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

[Shiroiken]

This is an oddly worded ability apparently (I haven't seen the actual text). If it doesn't cost anything when it doesn't help, why would you not choose to use it on checks you think are really important. Thus it could have simply been worded: "before making an ability check, you may spend [resource] to add [dice] to the result of the check. If the outcome of success doesn't change, you regain the spent resource." Oh well.

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?

Your players could simply choose to act correctly in-character. The PCs don't have the information, so the players shouldn't act as if they do. Our group does this, and it's sometime hilarious when one player succeeded with Insight, but most of the party failed. Everyone knows the truth, but the only person who succeeded has to find a way to convince the party of it.

Another option is to set the DCs of impossible tasks (finding a door/creature that doesn't exist) infinitely high, allowing the player to use the ability, which won't affect the outcome. Social skills are a bit different, and I would simply ask after a roll "do you want to use Knack?" If they do and it doesn't matter, then they don't spend the resource.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Your players could simply choose to act correctly in-character. The PCs don't have the information, so the players shouldn't act as if they do. Our group does this, and it's sometime hilarious when one player succeeded with Insight, but most of the party failed. Everyone knows the truth, but the only person who succeeded has to find a way to convince the party of it.

Fun at your table notwithstanding, I'm not sure there is a universal way to "act correctly in-character". At our table, it is up to the player to say what the PC thinks, feels, and does. The player makes assumptions of what is truly "known" at their PC's potential peril. But, without saying more, methinks that is more fodder for a metagaming thread rather than derailing this discussion.

Another option is to set the DCs of impossible tasks (finding a door/creature that doesn't exist) infinitely high, allowing the player to use the ability, which won't affect the outcome. Social skills are a bit different, and I would simply ask after a roll "do you want to use Knack?" If they do and it doesn't matter, then they don't spend the resource.

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)

 

[Chaosmancer]

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)

Sure, but the trap situation is a known exception to this. If you just tell the party they don't need to roll, because there are no traps, then the moment you have them roll, they know there is a trap. And for a lot of groups, they are going to act upon that meta-knowledge.

So, most DMs just have them roll an impossible check. You can't find what doesn't exist, but the players now aren't 100% certain about the existence of any given trap.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If something is impossible, there is no roll. 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)

This is an incorrect interpretation of the text, which states "when the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results".

If the players do not know that success is impossible/certain, then, by definition, "the outcome is uncertain". Dice are rolled.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Sure, but the trap situation is a known exception to this. If you just tell the party they don't need to roll, because there are no traps, then the moment you have them roll, they know there is a trap. And for a lot of groups, they are going to act upon that meta-knowledge.

So, most DMs just have them roll an impossible check. You can't find what doesn't exist, but the players now aren't 100% certain about the existence of any given trap.

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...

 

[clearstream]

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.

That is too binary a picture. The meaning of game rules is informally decided normatively, and may be formally decided through appeal to authority (for example, in a Chess tournament where the FIDE laws prevail). Considering the first category, rules fall all along a spectrum from "nearly everyone understands this rule in this way" to "understanding is evenly divided" (as with rules that are in language strictly ambiguous) to "everyone has their own take on this rule". Participants in rules discourse influence one another's understanding.

Depending where it falls, it can be justified to assert the normal understanding of a rule.

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.

Game rules are constitutive. If you follow the view you advocate sincerely, then you do yourself a disservice: why play D&D at all? It would also seem to say that this discussion is in itself unjustified (including your contribution to it).

Your narrower point - that one might always find a group somewhere with an understanding representing a departure from the norm - is fair of course. Even such departures are not binary: understandings tend to be clustered - falling nearer and further from one another.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

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.

Nope. If someone ate the last cupcake and I ask each of my kids, I can tell who is lying and who is telling the truth. Their posture and words they use can confirm to me they are being honest and not lying. Yes, sometimes I get it wrong and think they lied. When I find out the truth later, I apologize for accusing them. This happens. People are accused of wrongdoing all the time.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Sure, but the trap situation is a known exception to this. If you just tell the party they don't need to roll, because there are no traps, then the moment you have them roll, they know there is a trap. And for a lot of groups, they are going to act upon that meta-knowledge.

So, most DMs just have them roll an impossible check. You can't find what doesn't exist, but the players now aren't 100% certain about the existence of any given trap.

At our table, we only roll when there is a meaningful consequence of failure per p237 of the DMG. If there are no traps, there typically is no roll. As DM, I try my best to telegraph danger through the description of the environment. Sometimes it will be very obvious there is a trap while sometimes the hint will be very subtle. Sometimes the hint will come several scenes before the trap is introduced. It's up to the players to decide what their PCs do, given the descriptions they've been paying attention to (when not on their #$@!$# phones, that is). To not telegraph introduces the "gotcha" trap with no warning whatsoever - we've found that to be an unsatisfying way to play 5e. With telegraphing of danger, there is no need to use false rolls to hide danger from the players. Let them act upon whatever meta-knowledge they want - without testing player assumptions in the game world, their PCs could be taking actions that could prove disastrous.

This is an incorrect interpretation of the text, which states "when the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results".

Disagree.

You left out the sentence immediately preceding the phrase you quoted: "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. (PHB p174)"

If the players do not know that success is impossible/certain, then, by definition, "the outcome is uncertain". Dice are rolled.

So, I believe you have it backwards: player knowledge does not determine uncertainty/impossibility of an outcome, the DM decides. Indeed, when the player declares that their character is searching for the presence of traps by doing X, Y, and Z in the untrapped hallway or on the untrapped chest or whatever, the DM can decide that there is no chance of failure. The skilled adventurer need not be asked by the DM to roll and need not invoke the Knack ability. The DM simply determines that the PC auto-succeeds at the declared action, proving that no traps are present. Let's move on to more adventuring.

Or, if you and/or @Chaosmancer prefer, even when there is no trap present, a DM could choose to insert a failure condition based on the environment to keep players on their toes every once in a while. A DM could then call for a check based on the declared action and goal, for example: "DC 15 Wisdom check. If you succeed, I'll tell you if there is a trap; if you fail, I'll still tell you if there is a trap but the action will likely take more time and make more noise than intended and possibly result in your activity being discovered by the guards. Do you want to risk it?"

 

[clearstream]

"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. (PHB p174)"

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.

 

[Chaosmancer]

At our table, we only roll when there is a meaningful consequence of failure per p237 of the DMG. If there are no traps, there typically is no roll. As DM, I try my best to telegraph danger through the description of the environment. Sometimes it will be very obvious there is a trap while sometimes the hint will be very subtle. Sometimes the hint will come several scenes before the trap is introduced. It's up to the players to decide what their PCs do, given the descriptions they've been paying attention to (when not on their #$@!$# phones, that is). To not telegraph introduces the "gotcha" trap with no warning whatsoever - we've found that to be an unsatisfying way to play 5e. With telegraphing of danger, there is no need to use false rolls to hide danger from the players. Let them act upon whatever meta-knowledge they want - without testing player assumptions in the game world, their PCs could be taking actions that could prove disastrous.



SNIP

Or, if you and/or @Chaosmancer prefer, even when there is no trap present, a DM could choose to insert a failure condition based on the environment to keep players on their toes every once in a while. A DM could then call for a check based on the declared action and goal, for example: "DC 15 Wisdom check. If you succeed, I'll tell you if there is a trap; if you fail, I'll still tell you if there is a trap but the action will likely take more time and make more noise than intended and possibly result in your activity being discovered by the guards. Do you want to risk it?"

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.

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.