Over the years I've seen several reactions that have triggers that aren't known to players. How is one expected to use such abilities?
A recent example I came across is the rogue's Sense the Unseen feat. It's trigger is simply failing a check to Seek.
Except the Seek action has the Secret trait, so how is the player going to know when to spend their reaction?
That is just one of several similar examples, not all of which hinge on Aecret checks (but many do).
I think basically all of these abilities are errors.
As in, outright "whoops, that's not how that works" kind of errors.
The rare times a PC ability imposes the GM to act, the text is rather verbose in its instruction. Mostly thinking about That's Odd here. The trigger is still known to the player, but that's as close as I think it gets while still (technically) being a functional ability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are literally dozens of these types of reactions.
Opportune Riposte: Does your character know the difference between a failed attack and a critically failed attack? Does the player know what number the GM rolled?
Disruptive Stance: adds concentrate actions to the list of triggers for Reactive Strike - which normally can't be observed. How do you tell the difference between someone just standing there and someone standing there concentrating on something?
There are a ton just regarding spells:
Clever Counterspell: How do you know if the spell in question is in your spellbook if you didn't use your reaction to identify it?
Absorb Spell: How do you know if the spell is of a level that you can normally cast if you didn't already spend your reaction to identify the spell?
Invoke Celestial Privilege: Similar to the last one - how do you know that the spell is a Divine tradition spell if you didn't identify it?
Dueling Counter: Same problem with reacting to an unidentified spell.
Even items have this.
Reflecting Shard: The spell is unidentified, but you need to know that it is 5th level or lower.
-----
My conclusion is that the requirements in the Ready action - that the trigger be something that the character can observe - is only a requirement for the Ready action. Not reactions in general.
For reactions in general, the player should know that the trigger happened and is able to choose whether to have the character use their reaction on it or not. Much like how the player of an unconscious character still gets to choose whether they are a willing target of an effect or not.
The game does require a certain amount of meta-gaming in order to function.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since the PC has this ability that triggers off of X, an ability to respond to X must exist: as that's exactly what the feat is describing.
Some those the PC senses the opening, then the player accepts on their behalf. I'm thinking mainly of the Strikes. The player might deduce a Concentration action or Crit Fail Strike occurred, but the unaware PC's thinking "AH HA!" and lashing at the opening. If the player wants to wait until there's a specific type of trigger, then there might be issues as yeah, that discernment isn't granted.
As for the others, I don't think that the ability to respond requires full knowledge there either, such as IDing a spell first. The player/PC doesn't need that knowledge IMO, only to know whether they can respond to it or not. From that the player (and likely the PC) can deduce more, but I accept that. My "respond to X" ability didn't trigger, so it wasn't X. And I'd rather tell them when they had the chance, rather than require them to ask with every potential instance.
Sense the Unseen, for example, seems like it'd always trigger though that does lead to issues if the player preferred saving that Reaction for another use. Doh! Time to discuss at the table beforehand (and being it's high level, hopefully that's normal.)
So yeah, I'm not sure "can't know the trigger" is the proper phrasing when yes, it's a trigger that the PC explicitly has the ability to respond to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are literally dozens of these types of reactions.
Opportune Riposte: Does your character know the difference between a failed attack and a critically failed attack? Does the player know what number the GM rolled?
Disruptive Stance: adds concentrate actions to the list of triggers for Reactive Strike - which normally can't be observed. How do you tell the difference between someone just standing there and someone standing there concentrating on something?
There are a ton just regarding spells:
Clever Counterspell: How do you know if the spell in question is in your spellbook if you didn't use your reaction to identify it?
Absorb Spell: How do you know if the spell is of a level that you can normally cast if you didn't already spend your reaction to identify the spell?
Invoke Celestial Privilege: Similar to the last one - how do you know that the spell is a Divine tradition spell if you didn't identify it?
Dueling Counter: Same problem with reacting to an unidentified spell.
Even items have this.
Reflecting Shard: The spell is unidentified, but you need to know that it is 5th level or lower.
-----
My conclusion is that the requirements in the Ready action - that the trigger be something that the character can observe - is only a requirement for the Ready action. Not reactions in general.
For reactions in general, the player should know that the trigger happened and is able to choose whether to have the character use their reaction on it or not. Much like how the player of an unconscious character still gets to choose whether they are a willing target of an effect or not.
The game does require a certain...
1. You don't know what they rolled, merely the result of their action, which is all that matters in triggering the reaction. You don't need to know if they failed by 10, 12, or even 15 more than the target number, merely that they did fail the target number by a certain value (or more), which is all the reaction calls for. As for not knowing the result, that's just shenanigans, because then players can be in complete denial about their numbers or results rolled by the GM. Let's not enable problematic gameplay by being stingy about what players get to know from the results of enemies in combat.
2. In what universe can you not see a creature concentrating on something? Usually it's hard for creatures to be able to disrupt concentration like that just based on that alone, but it's not like it isn't noticeable (such as when they, you know, cast or sustain a spell, which have obvious action costs). Furthermore, the feat lets you expressly do so while it's active. Saying it can't do the thing that it's expressly meant to do breaks the feat in a way that makes it unusable, making the interpretation of "You can't see concentration activities, so you can't use the feat," complete nonsense.
3-7. I can agree with these somewhat, but there is always the Quick Recognition feat. I would say this is more of a failure of Counterspell not listing Quick Recognition as a requirement (it is listed for Clever Counterspell, though), since the issue becomes "You don't have two reactions, and you can't use either reaction on the same spell," and not "How do you know when to use your reaction," especially when you already listed the way to fulfill the trigger (identify the spell with an ability/activity that lets you do so).
As for heightening or automatically identifying spells, the rules cover it already. As for traditions, again, the rules already cover it. Really, the issue becomes whether players will be successful on these kinds of things when they aren't their specialty (such as a Divine spell being cast at a Wizard), but I imagine the balance becomes that non-matching traditions are harder to counteract compared to matching ones, which makes sense, and is part of the game design.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think basically all of these abilities are errors.
As in, outright "whoops, that's not how that works" kind of errors.
The rare times a PC ability imposes the GM to act, the text is rather verbose in its instruction. Mostly thinking about That's Odd here. The trigger is still known to the player, but that's as close as I think it gets while still (technically) being a functional ability.
That's a pretty large number of errors. Look at something like Amp Guidance: the trigger is specific that it happens when a check is failed/critically failed and a specific modifier would change the outcome. There is no way that's an error. It's very deliberate and specific in what its saying. There's also no way for a player to know that without knowing (or guessing) the DC and the result of the other players.
The only way an ability like this can work at all is if the GM signals the player in some way that "hey your ability is usable right now", or the player asks "is this an Amp Guidance situation?" after everyone rolls. How this will work is up to the table to figure out, but it needs to work somehow.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Over the years I've seen a handful of reactions that have triggers that aren't known to players. How is one expected to use such abilities?
