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

[Jester David]

The DM must have hated 3rd and 4th Edition where everyone could do this all the time by "taking 10".

 

[CapnZapp]

You know you're nerfing the way reliable talent works, right?

Yes.

For reliable talent, the player always rolls, anything under a 10 is a 10 anything over is the rolled number. Forcing a decision is expressly against the intent of the ability!

As written, in many cases (if not all of them) Reliable Talent makes all twenty outcomes of the d20 result in the same thing: you succeed on the check. For example: the OP's scenario.

To me, that is an inherently bad thing - why roll if the result changes nothing? (Your mileage may vary.)

 

[Mort]

Yes.


As written, in many cases (if not all of them) Reliable Talent makes all twenty outcomes of the d20 result in the same thing: you succeed on the check. For example: the OP's scenario.

To me, that is an inherently bad thing - why roll if the result changes nothing? (Your mileage may vary.)

The player doesn't usually know the DC, they don't know it's an auto success. If you're concerned about too many rolls, just dictate the auto success.

The problem with making the player choose: it turns certain success into likely failure (say DC is 20 and the player has a +12, they auto succeed with reliable talent, but if they roll there's a 45% chance of failure).

Same problem the other way, choosing 10 may result in auto fail, while rolling has a high probability of success.

The intent of the ability is to make it easier for the player to succeed, not to impose another difficult decision point.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes.


As written, in many cases (if not all of them) Reliable Talent makes all twenty outcomes of the d20 result in the same thing: you succeed on the check. For example: the OP's scenario.

To me, that is an inherently bad thing - why roll if the result changes nothing? (Your mileage may vary.)

To be fair, if I knew the rogue with reliable could succeed on a 10, I’d just narrate the results without a roll. But I do get where you’re coming from, it feels weird when a player’s action seems like it should have a chance of success, chance of failure and consequences, but then reliable talent eliminates that chance of failure. I’m cool wit it myself, but I totally understand why many others might find that to be too much.

 

[Parmandur]

Yes.


As written, in many cases (if not all of them) Reliable Talent makes all twenty outcomes of the d20 result in the same thing: you succeed on the check. For example: the OP's scenario.

To me, that is an inherently bad thing - why roll if the result changes nothing? (Your mileage may vary.)

Yes, the DM should not call for a roll if the PC can succeed when rolling a 1. This is stated in the rules for ability checks, and some other places.

Doesn't mean this ability is broken, it just means the Rogue is the master of doing things.

 

[Dausuul]

Implement the natural 1 rule for skills. It doesn't seem out of line that a skill attempt, like an attack, could fail on a 1. Even masters of their crafts sometimes err.

On routine tasks, a 5% failure rate is way out of line. Imagine a truck driver who crashed their truck 1 trip out of 20, or a nurse who couldn't get a blood pressure reading on 1 patient out of 20, or a professional actor who forgot their lines 1 performance out of 20.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The DM must have hated 3rd and 4th Edition where everyone could do this all the time by "taking 10".

I may have embellished the DMs reactions for storytelling purposes.

 

[CapnZapp]

The player doesn't usually know the DC, they don't know it's an auto success. If you're concerned about too many rolls, just dictate the auto success.

The problem with making the player choose: it turns certain success into likely failure (say DC is 20 and the player has a +12, they auto succeed with reliable talent, but if they roll there's a 45% chance of failure).

Obviously I mean: roll with '2'-'9' replaced by '10', or don't roll and get a '10'.

Your description makes the entire ability go away.

Same problem the other way, choosing 10 may result in auto fail, while rolling has a high probability of success.

Had this actually been a reasonably common case, I might not have bothered with a houserule.

The intent of the ability is to make it easier for the player to succeed, not to impose another difficult decision point.

As this thread amply shows, that's not the main impact in practice. The main practical impact is that rolls lose any excitement or risk. By making 1 autofail I restore this vital aspect, while making rolling optional I don't actually shaft the character.

 

[CapnZapp]

Yes, the DM should not call for a roll if the PC can succeed when rolling a 1. This is stated in the rules for ability checks, and some other places.

Doesn't mean this ability is broken, it just means the Rogue is the master of doing things.

Didn't say it was. "Master of doing things" is meaningless in this context.

If a roll succeeds no matter the result, something in the game design broke down. Why roll at all if there aren't at least two outcomes possible? My aim is to not have any rolls that doesn't matter, or as in this case, make the decision to roll or not the thing that matters.

Maybe you are agreeing that "DM should not call for a roll" does not just apply to the case where 1 means success, but also the case where rolling 1-9 gets replaced with a 10 which in turn means success?

 

[CapnZapp]

On routine tasks, a 5% failure rate is way out of line. Imagine a truck driver who crashed their truck 1 trip out of 20, or a nurse who couldn't get a blood pressure reading on 1 patient out of 20, or a professional actor who forgot their lines 1 performance out of 20.

My recommended solution for this is simple:

Don't roll for routine tasks.

When you roll, it should be for a heroic task. A task where 5% failure chance is more than reasonable (given that we're modeling dramatic fantasy sequences)