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

Valdier · Nov 25, 2020

UngeheuerLich said:
You said: "Either this, or just set a high DC 20 or 25 to allow the soul knife to be sure that there is no secret door or trap to find. So a success. Expend the die. I do it for others characters too. A high roll that does nothing seems pointless, so make failure a success."

Ok. That is quite a stupid argument. I can't even imagine how someone as a DM even thinks about such a bs.

Agreed, which is why I said as much, in your initial post, when you suggested it as a way to handle it. It requires you to be a really bad sport as a DM, and I'm glad I don't play a table with a DM that would suggest such an option, like you did, on page 1.

"Just set a DC to find nothing and take their die for finding nothing". Exactly what you suggested.

jgsugden said:
No, it does not tell the DM to tell a player whether it succeeds or not. Read it again. It says you can use the ability when you fail a check, but there are not instructions to tell the player it failed. If it is not obvious, the player may need to guess.

So, just like Shield right? Nowhere does it say the DM MUST tell you, you were hit so you can cast shield, right? The DM should trick their players into using shield even when they were missed?

The ability literally says, "You can use this when you fail". You cannot use it when you succeed, therefore you MUST know you failed to use it. That is literally logic 101. Intellectual honesty here please.

Quartz said:
I'm unfamiliar with the Soulknife but this mechanic is at variance with other die-expenditure mechanics. Lucky? Spend a die regardless of success or failure. Guidance? Spend the die regardless. Battlemaster manoeuvres? Spend the die regardless. Inspiration? Ditto.

Yes, it's at a very different variance. It works like shield basically. After you know the outcome of the attack, you can cast shield. In this case, after you know the outcome of the dice roll (success or failure), you can spend it (and only then despite a few people stating those exact words don't appear - even after copy and pasted from the book).

Rellott said:
You twice clarify in the original post that you’re asking others for their opinion and interpretation, acknowledging that maybe you’re reading the feature wrong. Despite this, you have spent the rest of the thread arguing with people who present a different opinion than yours and explain to you alternate ways of reading the feature.

If you think it’s a problem with the feature, it seems like you’ll have to come up with your own answer, because pretty much everyone else in the thread has had a similar opinion to each other and you refuse to acknowledge that their opinions ... that you asked for ... are valid.

I am asking for opinions based on the rules as written, yes. I am not asking for people to state the rulebook isn't written as it is, or people who have cut sections out of their rulebooks, or people who start with "under my house rules..."

Opinions are fine. If you want to suggest a house rule for how to handle it, I'm all good with that. You can't state "the rules don't say", when they absolutely, 100% clearly state exactly that, with 0 ambiguity. I mean, perhaps the argument is "we shouldn't play by the rules", and that's fine.

Let me re-clarify, "by the rules, as written, without house rules, and without saying 'well I just ignore the rules', how will you work with this power AS WRITTEN which clearly states, the player can only use it when they fail a roll".

I mean one suggestion was "strip them of all their dice for not finding things and call that a success at NOT finding something!"... which... you are saying is a valid method of handling it?

Rellott · Nov 25, 2020

Valdier said:
I am asking for opinions based on the rules as written, yes. I am not asking for people to state the rulebook isn't written as it is, or people who have cut sections out of their rulebooks, or people who start with "under my house rules..."

Opinions are fine. If you want to suggest a house rule for how to handle it, I'm all good with that. You can't state "the rules don't say", when they absolutely, 100% clearly state exactly that, with 0 ambiguity. I mean, perhaps the argument is "we shouldn't play by the rules", and that's fine.

Let me re-clarify, "by the rules, as written, without house rules, and without saying 'well I just ignore the rules', how will you work with this power AS WRITTEN which clearly states, the player can only use it when they fail a roll".

I mean one suggestion was "strip them of all their dice for not finding things and call that a success at NOT finding something!"... which... you are saying is a valid method of handling it?

For someone so hung up on wording and RAW, you toss around quotation marks and ungenerous interpretations of others’ words pretty casually. No one ever said “strip their dice.” That was you that said that when you interpreted their attempt to assist you within your desired parameters after other attempts at logical, RAW and RAI interpretations had been met with scorn.

