How do you use reactions when you can't know the trigger?

[Trip.H]

SuperParkourio wrote:

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.

The conundrum is that it's not even possible to waste the reaction, because you can't spend it when the condition is not met.

That's like a player saying "I use Shield Block" and the GM responds with "OK, nothing happens, and you waste your reaction because you did not have your shield raised."

That's (again) why I'm using words like design error here. It's easy to add an extra rule to bridge the gap, but it's outright non-functional with the existing rules.

The only time the trigger allows itself to be pulled is when the player does not have the access (knowledge of the condition) required to pull the trigger.

[Baarogue]

When I posted this as a rhetorical question, Trip, you mistook it for an actual query and answered it... incorrectly. This time I will be more clear

The topic question of this thread and every issue raised therein is covered by the sidebar on secret checks on PC1 p.405, period.

Quote:

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.

As long as you fulfil the requirement of knowing a qualifying secret check is being made, even if you the player don't know you failed, the GM does, and so they can apply the ability as long as you notify them you have it. This can also apply to non-fortune abilities with a secret check as a trigger due to the specific over general rule. CLEARLY as they're written you're SUPPOSED to be able to use them, so simply tell your GM you have them and want to use them and they'll apply them when appropriate

Sometimes abilities with a secret check as a trigger will give away something you normally wouldn't know, like if Hidden Paragon doesn't pop you'll know you didn't successfully Hide/Sneak. Rationalize it as a perk of the ability if you have to but it's not worth trying to bend perfectly functional rules for mUh imMeRsiOn. Just use them as written and get over it

[Ravingdork]

I'm told Sneak requires you to not be Observed, even though there's no such prerequisite in the action; so how does one Sneak if you're unaware whether or not your are being observed?

Can you even take the action if, say, there is an unseen enemy in a tower watching you the entire time?

(I strongly suspect the answer, but am asking anyways to further promote discussion related to the original topic.)

[Trip.H]

Ravingdork wrote:

I'm told Sneak requires you to not be Observed, even though there's no such prerequisite in the action; so how does one Sneak if you're unaware whether or not your are being observed?

Can you even take the action if, say, there is an unseen enemy in a tower watching you the entire time?

(I strongly suspect the answer, but am asking anyways to further promote discussion related to the original topic.)

There's no prerequisite of being Hidden, it's just that Sneak will only have an effect *if* you are Hidden. You can always use Sneak because of the lack of a required condition.

The reason it's worded like that is because there are a lot of times where you don't know if you are Hidden or not. So the Sneak action needs to let you guess incorrectly, so it's written without a conditional requirement.

.

And yeah, that does provide even more support for my take on prerequisites/triggers and secret info in this thread.
The player can't use secret info for their required conditional *actions*. If its purely passive, the GM can accommodate and handle it.

Abilities like Sneak that deal with secret info instead account for both sides of the unknown, and if relevant have differing outcomes for each possibility.

.

And again, being able to hero point your ??? roll, or apply purely passive abilities to help your secret checks, is not applicable this specific issue with Sense the Unseen.

Sense t U is a Reaction that gives away secret info if its condition is/is not met. Any GM prompting, without the Reaction being spent, still gives away secret info.

Hence, my example rework to change it into a pure passive with the same function.

.

This is sort of like if an undetected foe triggers the condition for a PC's Reactive Retreat style ability.

Because that trigger condition is secret knowledge the PC doesn't have, they cannot use the Reaction.

Trigger conditions, when paired with Reactions, fundamentally have PC knowledge built in as requirements. It's like every single condition having a prefix phrase glued on like ~"you are aware that ___"

[Baarogue]

>Hence, my example rework to change it into a pure passive with the same function.

Except such a scenario is already accounted for in the sidebar I quoted. You tell the GM you want to commit to using Sense the Unseen when they make the secret check for your Seek, and if you fail the check they apply the ability. They don't prompt you - they just do it - but you have to TELL THE GM your intent to use the ability. And THAT's the cost. Planning, and potentially your reaction. If you make it passive you might as well just shorten the ability to the end of the last sentence, "you automatically sense any undetected creatures in the area where you’re Seeking, making them merely hidden to you." But that's not what they wanted, and so that's not what they wrote