A recent example I came across is the rogue's Sense the Unseen feat. It's trigger is simply failing a check to Seek.
Except the Seek action has the Secret trait, so how is the player going to know when to spend their reaction?
That is just one of several similar examples, not all of which hinge on Aecret checks (but many do).
To look at it from this perspective, the only reason the Seek action has the Secret trait is because the activity can fail in one of two ways (either by not rolling high enough, or by not targeting the correct area). That being said, in either case, the result is a failure, and it doesn't make sense that the player doesn't get to know that their action did not succeed, they just don't get to know why it didn't succeed, and in any case, it can still be helpful.
And in the case of Sense the Unseen, regardless of the reason behind the failure, it doesn't change the trigger being fulfilled, which is all that matters in using the ability. Here's an example:
GM: The gremlin says some words of incantation, becomes invisible to you, and you lose sight of him, marking the end of its turn. It's your turn now, what do you do?
Player: I perform a Seek action to try and locate the gremlin. *Picks an area*
GM: *Knowing the player picked the wrong area, rolls the dice anyway as it's a Secret check, completely disregarding the result* You failed to pin-point the gremlin. What would you like to do next?
Player: I have the feat "Sense the Unseen," which lets me spend a reaction to make any creatures in the area hidden instead of undetected to me.
GM: Okay, as you spend your reaction to try to narrow down the gremlin in the specified area, you realize that it is not in the area you picked, as you still do not detect the gremlin in the area you performed the Seek action.
Player: So the gremlin is not in this area that I picked, so I will spend another action to Seek. *Picks a different area*
GM: *Knows the player picked the correct area, rolls the dice for the player, and concludes that the player's Perception beats the gremlin's Stealth DC* You look in another part of the room, and you manage to find a space that has an unusual distortion to it, and you realize that the gremlin is in the nearby area. *places the gremlin on the grid board*
Player: I spend my last action to Point Out, so the rest of my party members know where the gremlin is.
Other Players: *proceeds to gang up on the poor little gremlin*
GM: *knows the player picked the correct area, rolls the dice for the player, and the result of their Perception check is a failure compared to the gremlin's Stealth DC* You failed to pin-point the gremlin. What would you like to do next?
Player: I have the feat "Sense the Unseen," which lets me spend a reaction to make any creatures in the area hidden instead of undetected to me.
GM: Okay, as you spend your reaction to try to narrow down the gremlin in the specified area, you realize that it was just stealthy enough to avoid your initial attempt to Seek it out, but with your training at finding undetectable foes, you managed to locate the gremlin. *places it on the grid board*
Player: I spend an action to Point Out, so the rest of my party members know where the gremlin is, and I spend my last action to Stride to the gremlin.
Other Players: *still proceeds to gang up on the poor little gremlin*
In either case, the reaction is still used, and still provides relevant information for the player. Saying they don't get to know if they failed or not doesn't make sense when you can conclude that they failed based on the lack of positive results.
LOL. Players can barely remember all of their own abilities, particularly at high levels. The odds that the GM will remember a player character's ability over the thousand other details they need to be juggling with the NPCs seems rather unlikely to me.
It would inevitably be an annoyance as the player will need to ask EVERY TIME.
I'm sure it's bound to get old.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would inevitably be an annoyance as the player will need to ask EVERY TIME.
I'm sure it's bound to get old.
I played an Investigator character with That's Odd ... once.
Can confirm.
|
The only way an ability like this can work at all is if the GM signals the player in some way that "hey your ability is usable right now", or the player asks "is this an Amp Guidance situation?" after everyone rolls. How this will work is up to the table to figure out, but it needs to work somehow.
Amped Guidance has been a constant source of minor irritation for me (the GM). I've got a player who loves to play the "Hmm. GM rolled a 12 and missed. His to hit must be 15 or less. He hit on a 16. So his hit must be between 15 and 18" game. No problem with that, I do it too at tables where I see the GMs dice roll.
But with Guidance suddenly the game often gets solved trivially as I tell the player that another character missed by exactly 1.
Feh. :-)
I think there's a categorical difference between things the PC would not know, like spell level or how many #s a roll was from a success, versus thing like the results of secret GM checks.
.
Sense the Unseen, that can't really function as a player ability as it's written.
Assuming your GM allows the players to make the secret roll and just hides the result, the player would still need to be told if the check failed in order to trigger the ability. But the rules do not tell the player the result of the secret check. Hence, not a valid trigger, hence, "it's a real error"
More compressed: any use of the trigger reveals info about the secret result, which violates the rules.
I think the designer simply forgot about the case in which the PC tries to Seek a genuinely empty room. Normally, you are never supposed to have certainty that the room really is empty. But with Sense the Unseen, you Seek, get told there's nothing there, then try to invoke Sense the Unseen, but the GM tells you that the ability cannot be triggered.
Which tells the player info that the ability was never designed to, all while not actually being used. Just because of the poorly-made trigger condition.
That kind of thing is IMO an outright error.
LOL. Players can barely remember all of their own abilities, particularly at high levels. The odds that the GM will remember a player character's ability over the thousand other details they need to be juggling with the NPCs seems rather unlikely to me.
It would inevitably be an annoyance as the player will need to ask EVERY TIME.
I'm sure it's bound to get old.
I've really only had this issue with a couple players, and that's because said players have physical/mental issues that can't really be "fixed." I'd rather not blame player/GM incompetence as the reason for things to not work as written, because that's sounding more like a personal problem than an objective problem with interactions in the system, which is complete nonsense when you decide to purposefully omit important details from gameplay, which goes against the intended spirit of secret checks.
The secret trait appears on anything that uses secret checks. This type of check uses the same formulas you normally would use for that check, but is rolled by the GM, who doesn’t reveal the result. Instead, the GM simply describes the information or effects determined by the check’s result.
So, the GM can describe to the player that "they weren't able to locate the creature," meaning the player can deduce that they failed their check (since a success would mean they did indeed locate the creature), and can use their reaction; where in the rules does it say that this is invalid?
But with Guidance suddenly the game often gets solved trivially as I tell the player that another character missed by exactly 1.
Feh. :-)
Fortunately, while the players can trivialize the 'guess the enemy's AC' game, knowing the AC of an enemy doesn't let them trivialize the game. The tight math prevents that. No matter how much of the enemy's stat block you know, you can't increase the value that the d20 rolls.
At best you can gather the knowledge of which of the enemy's saves are lowest. But doing so by trial and error is a long process that burns more actions than Recall Knowledge does.
So, the GM can describe to the player that "they weren't able to locate the creature," meaning the player can deduce that they failed their check (since a success would mean they did indeed locate the creature), and can use their reaction;
Huh?? How does that wording allow deducing anything?