If you fail an ability check, you can roll a die. Yes. Your focus thus far has been on the DM, though. It doesn’t say “if a player fails an ability check, you can let them roll a die.” It’s about the player and their perception. “I didn’t get the result I wanted, so it must have been a failure. I want to roll the psi-energy die.” They roll the die, DM gives them more information - which could be a description that implies success, and the DM says the die is expended, or it could be telling them that the result doesn’t change and the die is not expended.

Ultimately your argument ties back to an argument about when players should roll dice at all. Should players just declare “I’m investigating the room! Here’s my check result!” Or should the DM only allow them to roll when there is something for them to find? The rules do say “The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure.” Do you follow that rule with such strict logic, too? I’ve seen several threads debating it, but I think most people would agree that only asking them to roll some checks (let’s say investigation checks) when there’s something their roll can do (something for them to find) is silly because it lets them know there’s a chance they can accomplish something, but letting them know that puts the player in the position to metagame. To avoid the whole scenario, it’s probably best to just let them roll the check even if there’s no DC because there’s no way their check can succeed. Doing so keeps everyone immersed in the game, hurts no one’s fun, and wasted no resources other than maybe 2 seconds of the group’s time as the player rolls an extra die that they think might help them regardless of its ability to do so.

Regarding your Shield spell analogy, it’s not the same. Some DMs may state the exact roll the monster made (allowing the player to know exactly whether shield will help) while others may just say it hit, leaving you to decide if it’s worth it. Either way, you lose a resource trying to turn what is obviously a hit into a miss, regardless of your success. With the psi-dice, you have the potential to change the result but do not expend a resource unless you’re successful, so you’re not wasting anything to roll it when there’s no potential for success.

I think a more interesting question about this “fail an ability check, roll the psi-die” rule would be about contested ability checks. If you roll athletics to beat someone in an arm wrestling competition and their roll beats yours, can you roll the psi-die to change the result, since you “failed?” And if you can roll it then, can you also roll it for initiatives if someone else beats yours, since initiative could be argued to be a contested ability check?

Valdier · Nov 25, 2020

So let me make sure I understand correctly. The player, who, can only roll, if they knowingly fail a roll (because that is exactly what it says), doesn't have the right to know, if they fail, even though, it's required for them to use it?

Rellott said:
The rules do say “The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure.” Do you follow that rule with such strict logic, too? I’ve seen several threads debating it, but I think most people would agree that only asking them to roll some checks (let’s say investigation checks) when there’s something their roll can do (something for them to find) is silly because it lets them know there’s a chance they can accomplish something, but letting them know that puts the player in the position to metagame.

That is kinda the entire point of the thread. RAW, the rule gives the power to the pc to metagame in really, no uncertain terms (which I don't like). That is my issue from the start.

Yes I get there are a ton of house rules and just not following the rules to get around it. RAW, it enables metagaming as a game mechanic.

Rellott said:
To avoid the whole scenario, it’s probably best to just let them roll the check even if there’s no DC because there’s no way their check can succeed. Doing so keeps everyone immersed in the game, hurts no one’s fun, and wasted no resources other than maybe 2 seconds of the group’s time as the player rolls an extra die that they think might help them regardless of its ability to do so.

I actually completely agree with you here, and I think this is likely the only option that might work if you play RAW.

Rellott said:
Regarding your Shield spell analogy, it’s not the same. Some DMs may state the exact roll the monster made (allowing the player to know exactly whether shield will help) while others may just say it hit, leaving you to decide if it’s worth it. Either way, you lose a resource trying to turn what is obviously a hit into a miss, regardless of your success. With the psi-dice, you have the potential to change the result but do not expend a resource unless you’re successful, so you’re not wasting anything to roll it when there’s no potential for success.

But it is an accurate analogy because as RAW, you get to know the result of the attack before shield is used. You know if it hit or missed.

In this case, you get to know if you succeeded or failed. That's not ambiguous per the text of the ability.

Rellott said:
I think a more interesting question about this “fail an ability check, roll the psi-die” rule would be about contested ability checks. If you roll athletics to beat someone in an arm wrestling competition and their roll beats yours, can you roll the psi-die to change the result, since you “failed?” And if you can roll it then, can you also roll it for initiatives if someone else beats yours, since initiative could be argued to be a contested ability check?

