D&D 5E Reliable Talent and Disadvantage - order of precedence?

[jgsugden]

You're free to read this however you want in your game, but any interpretation other than that the whenever refers to the ability check and a d20 roll means that one die roll per ability check is changed is results determinative thinking.

Let's do a substitution exercise.

Whenever you finish an assignment early, you can treat yourself to a candy. How many candies are you taking? If the answer is multiple, teacher is going to crack you knuckles with the yardstick.

This is 100% not ambiguous.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

You know what's a big giveaway? Read aloud 'Reliable Talent', to take an unnaturally strict interpretation, you must pronounce 'a' as 'eh'.

But yeah, each to their own.

Me? Well, when the fighter's getting their third attack, wizard and cleric their level 6 spells, I'm fine with the rogue rolling a reliable 10+ on their specialty skills.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Ahh, the arguments of the other thread all over again.

@Quartz just rule it however your table wants to run it.

Apply RT to both rolls (MOST GENEROUS)
Example. Roll 3 and 8, both become 10's. Apply disadvantage results in 10.
Example. Roll 7 and 18, the 7 becomes a 10. Apply disadvantage results in 10.

OR

Apply RT to the lowest of the 2d20s (MIDDLE ROAD)
If you roll both dice, and apply RT to the lower roll, and then have disadvantage result in the lower of the two dice.
Example. Roll 3 and 8. The 3 becomes 10 due to RT. But, because of disadvantage the lower 8 is the result.

OR

You MUST choose one die for RT. (LEAST GENEROUS)
Example. You roll a 6, it becomes a 10 because of RT. You roll another die due to disadvantage. It is a 2. The result is a 2.
Example. You roll a 15 and RT does not help, so it is a 15. You roll another die for disadvantage at get a 7. The result is 7.

I found in the course of the other thread that the middle road approach does not alter results that much compared to the most generous method. So, it is only if you decide to rule the least generous method, that RT doesn't help much once disadvantage is in play.

Just depends on what you want to have more impact? Disadvantage or Reliable Talent.

The second two methods are pretty much objectively wrong RAW. Just sayin.

Whenever you finish an assignment early, you can treat yourself to a candy. How many candies are you taking? If the answer is multiple, teacher is going to crack you knuckles with the yardstick.

This is 100% not ambiguous.

So if you finish 2 assignments early, you take 2 candies? I agree that this is not ambiguous. It's not terribly helpful because it's not straightforwardly analogous though, and has some weird distracting BDSM spin on it.

 

[DND_Reborn]

You know what's a big giveaway? Read aloud 'Reliable Talent', to take an unnaturally strict interpretation, you must pronounce 'a' as 'eh'.

But yeah, each to their own.

Me? Well, when the fighter's getting their third attack, wizard and cleric their level 6 spells, I'm fine with the rogue rolling a reliable 10+ on their specialty skills.

Sure. And if that Fighter has disadvantage, it applies just as much to the third attack as the first and second.

The wizard and cleric get one 6th level spell per long rest (basically a "day").

So, when the rogue has disadvantage as well, it is still a factor.

For the last time, I've actually agreed the most generous reading is probably the correct one, but to claim other readings are incorrect is inappropriate, but if you insist upon it--yeah, each to their own.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The second two methods are pretty much objectively wrong RAW. Just sayin.



So if you finish 2 assignments early, you take 2 candies? I agree that this is not ambiguous. It's not terribly helpful because it's not straightforwardly analogous though.

LOL I love it when people say stuff like this. Interpreting the rules is up to the DM and as such any interpretation that is reasonably justifiable is "RAW".

 

[Ruin Explorer]

For the last time, I've actually agreed the most generous reading is probably the correct one, but to claim other readings are incorrect is inappropriate, but if you insist upon it--yeah, each to their own.

Quite. But this whole debate is mostly your fault for not adopting that position initially, and using heavily loaded language to describe the situation!

LOL I love it when people say stuff like this. Interpreting the rules is up to the DM and as such any interpretation that is reasonably justifiable is "RAW".

Nah.

A lot of interpretations people present as "reasonably justifiable" are outright wrong, yet people will defend them as "reasonable" to the death. Reading a few threads here shows that. You're trolling at this point anyway (playing devil's advocate because it's fun is pretty much the literal definition of trolling, so don't deny it).

 

[DND_Reborn]

Quite. But this whole debate is mostly your fault for not adopting that position initially, and using heavily loaded language to describe the situation!

Nah.

A lot of interpretations people present as "reasonably justifiable" are outright wrong. Reading a few threads here shows that.

Ah, the superior tone rears its ugly head again... Trying to blame me for what is a perfectly reasonable discussion?

So incredibly arrogant it amazes me. Saying "Nah" about the interpreting of the rules being up to the DM? Absolutely astounding...

Your belief other peoples' valid interpretations are outright wrong simply because you don't agree with them is patently wrong when it comes to RPGs. Every game is different just as every table is different. Shame on you.

 

[briggart]

You can treat one single d20 roll as a 10 as part of an ability check. This impacts one die in disadvantage (or advantage).

The advantage and disadvantage rules are clear that you're rolling two dice as part of the same check.

Thus, under RAW, if you roll a 4 and a 6, you can make the 4 a 10, but must still use the 6.

RT does not alter the result of the roll, it allows you to treat it as if it were a different number. So in your example, disadvantage requires using the 4 because that's the lowest of the two numbers actually rolled, and RT allows treating it as if it were a 10.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Your belief other peoples' valid interpretations are outright wrong simply because you don't agree with them is patently wrong when it comes to RPGs. Every game is different just as every table is different. Shame on you.

You're literally admitting to trolling a few posts ago, and now you're trying to insult people? Not sure I'm the bad guy here.

Also outright lying:

Saying "Nah" about the interpreting of the rules being up to the DM? Absolutely astounding...

That's a straightforward lie on your part.

You claimed it was RAW if it was "reasonably justifiable" (which is a pretty vague term). I pointed out that a lot of things people claim are reasonable interpretations when they absolutely are not. There are dozens or hundreds maybe even thousands of threads on these forums where someone unreasonably and sometimes outright irrationally interprets a pretty clear rule, and then defends that position, whilst claiming it is a "reasonable interpretation".

What I'm saying "Nah" to is that it's RAW. It isn't RAW. It's an interpretation, which is something rather different.

Obviously you can run whatever rules or bonkers interpretations you like in a game. But you can't just claim that all your far-out interpretations are "RAW".

 

[DND_Reborn]

You're literally admitting to trolling a few posts ago, and now you're trying to insult people? Not sure I'm the bad guy here.

Admitting to playing devil's advocate is not trolling.

But you can't just claim that all your far-out interpretations are "RAW".

They are just as much a possible interpretation of the "RAW" as yours. When you simply claim "they aren't" because you don't agree with them is insulting. But you've spoken in such terms and tones before. I have nothing further to say to you. Have a nice day.