Maybe it is just my autism showing, but your hints mean nothing to me. Is there a reason that you can't just announce that I failed the roll and ask if I want to use my character's reaction?
Similarly, if an enemy attacks my swashbuckler character, don't try to do some fancy description as a way to hint that I can use Opportune Riposte. The narrative description is great and makes the game better for being there. But seriously, just straight-up tell me that the enemy crit-failed the attack roll.
I think there's a categorical difference between things the PC would not know, like spell level or how many #s a roll was from a success, versus thing like the results of secret GM checks.
.
Sense the Unseen, that can't really function as a player ability as it's written.
Assuming your GM allows the players to make the secret roll and just hides the result, the player would still need to be told if the check failed in order to trigger the ability. But the rules do not tell the player the result of the secret check. Hence, not a valid trigger, hence, "it's a real error"
More compressed: any use of the trigger reveals info about the secret result, which violates the rules.
I think the designer simply forgot about the case in which the PC tries to Seek a genuinely empty room. Normally, you are never supposed to have certainty that the room really is empty. But with Sense the Unseen, you Seek, get told there's nothing there, then try to invoke Sense the Unseen, but the GM tells you that the ability cannot be triggered.
Which tells the player info that the ability was never designed to, all while not actually being used. Just because of the poorly-made trigger condition.That kind of thing is IMO an outright error.
GMs usually aren't supposed to tell exact numbers, which is almost why it would be nice if there was a "GM Sheet" that lets you keep track of important attributes for the characters, like HP, AC, Saves, Skills (top 3 skills anyway, or 6 for Investigators/Rogues), and maybe a small section for special abilities/effects, so you can just roll dice and compare values for yourself without the players knowing why/how, but one step at a time. That being said, not being able to state simple results from actions being taken ("You failed," "The check is a success," "A critical hit!") renders the game unplayable, since we have to convey those results between GMs and Players to progress the story through encounters, as well as exploration and downtime; we don't have some specialty software that automates it for us, or purposefully can omit just the right amount of information for players to draw their own conclusions (no, PF2 doesn't come built with VTT software or its own AI program, so stating these as options/excuses is invalid). If we want that kind of thing, there are games that already exist for that.
I disagree with Sense the Unseen; I already provided an example where it can easily work out without revealing any information without added cost (in this case, a feat slot and a reaction), regardless of what outcome there is, and you can exposit that to even the example you give (seeking an empty room), especially if the players/PCs have reason to suspect an undetected foe lurks somewhere in the room.
"You do not locate the creature," is just a translation of "You failed to locate the creature," which can be for a number of different reasons, and it's not like the GM can't exposit even basic information with a secret check, since the rules outright tell them to describe information or effects based on the result of the check. And really, the GM can only hide results in certain situations. At worst, the secret trait would imply that they can't tell them why they failed, not that they can't tell them they failed. So what, the GM just rolls, says nothing, and moves on? I don't think that kind of logic works when a player is actively trying to do something, and isn't based off of a more passive check (like Stonecunning for dwarves, or Trap Finder for rogues/investigators/rangers), where it's far more sensible to simply state nothing of importance.
Maybe it is just my autism showing, but your hints mean nothing to me. Is there a reason that you can't just announce that I failed the roll and ask if I want to use my character's reaction?
Similarly, if an enemy attacks my swashbuckler character, don't try to do some fancy description as a way to hint that I can use Opportune Riposte. The narrative description is great and makes the game better for being there. But seriously, just straight-up tell me that the enemy crit-failed the attack roll.
As a GM, I usually do just state results (and not numbers).
But other people in the thread are trying to say that secret checks don't (always) have to express actual results to the players, merely relevant descriptions, and for them to draw their own conclusions based on said descriptions.
And to clarify for you since you seem to be confused on my stance, I disagree with the above premise, and even use their own argument against them. (i.e. "How is not locating an undetected creature with a Seek action not a clear indication to a player that they failed to Seek out a creature, thereby fulfilling the requisite trigger for Sense the Unseen?")
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
DM should prompt the player if their reaction is available to use.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i dont see the problem.
there are tons of things like that, so sometime you have to ask the gm, for example is this a spell with X trait since i have this feature and so on,
Same with OPs the seek action, you know that you tried to do a seek, so you can always remind the gm that if you failed you try to use that feature.
So, the GM can describe to the player that "they weren't able to locate the creature," meaning the player can deduce that they failed their check (since a success would mean they did indeed locate the creature), and can use their reaction; where in the rules does it say that this is invalid?
I think you just made the same mistake as the author of the ability.
Just because someone did a Seek, does not mean there ever was a creature there to find.
If the roll result is secret, the player does not know if they succeeded and there truly is no creature hiding, or if it was a low roll and there easily could be a creature hiding.
You can make a secret perception roll with no opposing foe stealth! That happens all the time in empty rooms.
The lack of the player's ability to know that the GM's "you don't notice anyone" means that the room is / is not empty is the *whole point* of that being a secret check.
.
If the player has a reaction that, simply by its trigger condition, tells the player if that secret check succeeded/failed, that breaks the mechanic of secret perception checks.
I agree with what Deriven said a few posts above.
A player can remind a GM about an ability, or a GM can say "If you fail, do you want to use your reaction from Ability?"
You can also just let your players roll the Secret checks. That way, if they think they failed, or you tell them that they did, they can choose to roll a reaction.
This is just basically communication between GMs and players.
So, the GM can describe to the player that "they weren't able to locate the creature," meaning the player can deduce that they failed their check (since a success would mean they did indeed locate the creature), and can use their reaction; where in the rules does it say that this is invalid?I think you just made the same mistake as the author of the ability.
Just because someone did a Seek, does not mean there ever was a creature there to find.
If the roll result is secret, the player does not know if they succeeded and there truly is no creature hiding, or if it was a low roll and there easily could be a creature hiding.
You can make a secret perception roll with no opposing foe stealth! That happens all the time in empty rooms.
The lack of the player's ability to know that the GM's "you don't notice anyone" means that the room is / is not empty is the *whole point* of that being a secret check.
.
If the player has a reaction that, simply by its trigger condition, tells the player if that secret check succeeded/failed, that breaks the mechanic of secret perception checks.
you can just say, if i fail my seek i use the reaction.
and you wont gain any more information.
If you can use it: you will know because you just "spotted" them using the reaction,
if you cant use it you dont know if you crit failed or there where simply noone there to begin with.
no meta information gained, (unless you count the effect of the feature to be that)
So, the GM can describe to the player that "they weren't able to locate the creature," meaning the player can deduce that they failed their check (since a success would mean they did indeed locate the creature), and can use their reaction; where in the rules does it say that this is invalid?I think you just made the same mistake as the author of the ability.
