D&D 5E Soulknife Knack problems (Is it incredibly powerful?)

[Swarmkeeper]

So reading through the Soulknife I noticed, the can use this, anytime they fail an ability check. If they succeed they spend the point, if they fail they don't.

As a DM, how will you handle this?

Some examples:
"I search for a secret door" "You don't find anything, but... you know you failed, do you want to spend a die?" (They now know there is a secret door they didn't find)
"I would like to roll insight to see if they are being truthful" "You aren't sure... but you know you failed, spend a die?"
Perception checks (they know something is hidden so now it's time to alert everyone that something is hidden nearby)
Social checks (they immediately know if their deception worked or they are caught), etc...

Does this ability interfere with any mystery since they automatically know if they succeeded or failed in a roll?

How will you handle this and/or am I reading this wrong?

At our table, all the players know whether they succeed or fail at an ability check because I, as DM, tell them the DC and the stakes before they roll - the DC and stakes are based on what they said their PC is trying to accomplish and how they intend to accomplish it. Knack would just allow a Soulknife PC, if they went through with the proposed action and failed the ability check, to possibly turn a near failure into a success.

 

[Dausuul]

That is a way to handle it, except under the ability it specifically says, "you can spend a die when you fail a roll". So... they know when they failed and succeeded?

You are attempting to find a secret door. Success = you find a door. Failure = you don't find a door. There is no case here where you succeed but don't find a door.

So, if you don't find a door, you know that you failed. But you don't know why. Was it because there was a door and you didn't roll well enough to spot it? Or was it because there was no door, and you were doomed to fail before you even picked up a die?

 

[NotAYakk]

You made a roll and failed the check

The DM is never required to tell a player a DC or if they failed a check in 5e.

That rule you quote doesn't say what you think it says.

Your reading of the rule the way you read it leads to a problem. You choose to conclude "my reading is unquestionable, thus the problem is unavoidable".

You are wrong. The way of reading it can be questioned, and thus the problem you describe can be avoided.

The idea that each bit of rules text or english prose only gas one reading is simply wrong. If you believe that you'll suffer.

I am telling you that there isn't a rule in 5e that says "when you fail a check the DM must tell you". There is no way I can wuote a rule that says this, becuase I am claiming it is absent from the 5e rules, and the onky thing I can quote to prove that is the entire 5e ruleset.

Something you can do when you fail a check does not mean the DM has to tell you if you can do it. Really.

Yes, if you assume this also adds a hidden rule that the DM has to tell you if you can use this ability, then your conclusions are valid. But that is making up a hidden rule. More power to you, go ahead, add rules!

The idea that the rules you add are the only possible way to interpret the official rules is your error. And that belief makes you wrong. It is nearly impossoble to write rules that can be interpreted in only one narrow way, and 5e doesn't even try. This is just one of many examples in the 5e rules.

Stop believing that your interpretation is the only valid one.

Your interpretation is a reasonable one, but there are going to be dozens of other ones.

If your interpretation leads to problems with game-play, consider looking for other interpretations.

If you don't look for other interpretations when you notice a problem, then the problem is your problem, not the rules.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That is a way to handle it, except under the ability it specifically says, "you can spend a die when you fail a roll". So... they know when they failed and succeeded?

No, they don't. The ability says nothing about the player receiving any extra knowledge.

As already stated, if you tell a player "you fail to find a secret door" they can choose to roll the dice and try and add it on. This is irrespective of if there is a secret door there or not. Whether you interpret it as a failed roll or a dummy roll is irrelevant, what happens in the game is the same. A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

 

[Horwath]

No, they don't. The ability says nothing about the player receiving any extra knowledge.

As already stated, if you tell a player "you fail to find a secret door" they can choose to roll the dice and try and add it on. This is irrespective of if there is a secret door their or not. Whether you interpret it as a failed roll or a dummy roll is irrelevant, what happens in the game is the same. A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

I would agree with this.

Maybe wording of this ability should have been written that you can only use it on clear and evident failure.

I.E. you leap across a ravine, roll an Athletics for jump and mid-air you see that you are just a bit short to grab onto ledge so you use your kinetic ability to push yourself forward.
Same could be with failure on thief tools, trap springs but you block the mechanism in an instant with your mind and finnish the disable.

maybe I would drop all proficient ability checks and keep just ALL Str and Dex ability checks and saves. might even add attacks to this.
That you use your mind for phisical manipulation only, not mental

 

[Iry]

I get that as an option, but that isn't how it works. If you fail, you can spend a die, you don't declare it ahead of time, anymore than you declare shield ahead of time. You get to know before you try to spend it that you failed RAW.

No, you don't get to know if you failed an ability check. How you square that with your DM will vary. The only advantage you have is that you can apply the knack if you failed, which implies that the DM might narrate what seems to be a failure to you and you may then ask to apply the knack. That's pretty clunky, but that's the best you're going to get RAW.

Now, a DM might tell you that you failed. That's a kindness available to him. He might tell you the DC ahead of time. That's also a kindness. But he doesn't have to. So it behooves you to talk to your DM about how you can cooperate when it comes to this knack, to ensure both parties are having fun..

 

[UngeheuerLich]

DC 25: ascertain that the room is free of mundane traps. If you succeed you know no trapis there. Die expended.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The player can try and use an ability any time they like. They do not need to know if it's conditions are fulfilled. If they try to use an ability and the conditions are not fulfilled the player will be told the ability fails, they won't be told why.

A different example would be a magic item that recharges at dawn. The party are underground and have no way to tell the time. They try to use the magic item and it doesn't work. Is it not dawn yet? Or have they blundered into the lair of a beholder?

 

[Valdier]

No, you don't get to know if you failed an ability check. How you square that with your DM will vary. The only advantage you have is that you can apply the knack if you failed, which implies that the DM might narrate what seems to be a failure to you and you may then ask to apply the knack. That's pretty clunky, but that's the best you're going to get RAW.

Now, a DM might tell you that you failed. That's a kindness available to him. He might tell you the DC ahead of time. That's also a kindness. But he doesn't have to. So it behooves you to talk to your DM about how you can cooperate when it comes to this knack, to ensure both parties are having fun..

That is certainly a house rule your group can play with, but does not pair up with the rules as written. I think it's a good way to handle it at your table though.

My concern though is rules as written, especially for environments like AL.

 

[Valdier]

The player can try and use an ability any time they like. They do not need to know if it's conditions are fulfilled. If they try to use an ability and the conditions are not fulfilled the player will be told the ability fails, they won't be told why.

A different example would be a magic item that recharges at dawn. The party are underground and have no way to tell the time. They try to use the magic item and it doesn't work. Is it not dawn yet? Or have they blundered into the lair of a beholder?

That isn't even "kinda" correct. It's in black and white when the condition can trigger. I copied the relevant text directly from the book above.