apply.

If you have search, and not spot, and I feel you have a chance of noticing something, I'd ask you to make a wisdom check, skill dice would not apply.
The difference here for me, is if you don't have search, and you tell me you are going to tap the walls and try to look for the secret door, I'm going to tell you to make a int check, and skill dice would not apply.
If you have search, and not spot, and I feel you have a chance of noticing something, I'd ask you to make a wisdom check, skill dice would not apply.

I guess that's just going to lead to differences in DM allowances with that. Right now, I see absolutely no good reason not to tell my players that Search and Spot do the same thing anyway so they can just add either when I ask for an INT check to look for something or a WIS check to notice something.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
it's true that diversifying the applicable stats does weaken the skills, generally. Perception in particular.
The difference here for me, is if you don't have search, and you tell me you are going to tap the walls and try to look for the secret door, I'm going to tell you to make a int check, and skill dice would not apply.
If you have search, and not spot, and I feel you have a chance of noticing something, I'd ask you to make a wisdom check, skill dice would not apply.

I guess that's just going to lead to differences in DM allowances with that. Right now, I see absolutely no good reason not to tell my players that Search and Spot do the same thing anyway so they can just add either when I ask for an INT check to look for something or a WIS check to notice something.



The how to play guide describes one as passive and one as active. So if your players actively tell you they are searching, then they get to add the search dice. If they don't tell you, then they get to add the spot dice. That's the real difference...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
The how to play guide describes one as passive and one as active. So if your players actively tell you they are searching, then they get to add the search dice. If they don't tell you, then they get to add the spot dice. That's the real difference...

I think of them in terms of relative distance, where Search is noticing something nearby, while Spot is noticing something in the distance. Either can be active or passive, IMO.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
The how to play guide describes one as passive and one as active. So if your players actively tell you they are searching, then they get to add the search dice. If they don't tell you, then they get to add the spot dice. That's the real difference...

I think of them in terms of relative distance, where Search is noticing something nearby, while Spot is noticing something in the distance. Either can be active or passive, IMO.




Your personal house rules don't interest me. I'm going by what is literally printed in the packet...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I am kinda crap at spotting things at a distance.  I am almost supernaturally good at finding things.  searching does not just mean the ability to see things searching also means the ability to know where things would have been put.
While I'm not sure I like Spot and Search being seperate skills, it finally made sense to me why they were different skills when I realized that Search was half of the AD&D Rogue's Thief's Find and Remove Traps.
While we don't need both, they exist because R&D wanted to narrow down skills and have more of them used in different circumstances. 

You wouldn't grant a Search skill bonus to a creature's Wisdom check to see if it see something concealed when entering into a room for exemple, while Spot could apply.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

While we don't need both, they exist because R&D wanted to narrow down skills and have more of them used in different circumstances. 

You wouldn't grant a Search skill bonus to a creature's Wisdom check to see if it see something concealed when entering into a room for exemple, while Spot could apply.




however if you are rummaging through a desk or a book shelf, or just a cluttered room in general, trying to find something that was hidden there a search check would apply.
So, how would it work then?

Spot is just noticing stuff? Search is only used actively after Spot fails, and also when something can't reasonably be seen or detected without opening things up or rifling the contents of an area? Like maybe you can't Spot a concealed door because it is covered up by a wall hanging, but if you used Search you could find it? 

I think they need very clear definitions for these skills to avoid confusion. 
So, how would it work then?

Spot is just noticing stuff? Search is only used actively after Spot fails, and also when something can't reasonably be seen or detected without opening things up or rifling the contents of an area? Like maybe you can't Spot a concealed door because it is covered up by a wall hanging, but if you used Search you could find it? 

I think they need very clear definitions for these skills to avoid confusion. 

It seems that Spot is the passive check, while Search is the active check.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
So, how would it work then?

Spot is just noticing stuff? Search is only used actively after Spot fails, and also when something can't reasonably be seen or detected without opening things up or rifling the contents of an area? Like maybe you can't Spot a concealed door because it is covered up by a wall hanging, but if you used Search you could find it? 