Just because someone did a Seek, does not mean there ever was a creature there to find.
If the roll result is secret, the player does not know if they succeeded and there truly is no creature hiding, or if it was a low roll and there easily could be a creature hiding.
You can make a secret perception roll with no opposing foe stealth! That happens all the time in empty rooms.
The lack of the player's ability to know that the GM's "you don't notice anyone" means that the room is / is not empty is the *whole point* of that being a secret check.
.
If the player has a reaction that, simply by its trigger condition, tells the player if that secret check succeeded/failed, that breaks the mechanic of secret perception checks.
Your arguments are counter to the rules and examples expressed here.
The book literally tells you in an example that the GM will say if you missed, failed, etc., even on secret checks, the only thing they won't tell you is how/why you failed or missed, so the idea that players can't know they failed, resulting in being unable to use reactions, goes against the rules examples demonstrated in the book.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This misconception again :( No, base Counterspell rules (including its feat chain) are all ok. Counterspell doesn't need any Quick Recognition because it only works on spells which you identify automatically anyway, without even reaction of free action costs. Meaning spells prepared or in repertoire. GM just tells you if those spells are being cast in your character's view.
Except for Clever Counterspell.
If a spell is only in your spellbook and not prepared in your spell slots, then you don't automatically recognize it.
And... all of the other similar abilities that I mentioned above that involve knowing something about the spell even if you don't have the spell in your prepared slots or repertoire.
Should the game be run that way? no.
Is there a RAW argument that this is what the rules literally say? yes.
Your arguments are counter to the rules and examples expressed here.
The book literally tells you in an example that the GM will say if you missed, failed, etc., even on secret checks, the only thing they won't tell you is how/why you failed or missed, so the idea that players can't know they failed, resulting in being unable to use reactions, goes against the rules examples demonstrated in the book.
Nothing in the Undetected rules conflict with what I stated. The GM letting you know if your blind swing hit something is completely unrelated to the mechanic of making sure players & PCs both have to deal with the same uncertainty that would be otherwise disrupted by knowing your roll.
If you attack an undetected creature, yes, the GM tells you if you hit something. They do because that is something the PC would know. But, if you miss, the GM keeps the reason why you missed a secret.
Precisely so that the player can't see they passed the flat check and nat 20, but still missed. That extra info about the rolls could tell them if they targeted the correct square. These undetected mechanics reinforce what I'm talking about here by giving examples as to why secrecy can matter.
.
If your PC tries to look into the bushes for a possible danger, you are not allowed to see your roll, because a nat 20 or 1, paired with the GMs: "you see nothing," would tell you info the secret check is designed to deny you.
Not only is there nothing in Undetected that conflicts with this simple logic, nothing in the Secret Checks rules conflict with my statement either.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=334
.
.
Restating the whole chain as briefly as possible:
The purpose of any roll being secret is to deny the player knowledge of the result of that roll.
A player electing to use an ability with a trigger condition needs to know the condition is met before they can decide to use /not use the ability.
Any trigger condition that relies upon secret results therefore conceptually breaks the concept of the secret check.
If the intent of the ability is to change the mechanic to reveal the secret, the ability would be designed in a way to make that mechanic clear.
See the Unseen, by nature of requiring secret info to function, instead of functioning to reveal secret info, is IMO an outright error/broken ability.
Nothing in the Undetected rules conflict with what I stated. The GM letting you know if your blind swing hit something is completely unrelated to the mechanic of making sure players & PCs both have to deal with the same uncertainty that would be otherwise disrupted by knowing your roll.
If you attack an undetected creature, yes, the GM tells you if you hit something. They do because that is something the PC would know. But, if you miss, the GM keeps the reason why you missed a secret.
Precisely so that the player can't see they passed the flat check and nat 20, but still missed. That extra info about the rolls could tell them if they targeted the correct square. These undetected mechanics reinforce what I'm talking about here by giving examples as to why secrecy can matter.
It does, because you are literally saying "The player doesn't know that they failed, because the GM doesn't tell you that they failed, therefore you can't use Sense the Unseen because you don't know you failed," meanwhile I cited an in-book example where that is absolutely not the case. So now we're moving goalposts to say that the GM telling you that you failed is somehow not enough, even though that is completely irrelevant.
We aren't disagreeing on this point except for one thing: How does that invalidate that the rules state the GM has to tell the player that they failed in their Seek action, which coincides with the very same trigger that Sense the Unseen possesses? The only way that would make sense is if the triggers don't match (such as if Sense the Unseen only works on certain kinds of failures), but they do match. Sense the Unseen only cares that you failed, not how you failed, just like how secret checks don't have to tell you how you failed, and then it applies its effects based on the situation (i.e. if they simply failed the Perception check, the creature is revealed to be Hidden to them, if the creature isn't there at all, then the ability tells them that they see no Hidden creatures in the area they picked).
As for any complaints about power level, this is a 14th level class feat only available to 3 classes, and at 15th level, Disappearance becomes available as a spell, which this would be a decent counter towards. The idea that it's "too powerful" or that it doesn't reflect other similar options in power is an unreasonable conclusion.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
3-7. I can agree with these somewhat, but there is always the Quick Recognition feat. I would say this is more of a failure of Counterspell not listing Quick Recognition as a requirement (it is listed for Clever Counterspell, though), since the issue becomes "You don't have two reactions, and you can't use either reaction on the same spell," and not "How do you know when to use your reaction," especially when you already listed the way to fulfill the trigger (identify the spell with an ability/activity that lets you do so).This misconception again :( No, base Counterspell rules (including its feat chain) are all ok. Counterspell doesn't need any Quick Recognition because it only works on spells which you identify automatically anyway, without even reaction of free action costs. Meaning spells prepared or in repertoire. GM just tells you if those spells are being cast in your character's view.
It's honestly a pretty notable trap for players. If a character only dips into the Counterspell feat chain, and picks up Recognize Spell, they will literally be in a place of "I want to counter this, but I can't because I don't know what it is, but once I know what it is, I lack the reactions to counter it." That's a literal trap, because the player has invested two character resources into something that doesn't work with itself, but on its surface, should work in tandem, because the rules essentially require it to do so for them to function.
Counterspell by itself is pretty trash, and needing 4+ feats just to do a baseline effect, all the while requiring significant resource investments, and having the math completely against you in 95% of the situations that you really need/want this stuff to work, is just absolutely terrible design, even if I understand the rules are the way they are because having high level spells beat by low level spells just plain sucks on the player end of things.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
DM should prompt the player if their reaction is available to use.
And if a player is suspicious that the GM isn't prompting them when they should, politely reminding the GM that "Remember that I have [this ability]" is acceptable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you can just say, if i fail my seek i use the reaction.
and you wont gain any more information.
