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

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

I think, if you are still the last after spending the resource, you can decide to keep it as a success (in the case that there is someone you did not perceive) or put it back into your pocket. That might not be rule as written, but the best I can do to be fair.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So, thinking about this from a different angle.

To speed up gameplay, people tend to roll sets of dice, even when they are not necessary. Or, I have actually seen this repeatedly, a player will tell the DM "I cast shield as my reaction if any of those attacks hit". So, what happens if the Rogue Player decides, for speed purposes, to always roll their knack die at the same time they roll the d20?

(Note: I'm not saying this is RAW, this is for illustrative purposes, I am not declaring this RAW)

A) The result of the d20 alone is enough to succeed
B) The result of the d20 plus the Knack die still fails
C) The Result of the d20 fails but adding the Knack die it succeeds


Now, under B there is no question. The die is not expended.
Under C? Still no question, the die is expended because it turned a failure into a success.

So A is a question? I don't think so. Under A the knack die was not a "legal roll", and since they could not roll it, they could not use the ability. They rolled the physical die for convenience, in case they wanted to activate the ability, to to actually activate it. So the die is not expended.


So, with that framing, under the idea that in that situation I would just dismiss the die as being rolled for speed of play and not for actually utilizing the ability, then I am perfectly fine letting the roll the die to try and succeed at an impossible task. Because, the issue of metagaming is knowing whether or not they failed where the failure state is them not knowing if they failed. I can let them spend the die either way, and the end result is the same.

It is a bit of theater. Like a DM rolling a handful of d20s for no real reason while the players are arguing, but the players think something is going on, and it puts them on a track to speed things up.

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

Now. I think there is actually a more interesting question with this Knack die that I'm not sure how to rule on.

When we do stealth, we often have the player roll first, then roll to see if any guards notice them, in essentially a multiple contested check (this isn't always, but it does happen). Now... do you let the player roll their knack before the perceptions if they rolled poorly? If they rolled well enough to beat some of the enemies with the knack die, but not all of them do they expend the die? They failed overall, so my gut says no.

Or, here is an even trickier question. Xanathar's allows you to use thieves tools to make a trap, the trap's DC is equal to your roll. Do you allow the knack die to be added to it? You have no idea if your result "succeeded or failed" because it is a future opposed check, it could be a week from now that someone stumbles upon it.

I think I would allow them to spend it, and expend the die, because they are setting a higher DC, but it is a tricky little scenario per RAW.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Why are you having players roll for things that are secret? Like, if the NPC is lying, do you not roll deception against passive insight?

If there is a hidden door, do you not compare the difficulty to their passive investigation? This is exactly the reason why Passive Perception is in the game.

I have a character with this ability. I use it when I make athletics rolls, stealth rolls vs a guard's Passive perception etc... things that the success or failure is obvious.

And perception doesn't always have to be secret.

PC: "I search the room"
DM: "There's a weird breeze coming into the room."
PC: "there must be a secret door"
DM: "You didn't see one (DC is higher than your PP), you can make a perception check to find it"
(PC fails) - DM: "You didn't find the secret door, do you want to use a dice or do you want to take more time?"

In this situation, the player will know there's a secret door because of the clue but will need to spend resources (time and dice) to find it. Failure/success is obvious.

For a perception check vs an ambush, it'll be pretty obvious that you failed so, if you aren't using PP, then it'll be obvious that you failed the check as soon as they spring the ambush. I'd just tell them: 'there's an ambush and you failed, do you want to use one of your dice?"

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

We had such a thread, where someone proposed just to use eldritch blast (which only works on creatures) to blast every thing in a room, just to make sure it is no mimic, or something alike. Exactly the same.

Every good Diviner has such tricks up their sleeves :

-Evocation as Divination (using creature target only spells to suss out an item is a creature)
The trickiest is Abjuration as Divination

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Triple Post:

For the record, when someone says, "I INSIGHT THEM" or "I'm looking out for tells to see if they are lying"

And you have them roll insight, does the person they are using the skill against need to be lying in order to succeed or fail? Because, to me, whether or not the person is lying, being able to tell they are being honest is as useful as being able to tell if they are are being dishonest.

