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

[Parmandur]

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?

Yes, if the DM knows the Rogue cannot roll lower than 21 on a 20 DC check, nonroll should be called for: Rogues roll for big ticket checks, not even very hard.

 

[Satyrn]

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.

What this means for me is that I should call for a roll unless I've set the DC to zero, because I have no idea what my players' modifiers are, but since we use the standard array I'm pretty sure their floor is -1.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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?

Most activities in the game are based around actions that don't require a roll because they would succeed regardless of the outcome. As an example, hearing an explosion on the other side of a wall might have a DC of -5, and the reason why the DM is allowed to skip the roll is because anyone would succeed on a 1. Walking down a street might have a DC of -2, which most people wouldn't need to roll for, even though a hypothetical Dwarf could fail it 5% of the time.

Everyone in the world is capable enough at some thing, that they can succeed at certain tasks automatically, where a less-capable individual might fail. Whether a roll is necessary or not is one of those things which should vary wildly depending on the individual making the attempt.

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)

If the outcome of a task depends on whether or not the DM decides to apply the rules for resolving that task, then something in the game design broke down.

 

[Parmandur]

What this means for me is that I should call for a roll unless I've set the DC to zero, because I have no idea what my players' modifiers are, but since we use the standard array I'm pretty sure their floor is -1.

The rules strong recommendation is only calling for rolls on DC 10 or higher, unless something dire is on the line and failure is possible. Even without Relible Talent, though, Rogues of mid-level are likely going to be able to succeed on their core skills even rolling a 1 against DC 10.

Personally, I'm partial to the auto-success variant rules from the DMG, letting the large modifier and proficient characters shine in their foci.

 

[Mort]

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.

No, It just means you can have the rogue not bother rolling on many checks, a decent perk.

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

It seems like it would come up quite a bit in higher level play with high DCs.

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.

This thread's pretty old, so maybe. But from what I recall, there are plenty of people saying that the whole point of the ability is to eliminate risk (and therefore, possibly, excitement). The 11+ level rogue shouldn't have risk on lesser tasks - that's the whole point. And before "well they can take 10 if they want", that's only valid if you tell them the DC beforehand, most DMs don't do that.

By making 1 autofail I restore this vital aspect, while making rolling optional I don't actually shaft the character.

If that's the way it works out in your game, at the table - and the player doesn't feel shafted then great!

But I can certainly see it going the other way. This ability is a tier changing ability, supposed to be on par with gaining 6th level spells or a 3rd attack, my preference is to keep it at that level.

 

[Mort]

Yes, if the DM knows the Rogue cannot roll lower than 21 on a 20 DC check, nonroll should be called for: Rogues roll for big ticket checks, not even very hard.

Right, at the level we're discussing the rogue has the easy stuff down. The first couple of times, the DM can drive this home by presenting a locked door - when the player reaches for the die to see if he's opened it - the DM dictates how he opened the door before the player even has a chance to roll. After a time or 2 like that - the DM can just skip the suspense and dictate the door being opened.

Seems like a nice way of letting the player know that his character is a cut above.

 

[CapnZapp]

Most activities in the game are based around actions that don't require a roll because they would succeed regardless of the outcome. As an example, hearing an explosion on the other side of a wall might have a DC of -5, and the reason why the DM is allowed to skip the roll is because anyone would succeed on a 1. Walking down a street might have a DC of -2, which most people wouldn't need to roll for, even though a hypothetical Dwarf could fail it 5% of the time.

Everyone in the world is capable enough at some thing, that they can succeed at certain tasks automatically, where a less-capable individual might fail. Whether a roll is necessary or not is one of those things which should vary wildly depending on the individual making the attempt.

Sometimes people feel the need to explain the ultra-obvious to me. I have no clue why. At least I can't find any traces of disagreement in any of this, disagreement with my suggestions, that is.

So my reply is: okay, whatevs.

If the outcome of a task depends on whether or not the DM decides to apply the rules for resolving that task, then something in the game design broke down.

This sounds faintly passive-aggressive, but again: sure.

 

[CapnZapp]

No, It just means you can have the rogue not bother rolling on many checks, a decent perk.




It seems like it would come up quite a bit in higher level play with high DCs.