If you can use it: you will know because you just "spotted" them using the reaction,
if you cant use it you dont know if you crit failed or there where simply noone there to begin with.no meta information gained, (unless you count the effect of the feature to be that)
That's hella' annoying 'cause then whenever an ally Strikes an enemy you then need to ask "do I still have my reaction for Opportune Backstab?" (Or Nimble Dodge, or whatever.)
There's no getting past the meta. Even if that forbidden knowledge is not an issue for your table, it still slows things down in the most annoying ways possible.
No dude, you are still missing the key detail here.
The player is told the *outcome* of the secret check. NOT the roll result. The point of the check being secret is to deny the ability to know WHY the result happened (which can be given away if you see the roll number).
It's secret so that a player cannot know they nat 1ed a Seek, and suspect the GM-told info is incomplete.
.
The Undetected example showcases this exactly.
If the player lands a hit, they are told they got the hit because there is only one reason they could have, because they guessed the right square and succeed at every roll.
If they miss, all the rolls are hidden so that the player cannot learn something they are not supposed to know. They could have missed because they failed the flat check, got a nat 1 on the attack, or picked the wrong square.
The player is told they missed, but not **WHY** they missed. They do NOT know if the attack roll was a success/fail, and could not use any triggered abilities that relied upon those results.
.
Rolls are secret to hide these "unknown middle" giveaways.
If a foe poofs, then the PC seeks:
if they are told they spot the foe, that is the same as the "got the hit" result, where there is 0 ambiguity to hide.
if they are told they don't notice anyone, you are in that unknown middle. They could have aimed their Seek wrong, the foe could be outright undetectable to their available senses, or the Seek could have been a nat 1.
All those maybes are why the roll is secret.
.
And the trigger condition requires info that that they don't have, and getting it from the GM would give away much of this secret. If the PC looks in the wrong spot, that can't trigger S t Unseen.
Again, when the GM says "you don't notice anyone," there are more possibilities than your Seek roll being too low to succeed the check.
But the nature of the trigger condition requires that this mechanic of the secret check be broken to function as a trigger.
Sense the Unseen only cares that you failed, not how you failed,
You don't know that you failed, you only know that the PC doesn't detect anyone. The GM doesn't say if you got a nat 1 nor 20. They only say if you notice or don't.
That's not the same thing as being told you succeed/failed the Seek! Which is what I guess this particular disagreement is built upon.
It's like a trigger that only happens if you fail to notice a lie. You're not even supposed to know that you failed to notice that you were lied to in the first place. Mechanically speaking, that's an invalid trigger because you cannot have the certainty of the condition required.
.
Same here for the Seek issue.
.
The Undetected one would be like if you had a trigger that only happened if you failed the hidden flat check roll. You are told only that you did not hit anything, you are explicitly not supposed to know that you failed the flat check, because that tells you that you guessed the correct square.
While you could use the ability if you had imprecise scent to know the square, you cannot actually use the flat-check-fail trigger ability in that square-unknown case because it invokes secret rolls that deny you the knowledge that the condition is met.
Such an ability would still be valid, but have its use limited due to becoming useless during secret rolls.
An ability like S t Unseen can *only* happen with secret rolls, making it completely broken RaW.
Again, secret rolls have the GM tell you the outcome, NOT the roll results.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are literally contradicting yourself in your own post.
...The player is told the outcome of the secret check...
...You [the player] don't know that you failed...
A failure of a check is the same as knowing the outcome of the check. If you are told the outcome of the secret check, then you know that you failed. These things (outcome and result) are one and the same. Synonymous, even. Meaning, saying "you are told the outcome, but you don't know the result" is indeed a contradiction. Either you know the outcome, or you don't know the outcome, only one of which is done by being told what the outcome is.
And Sense the Unseen only cares about the outcome itself, not about the reason why the outcome is what it is, so you being hung up on that particular detail is baffling as an excuse to deny Sense the Unseen to work in any basic circumstance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm invoking the Ambiguous Rules rule. If there are two ways of interpreting Secret checks - one that allows Sense the Unseen to work and one that doesn't - then I am going with the ruling on the general Secret check rules that allows that and other abilities to work.
"BuT nO mEtAgAmInG" isn't a rules argument. If a player is engaging in toxic metagaming, that is a player problem, not a rules problem.
And with that, I'm out. Happy gaming.
|
I played a Thaumaturge with Weapon Implement, and Implements Interruption differs from Reactive Strike by being triggered with the Concentrate trait. Had to ask whenever i suspected something could be qualifying, but it did not seem to annoy my GM enough to suggest prompting me.
Trained out of the implement as soon as I was able to get Reactive Strike from Marshal.
A failure of a check is the same as knowing the outcome of the check. If you are told the outcome of the secret check, then you know that you failed. These things (outcome and result) are one and the same. Synonymous, even. Meaning, saying "you are told the outcome, but you don't know the result" is indeed a contradiction. Either you know the outcome, or you don't know the outcome, only one of which is done by being told what the outcome is.
Once again, no.
The "check result," such as "you failed a check" directly means that a die roll resulted in the fail option. That is a much more specific bit of info.
The GM telling you the "outcome" leaves the roll number, as well as possibly other details, hidden from the player. This is what happens in-story that is visible to all.
Those are *not* synonyms.
If your Search was an open rolled nat 1, you might want to hero point that when the GM says "you don't find any loot or traps."
If your Search was an open nat 20, when the GM says "you don't find any loot or traps" you will not be tempted to spend a hero point.
That temptation to break player | PC knowledge is why secret rolls are a mechanic in the first place.
To some extent, the system does not trust players to act in-character when they always have the option to hero point a roll.
Note that you still can roll a ???, get told by the GM that "you don't find any loot or traps," and then choose to hero point re-roll that Search.
That is widely considered valid/fair because you don't know **the result** of your prior Search [roll!], and could potentially be wasting the re-roll on a nat 20.
I honestly do not know how this bit of understanding has failed to reach you by now.
.
Is this not covered in the sidebar on secret checks on PC1 p.405?
If you don't know a secret check is happening (for instance, if the GM rolls a secret Fortitude save against a poison that you failed to notice), you can't use any fortune or misfortune abilities on that check, but if a fortune or misfortune effect would apply automatically, the GM applies it to the secret check. If you know that the GM is attempting a secret check—as often happens with Recall Knowledge or Seek—you can usually activate fortune or misfortune abilities for that check. Just tell the GM, and they'll apply the ability to the check.
Not exactly, but close.
That text does clarify that you can use something like Sure Strike before picking a square and making a blind Strike attempt. Or that you can use a hero point after a blind roll. Because you still see the outcome, you might want to hero point it, but not knowing the roll's result keeps that use "fair."
.
The issue I'm trying to convey is that of trigger conditions. The player has to opt into activating them when the conditions are met. If the condition is tied inside a secret bit of knowledge, it's never a valid condition for the player to use.
