D&D 5E Reliable Talent. What the what?

[cthulhu42]

Don't. Reliable skills are nothing new and IMO are necessary for the game. 'Skill Monkey' classes need to be able to reliably propose actions, and it's good for the game because it means that they can now reliably perform stunts. In particular, you want to reach a point where any easy action with a skill doesn't require a roll, encouraging to the player to do it (because no risk) and avoiding slowing down the game with pointless dice rolling.

Earlier editions of the game, and many other RPG's somehow function without auto-succeed skills. And yes, I could go play those editions or other games, but I quite like 5E. I'm not here to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Unless you plan to implement a 'All spells fail on the roll of a 1 rule', don't nerf skills. Non-combat spells do not generally have a failure condition. Compare hiding with invisibility, climbing or jumping with flight, open lock with knock, searching with detecting/scry spells and so forth. Gimping a skill by making it permanently unreliable makes a non-spellcaster permanently less reliable and than a spellcaster's ability to alter the game universe and acquire narrative resources.

Non-combat spells use up a resource; a spell slot. Even ritual spells consume time.

And I don't think a very small possibility of failure is a gimp. To be clear, I don't really like the natural 1 = failure option much because it means a 5% chance of failure, and I think that's too high for an 11th level rogue skill monkey.

You can always have tasks that require nigh supernatural levels of skill that do have a chance of failure if you need to test the skill of a character.

Look at it this way, if a 12th level superhero (supervillain?) wants to break into the houses of ordinary mortals and steal thier stuff, he's going to succeed. The Joker, the Clown Prince of Crime, is not going to have a problem successfully breaking into a middle class home, terrorizing the inhabitants, and taking their stuff. It's an autosuccess for him provided he has not yet attracted the attention of The Batman. If your PC wants to go on a crime spree, the let him. There is no drama in that, but its not the fault of the rules. It's the fault of the player for setting his sights so small. Respond to that intelligently as a DM, with the overmatched peasants appealing to a temple or to a government for aid, and a team of Paladins and Inquisitors arriving to avenge the put upon peasants. That is where your drama comes from, not whether he can steal the candlesticks from some poor coppersmith, or loot the handful of silver that a fuller has hidden under his mattress.

1, comparing a literary character to a D&D character is a false equivalency. The joker auto succeeds because he's written that way.

2, A 5 second die roll takes too much time away from the game, but a full on side plot involving paladins and government that might take multiple full sessions to resolve is fine? I'm not saying that side plots kicked off due to player actions are bad. I've just read many responses that claim the die roll is a time suck, while at the same time advocating consequences that could well take up weeks or months of game time.

Besides that, if you want to make your thief breaking into homes challenging, there are ways to do that that don't involve failing ordinary skill checks. If you want advice, fork to another thread with a title like, "How would peasants protect their homes from thieves?"

As I said before, the rogue ripping off a whole town scenario is just an example. I wish we could get past it.

 

[cthulhu42]

Reliable talent doesn't make the impossible possible. It's no more unbalancing than a lucky streak of 10+ dice rolls.

I don't know yet if I think it's, "unbalancing" and balance isn't really my issue here. But Reliable Talent most certainly has more of an impact on the game than a lucky streak of die rolls. You can't count on lucky die rolls. Luck is not always on. All the Time. Forever.

 

[cthulhu42]

What most others have said. Players play rogues to do the improbable with ease. They're supposed to auto succeed at most skill checks, just like the barbarian is supposed to auto succeed at most strength checks, and the wizards spells are supposed to work.

Upping the DC's to make it "more challenging" aren't making it more fun, they're taking away one of the fun aspects of the character.

Yes, they are supposed to succeed at most skill checks. I don't have a problem with that.

If you read my original post, I stated quite clearly that I think upping DC's is a cheap ploy. I'll up them when it makes sense to do so, but not just to nerf the rogue.

 

[cthulhu42]

I think this is functioning normal, and you should allow it. It's supposed to auto-succeed like that. It's an important ability they get - like a second attack for a fighter or a high level spell for a wizard. If it's thwarting your DMing FU, ask yourself if the player is having fun. If they are, let it be.

A fighter's attacks always have a chance to fail. High level spells require a spell slot.

