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

[Shiroiken]

Trying to find an objective RAW is pointless

throw your precious RAW in the dumpster.

Both of these summarize my opinion nicely. RAW is only useful for rules lawyers seeking an edge, which can include DMs. In the case of Organized Play (currently AL), either the DM will make a call at the table or the organizer already has a listing of specifics, such as Sage Advice.

This is antithetical to the 5e rules around ability checks. If something is impossible, there is no roll. The stated action just fails, Knack or not. (PHB p174 and DMG p237)

An alternative option, which I lost from an earlier draft, is a certainty check. The character makes the check to be absolutely certain there isn't a trap/door/creature. It's not a very useful check for the characters, but it's legitimate under RAW while keeping the players uncertain unless they succeed on that check. As using a resource on this kind of check feels bad for the player, I'm loathe to use it, but it's RAW as opposed to my earlier option (which the player would likely prefer).

If the players see their roll (some DMs choose to keep it secret) and know they rolled high, they may have a good idea that there are no traps, but they do not know for certain.

Last week, our rogue rolled a 16 when checking for traps. Knowing that most traps are DC 15, he strode confidently forward. This, particularly well concealed trap, happened to be DC 20...

And:

To give an example of what I'm talking about, you telegraph a trap several rooms before the trap itself. The players declare they are searching the room, you tell them there is no trap. They declare they are searching the next room, you tell them there is no trap, they declare they are searching the next room... you tell them to roll.

Immediately, before they even pick up the dice, they know the trap is in this room. If they fail, and you tell them they don't find any traps, they know the trap is in the room.

This is why DMs should use Passive checks more often. When the party is moving down the hallway in a dungeon, I make rolls against their passive perception by traps, secret doors, hidden monsters, etc. This prevents the players from being aware, especially before it's too late in the case of traps and monsters. Only if a player specifically mentions a location they want to check do I call for an active roll.

Since I'm bringing it up, and usually people ask why I'm rolling on Passive checks, there are no actual rules in the PHB and DMG about how to use Passive skills, except in the use of Hiding. The default assumption is that the passive is the lowest you can get (a carryover from 4E considered "official" by Crawford), which is why no one likes to use it. It creates a static number check, with either an automatic pass or fail, which is boring and stupid. Mearls once suggested that the things opposing the Passive score should roll instead, just like attempting to Hide. This keeps the players from meta-gaming the results.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Would you say that the DM may call for an ability check any time, and ought to - by the rules - usually call for one when an action has a chance of failure.

Yes.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I think the issue here is that you need to move the common failure state of "don't know there is a trap" and get rid of it, under this sort of system.

I feel that "don't know there is a trap" is not a very interesting failure state all by itself. One might argue that "don't know there is a trap" is the baseline state for the adventurers before they even do anything. A stated action and goal might or might not reveal a trap, but I like to avoid the "nothing happens" result of a failed roll in our games.

To give an example of what I'm talking about, you telegraph a trap several rooms before the trap itself. The players declare they are searching the room, you tell them there is no trap. They declare they are searching the next room, you tell them there is no trap, they declare they are searching the next room... you tell them to roll.

Immediately, before they even pick up the dice, they know the trap is in this room. If they fail, and you tell them they don't find any traps, they know the trap is in the room.

Now, you can offer alternate failure conditions, but this is highlighting the situation that other DMs often face. They don't want to just declare success, and therefore make uncertainty a signal that something is wrong. So, they allow additional rolls. And sometimes, when they do so, I give them other details because they are searching the room.

Examples are tricky. I don't think anyone here, regardless of playstyle, is spending precious game time on several mundane rooms in a row with no other pressures.

That aside, phantom rolls are not something our table is interested in. If there is no meaningful consequence of failure for a stated action, the capable PCs succeed without a roll and we move on to the more exciting parts of the adventure.

If there is some other detail about the room that is important, I'd do my best to hit on that when I describe the environment. I'm curious what "other details" you as DM provide in your games when someone succeeds on their roll for a "search for traps" action when there are no traps? And what happens if that roll fails at your table?

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Since I'm bringing it up, and usually people ask why I'm rolling on Passive checks, there are no actual rules in the PHB and DMG about how to use Passive skills, except in the use of Hiding. The default assumption is that the passive is the lowest you can get (a carryover from 4E considered "official" by Crawford), which is why no one likes to use it. It creates a static number check, with either an automatic pass or fail, which is boring and stupid. Mearls once suggested that the things opposing the Passive score should roll instead, just like attempting to Hide. This keeps the players from meta-gaming the results.