As best, it becomes a GM-used ability, but that already is not a RaW thing.
It's super easy for a player + GM to say "Mr. GM: in circumstances ___ I want you/my PC to use that thing" and for the GM to do it on their behalf. (If the ability is a free passive)
My point is that any such ability is still invalid from a rules / design PoV, and should be rewritten to have a valid trigger that does not need the GM to play the PC.
Sense the Unseen could be rewritten super easily. Just make it edit the possible outcomes of your Seek; into something like ~if you are capable of perceiving the creatures at a Hidden level, at worst all creatures within the Seek are Hidden to you, no matter the degree of success.
Note that this also moves the ability from a Reaction into a passive.
This is entirely because the nature of a Reaction is why I'm so insistent on the feat being an outright error.
You cannot have the GM use the PC's single Reaction per turn like that. It is too valuable to "automate". And the moment the GM tells the player they *could* trigger the Reaction, that's given away secret knowledge by telling the player that they did Seek in the right place, but rolled too low to spot them.
It's honestly a pretty notable trap for players. If a character only dips into the Counterspell feat chain, and picks up Recognize Spell, they will literally be in a place of "I want to counter this, but I can't because I don't know what it is, but once I know what it is, I lack the reactions to counter it." ...What? Have you just ignored everything I wrote? Or have not read? Or failed to understand?
I could say the same about your post. Pot meet kettle and all that jazz. I already pointed out the pitfalls and player expectations in the post you decided to quote. But instead, you decided to quote half of it, act like I didn't read anything you said, and assume I don't understand the scope of your question just because I either didn't agree with you or cave in like a spineless toad or a complacent yesman.
You said "The Counterspell feat by itself is fine, you don't need anything else." I disagreed with that premise, and stated numerous reasons why that is, citing projected math and game expectations, and what it feels like from an outside/uninformed perspective.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Once again, no.
The "check result," such as "you failed a check" directly means that a die roll resulted in the fail option. That is a much more specific bit of info.
The GM telling you the "outcome" leaves the roll number, as well as possibly other details, hidden from the player. This is what happens in-story that is visible to all.
But the details as to how/why you failed is irrelevant to the trigger condition simply being "you failed." If a character knows they failed, but doesn't know why they failed, that is not grounds to deny a reaction that simply says "you failed." It's not a subset requirement of "You failed at a Perception roll," or "You failed to correctly target a creature." It's merely, "You failed." The rules do not add these extra conditions to being able to use the reaction, you are.
So, you bringing up all this stuff about how it matters in the way that you failed, when the rules do not really care about this distinction (and the GM 'shorthanding' the outcome of your actions to you still counts as a translation to the results of your actions), and have actual written examples contradicting that premise, doesn't track whatsoever.
The GM telling you the "outcome" leaves the roll number, as well as possibly other details, hidden from the player. This is what happens in-story that is visible to all.
Those are *not* synonyms
Numerous sources will disagree with that claim.
If your Search was an open rolled nat 1, you might want to hero point that when the GM says "you don't find any loot or traps."
If your Search was an open nat 20, when the GM says "you don't find any loot or traps" you will not be tempted to spend a hero point.
This is not a comparable example, because in the example I've provided previously, the characters know there is an invisible/undetected creature in the area, so the players/characters know there is a successful outcome to be had, which is successfully locating the creature. Meaning, if they perform an activity, and the GM says "You do not locate the creature," that means they did not succeed. And given this is a binary system, if it's not success, it's failure. And as I said before, the only trigger for Sense the Unseen is "you failed."
Conversely, in this particular example you provided, there is no clear outcome, because it's entirely possible, regardless of result, that there are no loot or traps. The only way this example holds up to mine is if we were talking about an unnoticed creature, but that is significantly different to an undetected creature, especially one that the characters are aware of. Also, there are specifics in the Senses/Undetected rules that outright override your examples (such as automatically applying specific results depending on circumstances), so the idea that these are comparable doesn't work when you have a case of Specific Trumps General in play here.
That temptation to break player | PC knowledge is why secret rolls are a mechanic in the first place.
To some extent, the system does not trust players to act in-character when they always have the option to hero point a roll.
The irony here is that the book outright says that it's a default guideline that the GM can choose to work with as much or as little as possible. And honestly, while I'm not opposed to whatever level the GM has for these, as well as their expectations behind them, if there is somehow table dysfunction over these, that's a table problem, not a rules problem.
This rule is the default for actions with the secret trait, but the GM can choose not to use secret checks if they would rather some or all rolls be public.
As for the whole "Hero Point" thing, you forget that it's a Fortune effect, and so follows the rules regarding Fortune and Misfortune effects for secret checks, so the idea that you can't ever use a Hero Point on a secret check is absurd. Going back to my example, the player could indeed use a Hero Point on their Seek action to either succeed (if the creature is actually in the area), or still fail (either for different reasons, or even the same reasons, as again, the player doesn't know why they failed, merely that they failed as the outcome of their results).
Note that you still can roll a ???, get told by the GM that "you don't find any loot or traps," and then choose to hero point re-roll that Search.
That is widely considered valid/fair because you don't know **the result** of your prior Search [roll!], and could potentially be wasting the re-roll on a nat 20
You can, but depending on circumstances, players (who ultimately dictate the character's actions) won't find it valuable to do so. For example, players are far less likely to spend Hero Points on any old hallway, but if they know it leads to a boss room or a treasure vault or something of that nature, and with it being the end of the session (where they will get Hero Points back at the start of the next one), they are more inclined to spend it to ensure they get their rewards. And once they spend it, they are stuck with whatever results they get, whether it's relevant/successful or not. Players/characters can still certainly use intuition or circumstances to determine whether it's worthwhile to expend their resources, as it should be, so the idea that it's "metagaming" to conclude an expected result and use abilities that are tied to that result, again, feels like you're just trying to punish players for using abilities specifically designed against such tactics.
I honestly do not know how this bit of understanding has failed to reach you by now.
It hasn't. The understanding simply doesn't matter, because it's overcomplicating things more than it needs to be. "You failed a Seek check" doesn't specifically or only mean you didn't roll high enough, it just means the check resulted in a failure, for whatever reason that might be, which is all that matters for the trigger to take place.
As a fun little thought experiment, if Sense the Unseen had been written to possess the Fortune trait, would you still not allow it to work, even though the rules expressly state you can use Fortune and Misfortune effects on secret checks you know are being made, with Seek being one of those examples? If so, why haven't you simply proposed that Sense the Unseen needs the Fortune trait instead of stating that it simply having a trigger makes no sense?
The GM saying "you don't see anyone" is not the same as the player knowing they failed a Seek roll;
you cannot fail the roll if there were no foes inside your Seek to roll against.Outcome vs result:
GM saying: "you don't see anyone" is an outcome. This is ambiguous, and hides why this might have happened.