People seem to think that I'm out to screw this rogue over, and nothing could be further from the case. My list of house rules up to this point has been zero. Besides currently tinkering with magic item sales, I've been playing RAW right down the line, and it's worked fine so far, which is one reason I am trying to be super careful with Reliable Talent. As it currently stands, based on actual play testimony from folks kind enough to reply here, I'm inclined to let the ability stand as is for at least another 2 or 3 sessions to really determine if it's a problem or not.

Every new edition (and I've played the majority of them) require some shift in thinking to adjust to the new rule set. Reliable Talent, as someone pointed out, is a very sudden change to the way I've DMed this rogue. But I'll figure it out. I wasn't too keen on the fact that our barbarian basically can't be surprised either, but I've learned to deal with it.

 

[cthulhu42]

Let's get away from the thief robbing an entire town scenario and talk about traps for a minute.

I just looked over both Against the Giants (which I'm currently running my party through), and Tomb of Horrors, a dungeon known for it's fiendish traps. Just a cursory glance shows DC 20's across the board. In AtG there's a treasure room full of traps, so when they find that room, do I just say, "You find and disable all of the traps. No roll required!" and tell them what they've won? Does the rogue just waltz through ToH without a single chance of failure? That can't be right.

I feel like I must be missing something here. Both adventures are written with high level characters in mind, and the designers must have taken Reliable Talent into consideration, so I'm guessing the fault is mine for missing a key element.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I feel like I must be missing something here. Both adventures are written with high level characters in mind, and the designers must have taken Reliable Talent into consideration, so I'm guessing the fault is mine for missing a key element.

As far as I am aware, the adventures are written without the assumption of any particular class being present. And the thing is, if you don't have a rogue on the scene, then DC 20 is about the limit of what any other class can hit a majority of the time. Given the emphasis on bounded accuracy in the core book, it seems more likely to me that the difficulties were set in consideration of a cleric or fighter that had the criminal background (with something like +9 on the check).

A quick Google search suggests that Tomb of Horrors is designed for levels 10-14, which means you would need either a level 11-12 rogue that specifically had expertise in thieves' tools, or a level 13-14 rogue with maximum Dexterity, in order to auto-bypass those traps. Any other class would have at least a 50% chance of failing on every trap, which may well result in a TPK if you had a whole room full of them.

I guess my question is, if you had a room with seven DC 20 traps in it (as an example), what do you think the odds should be that the party makes it through unscathed in the absolute best possible scenario? Follow-up question: How would you possibly represent that, in the face of the strong normalization factor inherent to making seven different checks?

 

[CapnZapp]

Yes, they are supposed to succeed at most skill checks. I don't have a problem with that.

If you read my original post, I stated quite clearly that I think upping DC's is a cheap ploy. I'll up them when it makes sense to do so, but not just to nerf the rogue.

Consider the following:

Let's assume there exists a character that always succeeds at all skill checks. Regardless of DC. No exceptions.

Is this character overpowered? Well, the point is that skills isn't everything in a game of Dungeons & Dragons.

This character could still lose a fight. He would still have to learn to cast spells.

The point is that, yes, the level 11 Rogue is - in practice - that character (since there are almost no skill checks in published modules with a DC higher than 23 or whatever number we arrived at earlier).

Every level 11 Rogue is that character. Yes really - I haven't checked but apart from a meeting with Demogorgon or Tiamat, I wouldn't be surprised if you never ever see a DC 25 printed anywhere in any of the official modules.

So what does that tell you?

It should tell you that you are looking at this from an angle that significantly deviates from not only the developers' but most gamers too (as evidenced by the replies you are getting in this thread).

Am I saying you're playing the game badwrongfun? No. I'm just saying make up a houserule and move on with your game

 

[MechaPilot]

I think you and I have very different definitions of what a resource is. ASI's are a bonus. Expertise is a bonus that one applies to skills. Reliable Talent is a class feature; an ability. A bonus. It costs you nothing.

What I'm talking about are hit points, spell slots, uses per day, etc.

So you aren't talking about resources. You're talking about a specific class of resources: those that refresh based on short or long rests.

 

[5ekyu]

Let's get away from the thief robbing an entire town scenario and talk about traps for a minute.

