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

[The Crimson Binome]

I don't think your last sentence is true. Certainly not in my experience. To explain the basic idea: if PC 1 is arguing with PC 2, then the players of both PC 1 and PC 2 are involved in the action.

If the rogue doesn't want to go through a locked door, and refuses to pick the lock, then the fighter deciding to pick the lock and go through the door anyway will necessitate splitting the party. Splitting the party is a bad idea - even ignoring the question of overcoming challenges - because the DM can only handle one group at a time. Ergo, to avoid one or more players needing to sit out for extended periods, it is best for everyone to make a character who plays well with others.

That leaves at least two of the possibilities I mentioned available (the fighter being there while the rogue is not; there being two lock that need to be picked simultaneously) and others that I haven't thought of yet.

The first one is definitely a thing. The rogue may very well be dead, or otherwise temporarily indisposed, and that's a good reason to have some sort of backup around.

The second one is difficult to imagine, unless the DM is specifically contriving a situation for it to happen. In all my years, I've never seen a trap or lock which needed to be disabled in two places at once.

 

[pemerton]

If the rogue doesn't want to go through a locked door, and refuses to pick the lock, then the fighter deciding to pick the lock and go through the door anyway will necessitate splitting the party.

Why? Every time PC 1 opens a door that PC 2 would rather keep closed, the party doesn't have to split.

The second one is difficult to imagine, unless the DM is specifically contriving a situation for it to happen. In all my years, I've never seen a trap or lock which needed to be disabled in two places at once.

Well, in the same way that referees for years have been contriving combat situations in which there is a role for all the PCs, it doesn't seem that hard to do it in other aspects of the game.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Why? Every time PC 1 opens a door that PC 2 would rather keep closed, the party doesn't have to split.

If the rogue is going to follow the fighter through the door, then the rogue might as well open the door. The rogue that you're imagining seems very wishy-washy in their convictions.

Well, in the same way that referees for years have been contriving combat situations in which there is a role for all the PCs, it doesn't seem that hard to do it in other aspects of the game.

Bad referees, maybe. It's not the job of a GM to contrive roles for the PCs. It would defeat the entire point of having skills or powers if the GM was going to contrive situations where those abilities would or would-not be useful. You might as well just have the GM tell you that you succeed or fail, instead of going through the whole rigamarole with the character sheets and the dice.

 

[CapnZapp]

Two thoughts on this.

First, the fighter only becomes redundant if the party operates as a gestalt entity. As soon as you have differences of opinion in the party (eg the fighter wants to go through the door, but the rogue doesn't) then the fighter's skill becomes useful (for the player of the fighter, at least).

Second, the issue of redundancy only rarely comes up in D&D combat, because D&D combat is not framed as duelling but as a whole-party affair. At which point having a mage with a dagger alongside the fighter isn't as useful as having two fighters, but is still better than a fighter on his/her own. If non-fighting challenges are framed in similar terms, then having the fighter who can pick locks is not redundant. This can be anything from providing assistance (analogous to the mage flanking to buff the fighter or activate a rogue's sneak attack) to being there when the rogue is elsewhere to there being two locks that need to be picked simultaneously.

This is impractical theory.

Why don't you instead embrace the fact you usually fight many foes, while you almost never pick two locks?

The fact you never need the Fighter's lock-picking skills in D&D (because either the Rogue, bard or Wizard will open them locks; or the Fighter will simply axe his way through) is a given, but it doesn't make the game any lesser.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[5ekyu]

General observations... Second besties play a role in my experience when multiple tasks are underway at once like say breaking into two different houses at same time. Those are not frequent.

In 5e the requirement that the work together advantage guy also be able to accomplish the task can lead to second bestie being important, as can gm requiring proficiency.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[pemerton]

If the rogue is going to follow the fighter through the door, then the rogue might as well open the door.

This makes no sense. If the rogue doesn't want the door opened, why would s/he open it?