Check result: "you rolled a nat 20" | "You failed the roll" | "your degree of success is a failure" etc. All of these can give away secret info.
.
A trigger of "you failing a check to Seek" requires a foe to be inside the Seek to be rolled against.
This is the same reason the Undetected Strike guess is hidden, to make sure you don't get extra info from a miss. You don't get to see if you swung against a foe's AC, because that tells you that you guessed the correct square.
That roll is secret precisely so the player doesn't know if they failed the roll, or if they used Seek upon the wrong squares, or if there is no foe to even find.
The GM telling the player that they have the option to spend their Reaction on Sense the Unseen also tells the player they guessed the correct squares, but failed the roll.
Because the trigger condition uses secret info, the player knows for certain the squares contain a foe. This breaks the secret mechanic, and gives the player information without actually using the Reaction.
If they Seek, they will always know if foes are or are not inside the Seek with certainty based on the ability to use the Reaction.
This certainty matters.
"Do you want to use your Reaction to sense them?"
"No need, I'll save it for a shield block. I cast Fireball."
Hence, this trigger is clearly broken/erroneous in design.
.
Like dude, wtf is going on with this being impossible to understand.
Any chance other people can chime in on this?
I've tried to explain this from every angle I can think of.
.
I mean, I'm responding to a guy waving a thesaurus and dictionary as evidence, how tf am I supposed to reply to that.
It's honestly a pretty notable trap for players. If a character only dips into the Counterspell feat chain, and picks up Recognize Spell, they will literally be in a place of "I want to counter this, but I can't because I don't know what it is, but once I know what it is, I lack the reactions to counter it." ...What? Have you just ignored everything I wrote? Or have not read? Or failed to understand?I could say the same about your post. Pot meet kettle and all that jazz. I already pointed out the pitfalls and player expectations in the post you decided to quote. But instead, you decided to quote half of it, act like I didn't read anything you said, and assume I don't understand the scope of your question just because I either didn't agree with you or cave in like a spineless toad or a complacent yesman.
You said "The Counterspell feat by itself is fine, you don't need anything else." I disagreed with that premise, and stated numerous reasons why that is, citing projected math and game expectations, and what it feels like from an outside/uninformed perspective.
I quote only what I want to talk about. I don't want to discuss whether Counterspell is good or bad, projected math or expectations (I also mostly agree here). But I do want to talk about 'trap', needing anything for it and it basically working. Because it absolutely works, rules are fine, you don't need either Recognize Spell or Quick Recognition for it to work at all.
"I want to counter this, but I can't because I don't know what it is" is absolutely wrong. It can't happen if GM knows rules and plays by them. If you can counter it, you automatically know what it is, beforehand even. Actually you automatically know what it is if in the same situation you don't even have Counterspell (and that is the only difference). That's what I'm talking about (and only that):
" If you notice a spell being cast, and you have that spell in your...
But how are those things not part of what you want to talk about? The projected math, game expectations, and overall fantasy fulfillment of the ability, are all part of what categorizes it to be a trap option or not. Taking the feat to mostly or always be unable to counter a spell that you either can't access yet or have a significant uphill battle to stop, both of which are very common circumstances that leave bad tastes in inexperienced players' mouths, are defining traits of what makes a trap option. It being broken or not is mostly irrelevant, since it being broken doesn't determine that it's terrible, merely that it just doesn't work. Of course, it not working in most situations (don't know the higher level spells, failure rate of over 75% on average) simply means it's highly unsuccessful, not that it can't work. Again, broken doesn't mean trap. Broken means broken. Trap means trap.
Well yes, if you don't need to spend a reaction to identify it, there's no problems with it in a vacuum, but honestly, it's still severely underwhelming as a feat by itself, and I've actually met several players who fall into the trap of picking up both Counterspell and Recognize Spell, hoping to be able to use both in tandem, but can't due to conflicting triggers/unavailable reactions, and didn't want to spend more than a couple feats on it. It's basically creating a sink-or-swim paradigm, where players have to either invest fully into it (and have to wait a long time for the "proper" pay-off, suffering with the mostly dead investments in the meantime), or completely avoid it entirely, and invest in something more worthwhile by comparison.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The GM saying "you don't see anyone" is not the same as the player knowing they failed a Seek roll; you cannot fail the roll if there were no foes inside your Seek to roll against. This is the same reason the Undetected Strike guess hides the rolls, so the player doesn't get extra info from a miss.
It is, because the game operates under binary (or more accurately, pseudo/conditional-binary) results. If you detect a creature whose presence you are aware of, the action was a success. If you do not detect a creature whose presence you are aware of, the action was a failure. Just like how if you strike a creature whose presence you are aware of, the action was a success, and if you don't strike a creature whose presence you are aware of, the action was a failure. It's that simple. This whole "You are getting extra information from simply being able to use the feat" also makes no sense, because it's not the access to the action itself providing the extra information, but the reaction which you are using in response to the outcome of your Seek action. A reaction, by the way, only available at certain character levels of certain classes. It's not just some generic activity available to everyone that would absolutely break the game in an unintended fashion (which I will reiterate was a reason you gave that you wanted to disallow this interaction).
A trigger of "you failing a check to Seek" requires a foe to be inside the Seek to be rolled against.
This adds a parameter to the trigger that's simply not there. Just like how you can make a Strike at a square a foe may not be in, automatically missing/failing, you can Seek a square/area that a foe may not be in, automatically failing. If the reaction required a creature to be in the area, then the trigger would be written as such. Because it doesn't, that means it doesn't matter if there is a foe in the area or not. It's also even easily justified in the example I originally gave, where using the reaction has a cost as well as a variable reward. It's just framed differently from the typical Seek action.
That roll is secret precisely so the player doesn't know if they failed the roll, or if they used Seek upon the wrong squares, or if there is no foe to even find.
The GM telling the player that they have the option to spend their Reaction on Sense the Unseen also tells the player they guessed the correct squares, but failed the roll. Because the trigger condition uses secret info, the player knows for certain the squares contain a foe. This breaks the secret mechanic, and gives the player information without actually using the Reaction. If they Seek, they will always know if foes are or are not inside the Seek with certainty based on the ability to use the Reaction.
No, the roll is secret so the player doesn't know why or how they failed, but the end result is that they will know they failed, especially when they are aware that an objective successful result is possible with their action. This is why the argument of "finding hidden traps/loot" isn't comparable, because the players aren't aware of an objective successful result.
And you're wrong on the mechanical benefits of Sense the Unseen again. No, the ability does not tell them any additional information prior to using the reaction because they only get the additional information once the reaction is taken after its conditions are met. Prior to a player asking for the reaction, the player still is unaware of how they failed, whether they targeted the wrong area or rolled too low on their Perception check. It isn't until after they take the reaction (which has an opportunity and character budget cost) that they essentially get to know the answer to this predicament (which is one hidden benefit of this feat).
