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

[FieserMoep]

You do realize that there is a vast community of enthusiast pick lockers that tackle the state of the art stuff in a constant race to pick NOT break them?
That those guys for example use youtube to showcase serious design flaws in locks that were thought to be safe? Like Abloys?
Yet for some civilian property the only way was to break it... kay.

The only argument to be made is that a modern lock may take more than 6 seconds to be opened and regarding some high value stuff quite the skill can be required. Not that is the preferred way to get access to some property... well preferred for the guy that sells locks.

 

[Mort]

And yet they still can't pull off moderate skill checks in their bailiwicks with reasonable reliability.

That is a whole other can of worms. 5e and many other systems often have a pretty odd idea of what moderate success means (in that success rates tend to be way too low).

I'll have to see how much of a problem this is as my groups level gets higher. If it really is an issue, I'd have no problem giving the rogue advantage on checks he's proficient with - to correct this (but I don't want to jump the gun and do it before I see it's actually an issue).

 

[Saeviomagy]

That is a whole other can of worms. 5e and many other systems often have a pretty odd idea of what moderate success means (in that success rates tend to be way too low).

I'll have to see how much of a problem this is as my groups level gets higher. If it really is an issue, I'd have no problem giving the rogue advantage on checks he's proficient with - to correct this (but I don't want to jump the gun and do it before I see it's actually an issue).

5e has the problem that success on skills is both way too easy AND way too hard. Experts with aptitude fail often at tasks that untrained, inept peasants can perform 50% of the time. Simply put, the d20 roll drowns out all the modifiers simply because the modifiers are too small.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

5e has the problem that success on skills is both way too easy AND way too hard. Experts with aptitude fail often at tasks that untrained, inept peasants can perform 50% of the time. Simply put, the d20 roll drowns out all the modifiers simply because the modifiers are too small.

Would you prefer the 3E model? That the modifier could easily be +20, such that anything an expert could possibly fail at (DC 22, in this example) might still be entirely beyond the capability of someone untrained? There were plenty of complaints about the 3E model, where the specialist was the only one who even had a chance.

How could you possibly address this issue, without breaking from the 1d20 mechanic entirely? Reliable Talent is one approach, but people don't seem very happy about it. What are some alternatives?

 

[Ristamar]

How could you possibly address this issue, without breaking from the 1d20 mechanic entirely? Reliable Talent is one approach, but people don't seem very happy about it. What are some alternatives?

Requiring proficiency to attempt certain skill checks. Alternatively, capping the level of success attainable by those who are untrained. Both approaches can be useful depending on the skill or situation.

 

[Ovinomancer]

5e has the problem that success on skills is both way too easy AND way too hard. Experts with aptitude fail often at tasks that untrained, inept peasants can perform 50% of the time. Simply put, the d20 roll drowns out all the modifiers simply because the modifiers are too small.

This is why I give great deference to proficiency and expertise, often ruling auto-success at tasks by proficient characters that declare actions with approaches that leverage that proficiency.

That and I often adopt fail forward taunts for proficient checks. Untrained people can outright fail or have big consequences, the proficient can succeed at the goal even with a failed check, but there's complications.

 

[BookBarbarian]

How could you possibly address this issue, without breaking from the 1d20 mechanic entirely? Reliable Talent is one approach, but people don't seem very happy about it. What are some alternatives?

I let player's describe their approach and decide if a roll is necessary. Those without proficiency in Arcana, tend not to describe their approach to a problem in such a way that an Arcana check is necessary. Likewise, In my games those without proficiency in thieves' tools tend to not try and pick locks. They look for other ways to succeed at the scenario.

 

[Mort]

How could you possibly address this issue, without breaking from the 1d20 mechanic entirely? Reliable Talent is one approach, but people don't seem very happy about it. What are some alternatives?

One way that's worked well so far (5e lower levels) is that I've been very generous with inspiration. This way the harder checks are made with much more regularity, particularly when players most need it.



Sent from my SM-G930V using EN World mobile app

 

[Saeviomagy]

Would you prefer the 3E model? That the modifier could easily be +20, such that anything an expert could possibly fail at (DC 22, in this example) might still be entirely beyond the capability of someone untrained? There were plenty of complaints about the 3E model, where the specialist was the only one who even had a chance.

This isn't "only the specialist has a chance". This is "people with no skill at a task and no natural aptitude do not have a chance". And the answer to your question is - yes. I do prefer it.

The actual problem was that challenge DCs automatically increased. A monster didn't have to do anything to be really good at listening, hiding, spotting etc. It just had higher numbers. Similarly every wall in a higher level dungeon would be slick (apparently adamantine walls increase climb DCs by 45 points over iron ones!), every door would have a better quality lock etc. So instead of DC 20 being a rare "only an expert can do this" moment, it became the everyday. Which sucks.

The walls and doors were an issue with adventures more or less, but the monsters were a big part of it. A gibbering orb (a huge ball of constantly gibbering mouths) has a hide bonus of 34. And a move silently bonus of 37. That's just numbers for numbers' sake.

How could you possibly address this issue, without breaking from the 1d20 mechanic entirely? Reliable Talent is one approach, but people don't seem very happy about it. What are some alternatives?

The answer is pretty simple. Use the 3.5e skill scale, but don't link monster skills to their combat stats, and don't assume that an area for adventurers of a specific level is entirely comprised of challenges for specialists of that level.

And now you have a gibbering orb that has a perception check of +15 for visual wisdom(perception) checks (after all - it's sole claim to being perceptive is that it has lots of eyes...), +0 for any other wisdom(perception) checks and a stealth score of +0 or lower. Because DCs describe how hard it is to do something, not the challenge level that the game is currently at. If it turns out to be trivial to walk past a specific monster... then guess what? It's not going to be used as a guard dog!

 

[Parmandur]

Requiring proficiency to attempt certain skill checks. Alternatively, capping the level of success attainable by those who are untrained. Both approaches can be useful depending on the skill or situation.

Requiring proficiency is in the core rules, at DM discretion: the APs indicate tasks where proficiency is a prerequisite all the time.