But once it's opened by someone else, s/he might go through it rather than hang around on his/her own. The fact that the door is locked is relevant from the point of view of the fighter needing to use his/her pick locks bonus, but not from the more general point of view of party dynamics.

It's not the job of a GM to contrive roles for the PCs. It would defeat the entire point of having skills or powers if the GM was going to contrive situations where those abilities would or would-not be useful. You might as well just have the GM tell you that you succeed or fail, instead of going through the whole rigamarole with the character sheets and the dice.

This doesn't make sense either. The players have game pieces, called PCs, which are able to interact with the gameworld in some ways but not others (eg their combat abilities are exquisitely detailed; their abilities in music and pastry making not so much).

If the game is going to proceed, the GM needs to present ingame situations that engage those capacities of the PCs. This happens every time the GM says "roll initiative!" I don't see how that has any beariing on whether the players succeed or fail.

This is impractical theory.

Well, in my games there are multiple PCs who can read languages, manipulate arcane forces, persuade others, etc. Sometimes they work together. Sometime they work independently. Sometimes they oppose one another.

If every adventure is a prepackaged set of checks, which the party confronts as a gestalt whole, then multiple pick lock bonuses might be redundant. But that's not my preferred approach to RPGing.

 

[redrick]

If the rogue doesn't want to go through a locked door, and refuses to pick the lock, then the fighter deciding to pick the lock and go through the door anyway will necessitate splitting the party. Splitting the party is a bad idea - even ignoring the question of overcoming challenges - because the DM can only handle one group at a time. Ergo, to avoid one or more players needing to sit out for extended periods, it is best for everyone to make a character who plays well with others.

I've played in and run games this way, where effectively, the party is always "split," because we look at the position and actions of each character individually. This could mean 4 characters in 4 corners of a large room, or it could mean 4 characters moving through different rooms of a house. So if the Fighter discovers the locked chest in the study, while the Rogue is busy trapping the front door, the Fighter could just pick the lock, or go get the Rogue and ask them to do it. I'm a big fan of this approach, as it allows characters more opportunities to engage with their weaknesses, instead of treating the party as a single unit that just occupies a room and approaches every problem with the combined proficiencies of every character.

Truly split parties, where PCs are in quite different locations, more than just a room or two away, also come up from time to time, and if run well, can be entertaining for all.

 

[Stalker0]

Yep, if you're down to insults about my ability to not be scammed and the professional service I hired, I think we're done with this conversation.

Instead of ripping into the person you could have thanked them. I personally know nothing about lock picking and this might be some good info. Maybe you did get scammed...maybe you will know better next time.

Let’s try not to see counter information as a personal attack, for I read no belligerence in this persons post

 

[Ovinomancer]

Instead of ripping into the person you could have thanked them. I personally know nothing about lock picking and this might be some good info. Maybe you did get scammed...maybe you will know better next time.

Let’s try not to see counter information as a personal attack, for I read no belligerence in this persons post

So, you, as a person who admittedly knows very little about the topic, also assume I am incapable of recognizing a scam because another poster that you do not personally know said so? Thanks, I guess, for also being very wrong? Sadly, your error could have been avoided merely by continuing to read the thread.

 

[5ekyu]

So, you, as a person who admittedly knows very little about the topic, also assume I am incapable of recognizing a scam because another poster that you do not personally know said so? Thanks, I guess, for also being very wrong? Sadly, your error could have been avoided merely by continuing to read the thread.

For the sake of clarity the post where you first launched this rage against the impuning of your scam-dar is one in which the quoted statements said *nothing* about your ability to detect scams. They said that in thier country it was a common scam, not that you were suckered in.

What they said, based on their impression from your post was their opinion you had a bad locksmith.

But that is different from saying you fell for a scam.

To know whether your were scammed, we would have to know whether or not objectively the lock needed replacing.

I have bought many products or services from bad vendors and not been scammed, in spite of their failings.

So, the leap from what was quoted esp with reference to "in my country" to a personal attack is one that definitely required some large amount of ki points.

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app