I agree: If you want to keep something secret, use passives.

If a character declares they are the one searching for traps, I try not to make them roll in every room, I just assume that they are the one searching and I use their passive Investigation to locate traps on the way. The rest of the group doesn't get a check and I assume they automatically trigger any trap they walk into unless they specifically declare they are searching a specific area. Then I let them roll.

I kind of like the idea of having traps roll against a passive check...neat.

In any case, this kind of adjudication will prevent anyone with psi Knack(or whatever it's called)from getting to add their dice since they aren't rolling. shrug I'm not sure if that's an issue or not. I think it would be an easy fix to to say, "Hey, you trigger a trap. Do you want to use your psi dice to see if you can boost your passive perception enough to spot it before you trigger it?"

In that case, since there is an evident consequence for failure, it's fine to tell the player.

If it's a secret door, on the other hand, you can't use that method without alerting to the player the presence of a secret door. I'm not sure what the solution would be there. As I said, I play a rogue with the psychic knack ability. It's never been an issue.

I make a roll and, if I want make sure I succeed, I roll my knack die and the DM describes the outcome. Later on, he lets me know if I spent the dice.

 

[Shiroiken]

If it's a secret door, on the other hand, you can't use that method without alerting to the player the presence of a secret door. I'm not sure what the solution would be there.

If you wanted to give them a chance to use it, the easiest solution would be to subtract the die from the check. If the die makes a difference, tell the player they sense something is amiss, and that they failed a [ability; not skill) check. Let them decide if they want to use it or not, and if they do, they get the beneficial result at the cost of the resource. Since they don't know what the check was for, only the ability involved, they can only guess what it was for if they don't spend the resource. I'm guessing most of the time the player will spend the resource, assuming it was important.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Both of these summarize my opinion nicely. RAW is only useful for rules lawyers seeking an edge, which can include DMs. In the case of Organized Play (currently AL), either the DM will make a call at the table or the organizer already has a listing of specifics, such as Sage Advice.

I think a lot of people follow RAW to maintain structure to their games. Dubbing someone a "rules lawyer" just because they try to follow RAW as best as possible is... not an accurate use of the term.

An alternative option, which I lost from an earlier draft, is a certainty check. The character makes the check to be absolutely certain there isn't a trap/door/creature. It's not a very useful check for the characters, but it's legitimate under RAW while keeping the players uncertain unless they succeed on that check. As using a resource on this kind of check feels bad for the player, I'm loathe to use it, but it's RAW as opposed to my earlier option (which the player would likely prefer).

We need something more exciting than "you still don't know" to be the result of a failed check at our table.

And:

This is why DMs should use Passive checks more often. When the party is moving down the hallway in a dungeon, I make rolls against their passive perception by traps, secret doors, hidden monsters, etc. This prevents the players from being aware, especially before it's too late in the case of traps and monsters. Only if a player specifically mentions a location they want to check do I call for an active roll.

Since I'm bringing it up, and usually people ask why I'm rolling on Passive checks, there are no actual rules in the PHB and DMG about how to use Passive skills, except in the use of Hiding. The default assumption is that the passive is the lowest you can get (a carryover from 4E considered "official" by Crawford), which is why no one likes to use it. It creates a static number check, with either an automatic pass or fail, which is boring and stupid. Mearls once suggested that the things opposing the Passive score should roll instead, just like attempting to Hide. This keeps the players from meta-gaming the results.

Yeah, Passive checks actually seem kludgey to me except for the case of trying to determine surprise at the outset of a combat with an opposed Dexterity (Stealth) roll for the monsters against the Passive Wisdom (Perception) scores of the PCs (or vice versa).

As a DM, I can always know the passive Wisdom (Perception) score of the PCs. I can then set my secret door discovery DC above the party's highest score if I don't want them to find it or below that if I do or right at it if I want that player to feel special. Neither the secret door nor the trap get rolls (unless, perhaps, the secret door is also a mimic...) These checks seem very gamey and predetermined to me. Maybe I'm thinking about Passive checks the wrong way - I'm open to hearing more about your take on them.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

As a DM, I can always know the passive Wisdom (Perception) score of the PCs. I can then set my secret door discovery DC above the party's highest score if I don't want them to find it or below that if I do or right at it if I want that player to feel special. Neither the secret door nor the trap get rolls (unless, perhaps, the secret door is also a mimic...) These checks seem very gamey and predetermined to me. Maybe I'm thinking about Passive checks the wrong way - I'm open to hearing more about your take on them.

