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

[Quartz]

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).

It's still different IMO because if you cast Shield and you still get hit the Shield spell is still expended.

 

[Anthony Winter]

I have a soul knife in the party I dm and we knew knack was going to be a problem. A lot of the prior discussion revolves around using it to discover whether a threat exists. I am grappling with opposed checks here. A stealth roll sets dc for other to find them. Or conversely passive sets a dc for the rogue to hit. Neither points here is there a pass or fail known when they roll the dice. Eg a stealth check where a round later a dragon actively looks around trying to detect a kidder foe. How are others grappling with this?

 

[NotAYakk]

Treat it as extremely short term precognition.

So it won't work on a dragon looking for you later. It will work on beating its passive perception now.

Players are free to roll it not knowing if they failed; if it bumps them from fail to success, expend the die and tell the player that they felt a mistake and corrected it before they did it (be descriptive!). This does tell them there was danger! And can give a clue. But it doesn't have to.

The stealth check only changes if there was an immediate danger of failing, and the die bumped it past that DC and was expended.

This even works with more than one observer. It is the observer avoiding precog that expends the die.

 

[jgsugden]

I have a soul knife in the party I dm and we knew knack was going to be a problem. A lot of the prior discussion revolves around using it to discover whether a threat exists. I am grappling with opposed checks here. A stealth roll sets dc for other to find them. Or conversely passive sets a dc for the rogue to hit. Neither points here is there a pass or fail known when they roll the dice. Eg a stealth check where a round later a dragon actively looks around trying to detect a kidder foe. How are others grappling with this?

You're rolling stealth too early. The PHB says that a player rolls stealth when they start to hide - but it also says the that the DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding. If there is danger of the PC being observed because there are no observers, then there is no real opportunity to hide. Hidden is not a status for the PC - is a relationship the PC has with observers. It takes 2 to tango.

When someone tells me they are hiding, I do one of three things:

1.) Apply their 'passive hide' as their result. I do this when there are no real stakes, and rolling a die is a waste of time.
2.) If I determine there are real stakes, and someone is present at that moment to observe, and that observer wants to know where the PC is, I have them roll stealth at that moment opposed by the observer's perception / senses.
3.) Say ok, and tell them to wait to roll stealth. It'll be rolled at the first moment there is possible detection by a threat.

Ah, but you say, their fellow PCs are trying to observe them! Surely you have to roll to determine if their fellow PCs can spot them when they hide! See option 1.

Rolling stealth before it is tested is a metagame problem. If a player knows they rolled poorly, they'll have an incentive to take less risks. If they roll a 20, they'll treat it like they are impervious.

Ah, but you say, they roll a stealth when Monster 1 is the only observer and succeed... but then a second observer comes in and rolls perception against the stealth already rolled! In this instance, I'd make a judgment call. Under RAW - no knack. There is no roll for the PC at this point. However, I would likely either: 1.) Let them roll the knack die and subtract it from the enemy perceptions for purpose of observing them, or 2.) (if there is a change in circumstance) have them reroll stealth.

OK then, what if the observer is also hidden from the PC and the PC does not know the observer is there? I tell the player to roll stealth. They tell me a result. They ask who was observing them. I tell them they do not see anyone, and their PC does not know they were being observed.

They ask if they hid successfully. I tell they they do not know, but they can attempt to use a knack die if they like. If they are hidden, it will not be lost. If they are not hidden from the observer, it will be applied and change the situation.

If they tell me they want to use a knack die, I tell them to roll. Then, if they failed to hide from the observer based upon their stealth roll (without knack), I apply the die and subtract one of their psi dice. If they already succeeded, I do not subtract a die. If they ask me how many dice they have, I tell them the range they might have based upon how many they have in total, and how many they know they've used, and how many they might have used up.

• DMs should not just tell a player if the succeed or fail on a skill check if the results are not obvious. The DM needs to let the PLAYER know that a roll has been performed, but that does not mean their character knows.
• What is a success or failure is up to the DM.
• If a Soulknife isn't sure whether they succeeded or failed, they can try to use the knack die. If they already succeeded, the use is an illegal use of the ability and the die is not lost.

 

[Blue]

If the player says "I want to search for a secret door" the DM sets a DC, the player rolls. The DM says if it was a success or failure. Period, because the player then gets to make a choice, WHEN the DM says they failed (the only time they can spend a psionic die by the rules).

This inherently tells them, there is a secret door present, or else the DM is saying there is a continual infinite DC for all walls without secret doors, to "NOT" find one. So, you are either creating a new rule specifically to stop this power, or, they know they failed the roll and something is likely there.

I agree with much else of what you said, but need to point out here that this isn't a discussion about the power, but about if you allow metagame knowledge at the table. It can happen just as much when the player rolls a 1 on an insight or investigation or perception - if they treat what they get as suspect that's the player using knowledge their character doesn't have. Or other players seeing the 1 and having their characters come over to check.

Either you permit that at your table or you don't. It's not a issue specific to this feature.

 

[Blue]

Dang necro'd threads. I'll leave my earlier because I think it's generally meaningful, but removing this as a reply to a specific comment.

To make it more generally accessible.
1. The rules do not allow you to trigger an ability with a requirement unless that requirement is being filled.

2. While the DM doesn't have to tell the player the ability is usable any more then they need to remind a player to use Shield when hit, the DM does have to answer a question about "are the conditions to use my ability fulfilled?".

3. There is a difference between "you trigger your ability and it fails" and "you cannot trigger your ability". Going back to Shield, if someone us attacked with a attack roll ability, it could be triggered, use the 1st level slot, and still fail. But if they were attacked with a save ability, they wouldn't even have the option to activate Shield, an no spell slot would be used. Regardless that it gives away information about the spell, feature, or monster ability.