Therefore, if the person is telling the truth and you make the Player roll, and they fail to be able to tell if the person is being truthful, I think you can still say, "hey, you failed to discern any obvious signs that they are lying, do you want to use a dice?" If they use a dice and then succeed, you can say, 'you can tell by their mannerisms that they don't seem to sincere in what they are saying'.

You don't have to tell the player whether they succeed or fail. Just tell them what their character notices. If you think it would be more useful to the player to tell them they succeeded, tell them so. Like I said above, knowing someone is being truthful is as useful as knowing if they are being dishonest. Either way, it's a successful roll.

If it isn't useful, then why make them roll at all? Just give them the answer.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Triple Post:

For the record, when someone says, "I INSIGHT THEM" or "I'm looking out for tells to see if they are lying"

And you have them roll insight, does the person they are using the skill against need to be lying in order to succeed or fail? Because, to me, whether or not the person is lying, being able to tell they are being honest is as useful as being able to tell if they are are being dishonest.

Therefore, if the person is telling the truth and you make the Player roll, and they fail to be able to tell if the person is being truthful, I think you can still say, "hey, you failed to discern any obvious signs that they are lying, do you want to use a dice?" If they use a dice and then succeed, you can say, 'you can tell by their mannerisms that they don't seem to sincere in what they are saying'.

You don't have to tell the player whether they succeed or fail. Just tell them what their character notices. If you think it would be more useful to the player to tell them they succeeded, tell them so. Like I said above, knowing someone is being truthful is as useful as knowing if they are being dishonest. Either way, it's a successful roll.

If it isn't useful, then why make them roll at all? Just give them the answer.

Yes. Exactlx this. On a bad roll I usually tell the player: you can't say neither that they are lying or not. On a good roll: you are absolutely sure that they are honest with you. (Of course if they did not use a spell like glibness that is especially made to make your storys seem trunthful for all but the best. The same might be said for perception. Actually newer monsters (from Volo) added a DC to see through false appearance: a DC 20 investigation check. So that set a precedent for a DC to be sure that everything is as it seems.

 

[Dausuul]

Triple Post:

For the record, when someone says, "I INSIGHT THEM" or "I'm looking out for tells to see if they are lying"

And you have them roll insight, does the person they are using the skill against need to be lying in order to succeed or fail? Because, to me, whether or not the person is lying, being able to tell they are being honest is as useful as being able to tell if they are are being dishonest.

Allowing Insight to positively determine that someone is telling the truth a) does not make sense when you think about it and b) cripples Deception.

a) What is your Insight actually detecting? When somebody is lying, a successful Insight roll picks up tells: A brief hesitation, a tic of the eyelid, a strange tone of voice. If they're telling the truth, however, what signs prove their truthfulness? The absence of tells? The conviction in their voice? How can you be certain there wasn't a tell that you failed to spot*? How do you know the conviction isn't being skillfully faked?

b) If it is possible to absolutely ascertain that someone is telling the truth, then it is impossible to ever fully sell a lie. An Insight check against a liar can yield "unknown" or "lying," but never "truthful." So if you roll high on your Insight check and get "unknown," that is a strong indicator that you are dealing with a skilled liar.

I think Insight should work the same way as Perception: It can determine that a hidden thing is there, but it can never prove beyond all doubt that a hidden thing is not there.

*It would be interesting to have a system where a bad Insight check on a truth-teller might yield a false tell, making you think they are lying when they're not. But that's a whole different kettle of fish.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

*It would be interesting to have a system where a bad Insight check on a truth-teller might yield false tell, making you think they are lying when they're not. But that's a whole different kettle of fish.