These are also great questions honestly, although in the case of initiative, I wouldn't say you failed, because there isn't a strict success or failure criteria?

clearstream · Nov 25, 2020

Valdier said:
Valdier said:

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?

Click to expand...

From your examples, the outcomes that are assumed to arise are -

A. Player roll beats DC
B. Player roll does not beat DC (fails)
C. There is no DC

The problem you raise might be restated as - can a player roll beat a DC that does not exist? Suppose I say that the answer is "No": the outcomes become -

A. Player roll beats DC
B. Player roll does not beat DC (fails)
C. There is no DC (any roll fails)

So if there is no secret door to find, there is no DC: any roll fails. Up to the player if they feel it worth throwing in their extra die. You asked in your title "Is it incredibly powerful?" Ruled this way, I would say that it is not. It feels balanced to me. Conversely, if you were to decide to answer "Yes" - you would have the problems you describe and the ability could seem OP. IIRC the extant rules do not resolve this specific question, therefore I can adhere to RAW and still rule the way that causes me the least problems... unless I have a strong motive for being willing to suffer those problems.

As an aside, I would say that a check for which there is no DC does not have an effective DC of 0, it has no DC at all. It is not a number. No numerical result can beat it, ergo any numerical result is not a success and results that are not successes I feel justified in calling failures.

clearstream · Nov 25, 2020

Rellott said:
The rules do say “The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure.”

One can also approach this by defining "failure" as an absence of success; therefore in a case where success isn't possible, a DM may call for an ability check and it will fail. This argument is justified by noticing how the meaning of this rule would change if the word "failure" were replaced with "success".

Paul Farquhar · Nov 25, 2020

Valdier said:
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.

Yes, I read the text. It doesn't say what you think it does. #comprehensionfail

Paul Farquhar · Nov 25, 2020

Valdier said:
So let me make sure I understand correctly. The player, who, can only roll,

No. That is not what it says. The player can roll any time they like. The ability only functions in the the condition is fulfilled. If they roll when the condition is not fulfilled then nothing happens.

It's the same as any time the players try to do something when they don't know if success is possible or not.

Iry · Nov 25, 2020

Valdier said:
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.

I would never handle it that way at my table. I'm just trying to help you understand RAW.
Remember, your concern was both how we (as DMs) would handle this, and/or asking if you were reading it wrong.

Valdier said:
As a DM, how will you handle this?
[...]
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?

Paul Farquhar · Nov 25, 2020

Rellott said:
I think a more interesting question about this “fail an ability check, roll the psi-die” rule would be about contested ability checks. If you roll athletics to beat someone in an arm wrestling competition and their roll beats yours, can you roll the psi-die to change the result, since you “failed?” And if you can roll it then, can you also roll it for initiatives if someone else beats yours, since initiative could be argued to be a contested ability check?

I don't think there is any issue preventing the use of a psi die to change the result of an opposed roll. The question would be if the person you are arm-wrestling against also had that ability and used it against you, so it goes fail->success->fail would your die be consumed?

I would rule that you can't "fail" an initiative roll.

DEFCON 1 · Nov 25, 2020

Trying to find an objective RAW is pointless, because it doesn't exist. Every RAW is going to be ruled through the reading comprehension of the Dungeon Master in question. So using Adventurer's League as your excuse and explanation as to why you NEED to find RAW is also pointless, because the DM you play with at AL is still going to rule things through their prism of what they think the rules mean.

Even if the OP's conclusion on how Knack works was supported by other people (even though its not)... that won't matter in the least. Because you'll go to an AL game, quite possibly find a DM who interprets the rules as the other folks in this thread are doing, and thus all your work to find the "truth" of this rule all falls away. And while you could spend all your time arguing with that DM "Oh no no no, here is what RAW is! This is how the rule is supposed to work!"... the DM will just tell you to get over it. Their table, their rules.

My advice is to not EVER worry about the rules as written. Because all you need is a single DM who doesn't parse generalized, non-specific English language the same way you parse it to throw your precious RAW in the dumpster.