I don't use them in that way. I just make the DCs of stuff based on how I think it would be in-world. PCs either discover stuff or they don't. If they are being creative about how they search, I give them the +5 for advantage. I'm especially picky about giving -5 for poor lighting and, as a result, the group uses lights, even though they might all have darkvision.

I find it the most useful in dungeons - especially with online gaming - because I find dungeon exploration can be really clunky. Everyone tells me their rolls (Who is searching traps, who is looking out for danger etc..) and that is what I compare my rolls to. I can just describe the dungeon and tell them what they see without having to stop the narration every two minutes to interrupt it with a roll. And for online gaming, like roll20, people don't have to worry about where they're moving their characters. They say, I search down the hallway. I describe what they see and then they all move their token to the end of the hallway...instead of the annoying moving 5 feet squares and telling me, "I search this square." then, "I search this corner."

So, yeah. It moves the game faster, makes it smoother and lets us concentrate on more interesting things.

I also use it for insight checks because that's always difficult to adjudicate.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Double-post: mostly unrelated to anything - Also, what I've started doing for 'Investigation' checks. If I know where something is hidden (Like, a published adventure says there's some gold under the bed or in some blankets), and a player specifically says, "I look under the bed." I ignore whatever the Ability DC is and just tell them they found something without the roll. I like the immersion and flavour it provides when a player says, "I check under the cot" vs "I search the room".

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I don't use them in that way. I just make the DCs of stuff based on how I think it would be in-world. PCs either discover stuff or they don't. If they are being creative about how they search, I give them the +5 for advantage. I'm especially picky about giving -5 for poor lighting and, as a result, the group uses lights, even though they might all have darkvision.

So it sounds like you have made the active searching take on the passive score... is that right?

I find it the most useful in dungeons - especially with online gaming - because I find dungeon exploration can be really clunky. Everyone tells me their rolls (Who is searching traps, who is looking out for danger etc..) and that is what I compare my rolls to. I can just describe the dungeon and tell them what they see without having to stop the narration every two minutes to interrupt it with a roll. And for online gaming, like roll20, people don't have to worry about where they're moving their characters. They say, I search down the hallway. I describe what they see and then they all move their token to the end of the hallway...instead of the annoying moving 5 feet squares and telling me, "I search this square." then, "I search this corner."

So, yeah. It moves the game faster, makes it smoother and lets us concentrate on more interesting things.

Cool - I'm a fan of anything that moves the game action quickly and smoothly on to more interesting things.

I also use it for insight checks because that's always difficult to adjudicate.

Say more on this... whose insight? Is something being rolled against it?

 

[Shiroiken]

I think a lot of people follow RAW to maintain structure to their games. Dubbing someone a "rules lawyer" just because they try to follow RAW as best as possible is... not an accurate use of the term.

To-may-to, To-mah-to. 5E really isn't useful with RAW, since it's designed to be based on DM ruling. Because of this, the only people I've found that focus heavily on RAW are those who want to find an exploit to argue. YMMV.

We need something more exciting than "you still don't know" to be the result of a failed check at our table.

If you read my statement, it's not "you still don't know" it's "you're positive there is no [X]." I'm not a fan of it, but it solves the issue presented while using RAW.

Yeah, Passive checks actually seem kludgey to me except for the case of trying to determine surprise at the outset of a combat with an opposed Dexterity (Stealth) roll for the monsters against the Passive Wisdom (Perception) scores of the PCs (or vice versa).

As a DM, I can always know the passive Wisdom (Perception) score of the PCs. I can then set my secret door discovery DC above the party's highest score if I don't want them to find it or below that if I do or right at it if I want that player to feel special. Neither the secret door nor the trap get rolls (unless, perhaps, the secret door is also a mimic...) These checks seem very gamey and predetermined to me. Maybe I'm thinking about Passive checks the wrong way - I'm open to hearing more about your take on them.

Mathematically, if you take the DC the PC would roll against and subtract 12 to create the modifier, the odds are the same if the roll is made against the passive score. If the PC has a +5 Wis/Perception, they'd succeed on a 10 DC 80% of the time (roll of 5+). Their Passive Perception would be a 15, which sets the DC for the trap/door/whatever. The DC: 10 would have a -2 modifier that would succeed against the 15 Passive DC only 20% of the time (roll of 17+), which is the percentage the PC would fail.