I think they need very clear definitions for these skills to avoid confusion. 

It seems that Spot is the passive check, while Search is the active check.



I prefer this distinction as well.
It seems that Spot is the passive check, while Search is the active check.

How do we reconcile that with past and present active use of Spot? For example, in 3.5, Spot was used both passively and actively (as a move action).

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
It seems that Spot is the passive check, while Search is the active check.

How do we reconcile that with past and present active use of Spot? For example, in 3.5, Spot was used both passively and actively (as a move action).

Oh, I agree that the definitions aren't the way they need to be. As I mentioned earlier, I feel it would make far more sense to base them on relative distance, and keep both as usable actively or passively.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
It seems that Spot is the passive check, while Search is the active check.

How do we reconcile that with past and present active use of Spot? For example, in 3.5, Spot was used both passively and actively (as a move action).

We don't.  Next is new.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
It seems that Spot is the passive check, while Search is the active check.

How do we reconcile that with past and present active use of Spot? For example, in 3.5, Spot was used both passively and actively (as a move action).

We don't.  Next is new.

I also said present. The Next rules seem to allow Spot to be used actively as well. I just called out 3.5 because, IMO, it was much clearer and better defined then due to the association of skills with ability scores.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
One of the awesome things about skills now is that they can be modified by whatever ability score is more appropriate to the situation. That being the case, why do we need both Search and Spot as skills? I get that there's probably some subtle, pedantic little difference, but isn't the main difference just that one uses INT and the other WIS? What really separates a WIS check using Search from a WIS check using Spot or an INT check using Search from an INT check using Spot? I'm just not seeing the point in having both skills anymore.



It's not subtle or pedantic.  It's blatant and obvious.  The ability to notice things that are out in the open is very different from the ability to search well for hidden things.  There is a lot more to the technique of searching than the ability to see.
It seems that Spot is the passive check, while Search is the active check.

How do we reconcile that with past and present active use of Spot? For example, in 3.5, Spot was used both passively and actively (as a move action).

We don't.  Next is new.

I also said present.

So?  They change things in the present all the time.

D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
+1 as well.

It might make more sense if Search was the "tacticle sense" skill, and was tied explicitly to the act of physically searching and touching things.  I mean, that sounds like a terrible waste of a skill, but wouldn't actually be out of line with many of the other skills on the list.



Search is mostly a knowledge skill.  You have to learn the techniques and be able to use them effectively.  That requires intelligence.  So while the ability to see is a significant part of the skill, there is a low more to it than that. 


So? They change things in the present all the time.

Well, yeah, that's why I have the thread and am asking for opinions about whether they should change it.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
+1 as well.

It might make more sense if Search was the "tacticle sense" skill, and was tied explicitly to the act of physically searching and touching things.  I mean, that sounds like a terrible waste of a skill, but wouldn't actually be out of line with many of the other skills on the list.



Search is mostly a knowledge skill.  You have to learn the techniques and be able to use them effectively.  That requires intelligence.  So while the ability to see is a significant part of the skill, there is a low more to it than that. 



Except you're not required to use Int for a Search check.

D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
So? They change things in the present all the time.

Well, yeah, that's why I have the thread and am asking for options about whether they should change it.

Then why ask how we reconcile with the present?  "We don't" applies once more.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Then why ask how we reconcile with the present?

Mostly because I'd like to know if there are definitions that we could reconsile with past use, though I see I was unclear about that. I know that we don't need to, but it'd be nice if we could. You know, to shut the grognards up about it. ;)

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Because awareness and active investigation are two completely different skill sets. Spot tends to be reactionary, search tends to be voluntary. Really, that is enough to seperate the two. But when you get down to it, people trained to be aware do not necesarrily have good investigation skills. Search is more than just looking something over, it represents the player knowing where to look as well.
My two copper.
I'd wonder why we have to care what past or present have done.  If we find something good that accomplishes the goals, we should use it, regardless of where it comes from.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition