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