This thread's pretty old, so maybe. But from what I recall, there are plenty of people saying that the whole point of the ability is to eliminate risk (and therefore, possibly, excitement). The 11+ level rogue shouldn't have risk on lesser tasks - that's the whole point. And before "well they can take 10 if they want", that's only valid if you tell them the DC beforehand, most DMs don't do that.



If that's the way it works out in your game, at the table - and the player doesn't feel shafted then great!

But I can certainly see it going the other way. This ability is a tier changing ability, supposed to be on par with gaining 6th level spells or a 3rd attack, my preference is to keep it at that level.

It feels as if you've managed to talk about something else.

As for me, all I'm saying is that I dislike rules that lead to scenarios where no matter the result of a die roll, the outcome is the same.

But it might be that I need to ask you the question I intended as merely rhetorical: "why then even roll?"

Otherwise, all I've done is presented a suggested houserule to avoid what I consider an obviously undesirable state. I don't have any opinion on any of the points you bring up, and honestly I'm not even sure what you're talking about.

 

[Mort]

It feels as if you've managed to talk about something else.

Certainly not my intent, I'll try to be clearer.

As for me, all I'm saying is that I dislike rules that lead to scenarios where no matter the result of a die roll, the outcome is the same.

Makes sense. But, what I've been saying here is, why not eliminate the die roll instead of nerfing the ability?

Essentially, reliable talent allows the rogue to have a much higher floor on certain abilities.

Just treat it like a passive check and dictate that the rogue made it, no roll necessary.

Example: group comes across a rickety rope bridge that's swinging wildly. DM has set an athletics or acrobatics DC of 15 to get across (DM does not tell the players the DC) (we'll pretend that an 11+ level party couldn't just teleport, fly, etc across, maybe they're trying to preserve resources).

Everyone else has to roll to get across, maybe there's talk of aid another (provide advantage to crossing PC by holding down the bridge). but rolls are still made.

Rogue's turn to cross comes, he's trained in acrobatics, has a +8 or so. As he comes to the bridge, the DM dictates that he just made it across - perk of reliable talent.

But it might be that I need to ask you the question I intended as merely rhetorical: "why then even roll?"

Don't roll.

I just didn't like your proposed situation where the player has to guess if they should roll or not. It seems both punitive and unnecessarily complicated.

Otherwise, all I've done is presented a suggested houserule to avoid what I consider an obviously undesirable state. I don't have any opinion on any of the points you bring up, and honestly I'm not even sure what you're talking about.

I was responding to the houserule and why I didn't care for it. Hopefully this post cleared that up.

 

[CapnZapp]

Ah, thanks, I get it now.

My point wasn't to punish the player / character.

My point was to retain some fun/exciting point of "potential divergence".

In my mind, the problem with "reliable talent" is exactly that: you're deprived of the excitement of rolling the d20.

Not rolling and taking 10 is certainly an option. But since the outcome is (by the standard rules) all but a given, this is also sometimes beige and boring.

(Only at DC 20, which is very uncommon in official supplements regardless of level - not to mention DC 25 which is outright rare - does "take 10" stand a chance of failure - and thereby forcing you to make the actual roll - and only in your "bad" skills. Making nine out of ten rolls just to find out whether the tenth is success or failure is sooo dull IMO)

So I thought: how can I add some spice here, without merely nerfing or removing the ability?

My solution was to present the player with a choice:

Rolling 17 or 19 is sure to give you glory, right? But rolling a 10 is possibly not enough to reach the lofty heights of bragging rights, agreed? (In some cases it easily is. But the point is: it might not be)

So here's the deal: you can either "take 10" and be sure of not failing, at the expense of possibly not be allowed to brag about a stratospheric result. Or, you can roll, in which case a "1" means outright failure.

In essence, I'm baiting the player's vanity and hunger for the casino-like excitement of making die rolls , in the hopes he or she will choose to roll, and thereby introducing a 5% risk of failure, restoring the "game" part of "roleplaying game"!

In the cases where the player doesn't see any particular upside about rolling great, and/or sees a definite downside of failure, the player simply chooses to take 10.

So, "punitive", not at all.

"Complicated", well... maybe. Not very complicated, mind you. I hope you agree - since all my suggestion boils down to is: "do you want to roll, 1 = fail; or do you take 10".

I mainly hope you will find my suggestion more fun than the beige reality of always succeeding, never failing. (Whether you actually roll or merely "take 10").

Regards