Even though you failed at the triggering check, you automatically sense any undetected creatures in the area where you’re Seeking, making them merely hidden to you.
So, if we have two outcomes, one where the player rolled too low on their Perception, and one where the player simply targeted the wrong area, this reaction will either reveal the enemy for them automatically (thereby telling the player their Perception check was too low), or it won't reveal any enemy (thereby telling the player they targeted the wrong area), depending on which outcome the GM has objectively portrayed in the game world. But again, to be clear, this information does not get shown/granted until the player uses their reaction; simply fulfilling the trigger does not provide this information for them like you seem to think it does.
"Do you want to use your Reaction to sense them?"
"No need. I cast Fireball."
Hence, the design of this trigger is clearly broken/erroneous in design.
This is a non-sequitur, because simply being able to use the reaction does not translate to them knowing the creature is in that area. You are giving more power to the feat that isn't present. They must possess the feat and spend the reaction to know for sure, determined by whether the creature is or isn't revealed to them, thereby discounting the other very obvious conclusion that can take place, which is the character wasting a spell slot on a creature not in the area they place their Fireball.
Like dude, wtf is going on with this being impossible to understand.
Says the guy who thinks simply having a feat that is a reaction, which only does something once you take a reaction, counts as modifying your existing actions.
And really, if we're just going to ignore basic premises of feat/ability write-ups, then I think I'll follow in Finoan's footsteps and move on, simply because there is no congruency to be had here.
A trigger of "you failing a check to Seek" requires a foe to be inside the Seek to be rolled against.This adds a parameter to the trigger that's simply not there. [...]
Welp, there's the problem.
(in my opinion) Sense the Unseen's does expect the only possibility to be that you failed a Seek when foes are in the area.
When you look for foes, you can catch even the slightest cues, such as their minute movements or the shifting of air currents on your skin. Even though you failed at the triggering check, you automatically sense any undetected creatures in the area where you’re Seeking, making them merely hidden to you.
It doesn't say "if there are creatures" or give any guidance / alternative function when no creatures are present. The ability simply breaks if there are no creatures to make hidden. If it worked like you think, then you would literally spend your Reaction to 0 effect.
.
The trigger, "You fail a check to Seek" is translating to "You failed your Seek check to notice a creature" and *not* into something like: "Your Seek resulted in no creature being detected"
Again, please reread the feat.
It does not make sense if the Seek area was empty. From my PoV, the ability text is assuming that you can only reach that instruction with creatures in the area to be hidden-revealed.
Meaning, it's counting on the Trigger to filter out those empty-Seek cases.
.
That single detail seems to be our entire disagreement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Opportune Riposte: Does your character know the difference between a failed attack and a critically failed attack?
Yes because the GM should be describing it. This one is not really secret.
The area for Seek is "almost always 30 feet or less in any dimension." And since Sneak only lets you Stride at half Speed, there are many scenarios where the enemy cannot possibly be outside the area, meaning any failure to Seek them would be guaranteed to be caused by a failed check. Then again, you would need to know the enemy's Speed.
Another example of an action in this weird design space is Aquatic Ambush, which requires the user to be undetected, a condition you can't reliably know that you have.
I kinda like Darksol's approach since it preserves the secret nature of the trigger/requirements without invalidating the feat. Alas, I don't believe the text of Sense the Unseen supports it. The trigger is you failing a check to Seek, not failing to locate anything with Seek (which IMO would be a better trigger).
The area for Seek is "almost always 30 feet or less in any dimension." And since Sneak only lets you Stride at half Speed, there are many scenarios where the enemy cannot possibly be outside the area, meaning any failure to Seek them would be guaranteed to be caused by a failed check. Then again, you would need to know the enemy's Speed.
Another example of an action in this weird design space is Aquatic Ambush, which requires the user to be undetected, a condition you can't reliably know that you have.
One common cause for Seek is when an odd creature uses some form of innate magic, and vanishes.
You don't know if they went invisible or some other form of hiding, or if that spell teleported them away.
While I'm guessing many GMs do reveal what spell it is by default, IMO that's a missed opportunity, and there are so few times that kind of thing is relevant at all.
My own PCs tend to be a bit of a party-pooper due to 30ft imprecise scent, which can resolve a lot of dangerous/unknown situations. I think I've had GMs roll back 2 ambushes because the PC should have smelled them before the pounce/strike.
One common cause for Seek is when an odd creature uses some form of innate magic, and vanishes.
You don't know if they went invisible or some other form of hiding, or if that spell teleported them away.
While I'm guessing many GMs do reveal what spell it is by default, IMO that's a missed opportunity, and there are so few times that kind of thing is relevant at all.
My own PCs tend to be a bit of a party-pooper due to 30ft imprecise scent, which can resolve a lot of dangerous/unknown situations. I think I've had GMs roll back 2 ambushes because the PC should have smelled them before the pounce/strike.
I've been on both sides of this. Great fun trying to figure out what happened to the enemy, and whether or not there is still danger in the area.
I kinda like Darksol's approach since it preserves the secret nature of the trigger/requirements without invalidating the feat. Alas, I don't believe the text of Sense the Unseen supports it. The trigger is you failing a check to Seek, not failing to locate anything with Seek (which IMO would be a better trigger).
On second thought, potentially wasting reactions due to being mistaken about the trigger would lead to some feel bad moments.
Hidden Paragon is another reaction with a secret trigger: you successfully Hide/Sneak against all current foes. Its frequency is once per hour. So you'd have to guess whether you succeeded against all current foes or else your level 20 reaction is wasted and you can't try again for an hour.
I kinda like Darksol's approach since it preserves the secret nature of the trigger/requirements without invalidating the feat. Alas, I don't believe the text of Sense the Unseen supports it. The trigger is you failing a check to Seek, not failing to locate anything with Seek (which IMO would be a better trigger).On second thought, potentially wasting reactions due to being mistaken about the trigger would lead to some feel bad moments.
Hidden Paragon is another reaction with a secret trigger: you successfully Hide/Sneak against all current foes. Its frequency is once per hour. So you'd have to guess whether you succeeded against all current foes or else your level 20 reaction is wasted and you can't try again for an hour.
In the case of Sense the Unseen, it would still reveal positive information (such as the enemy not being in the selected area whatsoever) so it's not all feelsbad.
Hidden Paragon's trigger would be something you would have to glean from the secret check's descriptive result. If an enemy still looks at your direction after you perform an activity, then it's clear you didn't succeed, and doubly so if they react to your activity. But as far as it being a clear objective result, no, as the enemy might not look or react to you for different reasons.