That only works if you roll for your players. Otherwise a bad roll might just be as good as a good one. Oh. Insight 5. Ok I can tell that it is the truth. Ok he must be lying.
To your other point. A DC 20 check against a good lyer might give the result: you think they are telling the truth.
Yes, I know. A good check then makes it worse than a botched one. Someone who is really good at a thing and is usually the best might be catched off guard by someone who is better.

Although handling it this way is indeed poblematic if you say: you are sure that the person is truthful... but keep your die.
So maybe it is indeed better to just let the soul knife roll. And only spend it if they detect a lie if they ask for a lie. (insight vs deception) and if the other person wants to convince you that they are telling the truth: They roll persuasion... but what is the DC and what is your DC for the insight check, as your insight check needs to be easier if they roll good.
Maybe if the succeed on a hard check, you need to succeed on an easy one? Medium - medium and so on? Maybe its 30 - the persuasion check result?

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Allowing Insight to positively determine that someone is telling the truth a) does not make sense when you think about it and b) cripples Deception.

a) What is your Insight actually detecting? When somebody is lying, a successful Insight roll picks up tells: A brief hesitation, a tic of the eyelid, a strange tone of voice. If they're telling the truth, however, what signs prove their truthfulness? The absence of tells? The conviction in their voice? How can you be certain there wasn't a tell that you failed to spot*? How do you know the conviction isn't being skillfully faked?

b) If it is possible to absolutely ascertain that someone is telling the truth, then it is impossible to ever fully sell a lie. An Insight check against a liar can yield "unknown" or "lying," but never "truthful." So if you roll high on your Insight check and get "unknown," that is a strong indicator that you are dealing with a skilled liar.

I think Insight should work the same way as Perception: It can determine that a hidden thing is there, but it can never prove beyond all doubt that a hidden thing is not there.

*It would be interesting to have a system where a bad Insight check on a truth-teller might yield a false tell, making you think they are lying when they're not. But that's a whole different kettle of fish.

I can absolutely tell if my kids are lying to me, 80 to 90% of the time. In their mannerisms or how they answer the questions I ask. Knowing what questions to ask can also be helpful. I know my kids pretty well, though. And, maybe they aren't good liars. Nonetheless, an expert poker player can probably get a good insight on whether or not someone is bluffing. Someone trained at reading people can probably trip up an expert liar enough to tell if they are lying.

You'll also note from my post above that I don't usually tell the player if they succeed. I just describe what their character notes. "You want to check for tells? After using your psi dice You notice nothing unusual ." (They successfully noted that the person wasn't lying. This is useful information) Of course, if you don't tell the PLAYER that they succeeded, they'll feel like they wasted their resource for nothing because they are no further ahead - even though they succeeded. Man, that's sucky. I'd rather let the player know that they gained something from the resource they spent.

In any case, I don't usually make players make rolls if I don't want them to know if they succeeded. That's what passives are for. If someone is lying, I just roll against their Passive Insight.

Side conversation:
I find Insight the hardest skill to adjudicate. It's supposed to have some kind of in-game effect but it's difficult to make it work without it either being useless or all-powerful. I find it's more useful if you use it as a way for characters to 'ask the right questions', 'suss out people's motives', 'learn NPCs goals', learn flaws, bonds etc...

Then you can use that information to do actual social conflicts. But it's hard to incorporate and takes off screen time.

I feel it should be used as the good-cop interrogation tool. Save persuasion for making deals and changing NPC attitudes. Use insight to know what questions to ask so that you can trip up a person's lies and dig deeper. Hence why deception is countered by insight. I rp with a journalist and he always seems to ask all the right questions to get to the heart of the issues.

 

[Dausuul]

I can absolutely tell if my kids are lying to me, 80 to 90% of the time. In their mannerisms or how they answer the questions I ask.

See how you yourself frame it: "I can tell if they are lying." It's lies that you detect--not truth. When you don't detect a lie, you assume truth, and 10-20% of the time you are wrong.