I just looked over both Against the Giants (which I'm currently running my party through), and Tomb of Horrors, a dungeon known for it's fiendish traps. Just a cursory glance shows DC 20's across the board. In AtG there's a treasure room full of traps, so when they find that room, do I just say, "You find and disable all of the traps. No roll required!" and tell them what they've won? Does the rogue just waltz through ToH without a single chance of failure? That can't be right.

I feel like I must be missing something here. Both adventures are written with high level characters in mind, and the designers must have taken Reliable Talent into consideration, so I'm guessing the fault is mine for missing a key element.

Dont own ToH but in AtG - its fairly obvious that these "traps" are not "threats" to 11th level parties. they are at best nuisances or perhaps time sinks.

look at all the traps in the Kings treasure room as you describe...

if you just let the barbie open every trapped item and he fails every save and gets max damage
poison status until short rest
3d4 acid damage for 12 max
2d6 piercing for 12 max
Contact poisoned condition (24h) and unconscious (until takes 1hp or more then awake) so +1hp
Needle poison purple worm 12d6 poison 72

maybe i missed one but that is basically a condition and 97 HP if you fail every save and roll max damage every time.

Would be no problem for any barbie to just muscle through them all - take the lumps and then get right back up with a couple mid-level spell slots expended.

Did i miss something here or did you also post about how concerned barbies hit points make you cuz they make this trap room such a lack of drama?

"Should i just tell them the barbie bulls through all the traps and you throw a couple middle spells and tell them what they have won?"

Also, just to be clear, have you looked at those traps to see how many are basically thwarted by mage hand or unseen servant without the need to cure them later?

"Should i just tell them the servant and hand sets the raps and get the loot from almost all the traps and tell them what they have won?"

now, sure, there was a temporary "tax" on resources but really not enough to matter one whit if the 11th level team approaches this with at least four brain cells between them. this level of traps for the treasure room was not a "source of drama or excitement" in fact because it poses no real threat to a party with no rogue at all.

So, really, this fret and bother is over whether or not the party loses acouple low tier spells and a small amount of HP to get through the OMG treasure room OR they let the rogue do his thing and show off his newest 11th level ability working in concert with his MAXED attribute points and other CLASS ABILITY for TWO (per and tools) of his, what, FOUR most developed SKILLS - the "i am dang good with these things" thing he chose to do?

What you are "supposed to do" as a GM is alter the module where needed to meet your expectations.


*IF* you as Gm want that trapped treasure room to in and of itself be a significant threat or source of drama and worry and excitement (whatever) based on its mechanical effects - you need to drastically alter that whole setup for a party of 11th level characters, whether they have a rogue-11 or not.

If in your game *that room* was an example of a "serious trap threat" that should be a worry... one that an 11th level trap specialist should be concerned over... i might not even put my expertise into traps per se... cuz the meat and flashies can mow through that "toughie" without me lifting a pick or probe. That spend for traps might be better off over on deception or acrobatics or athletics, things where when i need them the barbie and flashy can't "do it for me."

if you told my rogue "nerf it" and then we walk into that room and they mage hand thru as many as they can... barbie thru some too i would repeat "glad my skill thingy got nerfed? Glad that abusive talent was fixed!" while laughing and pointing at you each and every time they did so.

Well, OK, no i wouldn't cuz i am an adult, but i would think it and after that session - "thank you for your time" and leave the game to find a Gm who did not have a *thing going on* about rogues. life's too short.

 

[5ekyu]

So you aren't talking about resources. You're talking about a specific class of resources: those that refresh based on short or long rests.

yes seems so but basically thats part of the issue with the complaint - that i have.

We have a class ability here that does add "no recharge needed" benefits. And that element "no recharge needed" seems like a big issue for the complainer. meanwhile we have all those other class skills which off huge benefits... some with "recharge needed" some not.

"three attacks per attack action vs two" is a big benefit and has "no recharge needed" but apparently thats not a problem for imbalancing things cuz... you know... not a rogue thing maybe?

The ky to me is this - taking one ability and another and looking at "pieces of the package" and applying those "pieces" to specific "set pieces" is a very bad way to evaluate things or compare them.

Sure, "no recharge needed" is a thing but by the same token you can look at most any 6th level spell list and find one or more spells where a single casting can make major f'n impacts to "significant parts of" AtG or most any adventure.