Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Reliable Talent. What the what?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7295914" data-attributes="member: 6778044"><p>Really, I think the system as designed addresses most of the issues, with a few minor modifications. I don't think I explained my thoughts very well in my earlier post, so:</p><p></p><p>1. Your passive score essentially provides a floor for your skill ability. That is, most of the time, below this threshold you don't significantly risk failure without other mitigating circumstances. That doesn't mean you can't, but most of the time you probably won't need to make a check if the DC is less than this. This is a number that can help your consistency when determining whether a check is needed or not.</p><p></p><p>2. When making a skill check, if you have proficiency, then you know you can succeed, it's really a question of how long it might take and if there are any complications. Most of the time you can use the difference between the DC and the roll as a measure of time. This eliminates the need for retries. I also consider other complications/consequences if you fail by 5 or more, 10 or more, 15 or more, etc. </p><p></p><p>3. If you are non-proficient, the check is closer to a success/fail check. Again, retries generally don't work. </p><p></p><p>4. I usually don't allow a non-proficient character to attempt something that has a DC of 20 or higher. This isn't a hard and fast rule, but a guideline - if the task is a complex one and the DC is 20 or higher, then I think you'd need actual training to succeed at it. For example, if you claimed to be a minstrel, and were asked to play a particular piece that's a favorite of the king's on the lute, then no amount of luck will allow an untrained individual to succeed. That doesn't mean that they might not be able to find another way to bluff their way through the scene, they just won't be able to play the piece.</p><p></p><p>5. Rolling a check requires an action, generally above and beyond the normal circumstances. So walking through a forest is usually a passive Perception check, and the checks are based solely on the passive score. Going slowly and keeping your eye out for trouble? A passive check with advantage, and I'll usually take into account your full capability (20+). For a Perception check this means you'll probably get a sense something is wrong, (the "hint" approach), but will need to do something to make a check. Climb a tree to get a better vantage point? Then I might ask for you to roll. </p><p></p><p>6. The DM asks for a check dependent upon the actions the character takes. In many cases, the action resolves the question itself with a success, or with no chance for success, so no roll is needed. If the character has no chance for success, there's no point in a roll. </p><p></p><p>7. Advantage to a passive check (+5 modifier) does not increase your capability, only your chance for success. That is, your measure of capability is 20 + ability and/or proficiency modifiers, not circumstantial modifiers.</p><p></p><p>--</p><p></p><p>There are a number of factors as to why I prefer to do things this way.</p><p></p><p>1. I want to eliminate re-rolls. Not by an arbitrary rule that says "no rerolls," but because the rolls already take into account that you will continue to retry until successful, unless there's some other factor.</p><p></p><p>2. I want to reward proficiency. The chance of outright failure is lower with proficiency, although the circumstances matter here too.</p><p></p><p>3. I want to better define the guidelines of when to roll. We already hand-wave all sorts of skill checks. By basing most rolls off of passive scores there's a guide to work with. You can still opt not to make a check even when the DC is higher than the passive score. I do that all the time, because their score might be increased due to advantage, but frequently because there is no consequence to taking some extra time. This directly ties into the frequent advice given about when to ask for a skill check, but utilizes the passive score to help with that guideline when needed. I also take into account the character's full capability (20 + modifiers) here.</p><p></p><p>--</p><p></p><p>Now we have altered the math in a few ways because we feel that 5e makes things too easy. That's our personal preference. As mentioned before, I think that most of the published DCs are too low. It's not a hard and fast rule, and is largely irrelevant since we don't use the publishes APs. But when people complain about expertise and reliable talent, particularly in relation to passive Perception checks, this is the first thing I'd consider. Again, the detection DC for traps in ToH seems way too low for a dungeon of that nature.</p><p></p><p>We also felt that the idea that somebody untrained could be significantly better than somebody trained in some cases, and also that the difference between no modifiers and expertise got too wide. In addition, the way proficiency is defined is inconsistent across different aspects of the game. Using this for skills only is simple, using it across the game like we did is more complex.</p><p></p><p>So we use the following system:</p><p></p><p>Non-proficient: Ability modifier, with a maximum bonus of +1 (we'll actually probably use a maximum bonus of 1 less than proficiency at a given level).</p><p></p><p>Proficient: Ability modifier or proficiency modifier, whichever is higher.</p><p></p><p>Expertise: Ability modifier plus proficiency modifier. </p><p></p><p>--</p><p></p><p>For reliable talent itself, it's more or less redundant for me since it's essentially the same as a passive score. The complaint still seems like one of degree of benefit. That people don't like how many things it makes an auto-success by rule. That, to me, is a math issue. Either reliable talent should work differently, such as a +5 bonus (which is essentially advantage, although it could stack with advantage) would probably do the trick for most people.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ilbranteloth, post: 7295914, member: 6778044"] Really, I think the system as designed addresses most of the issues, with a few minor modifications. I don't think I explained my thoughts very well in my earlier post, so: 1. Your passive score essentially provides a floor for your skill ability. That is, most of the time, below this threshold you don't significantly risk failure without other mitigating circumstances. That doesn't mean you can't, but most of the time you probably won't need to make a check if the DC is less than this. This is a number that can help your consistency when determining whether a check is needed or not. 2. When making a skill check, if you have proficiency, then you know you can succeed, it's really a question of how long it might take and if there are any complications. Most of the time you can use the difference between the DC and the roll as a measure of time. This eliminates the need for retries. I also consider other complications/consequences if you fail by 5 or more, 10 or more, 15 or more, etc. 3. If you are non-proficient, the check is closer to a success/fail check. Again, retries generally don't work. 4. I usually don't allow a non-proficient character to attempt something that has a DC of 20 or higher. This isn't a hard and fast rule, but a guideline - if the task is a complex one and the DC is 20 or higher, then I think you'd need actual training to succeed at it. For example, if you claimed to be a minstrel, and were asked to play a particular piece that's a favorite of the king's on the lute, then no amount of luck will allow an untrained individual to succeed. That doesn't mean that they might not be able to find another way to bluff their way through the scene, they just won't be able to play the piece. 5. Rolling a check requires an action, generally above and beyond the normal circumstances. So walking through a forest is usually a passive Perception check, and the checks are based solely on the passive score. Going slowly and keeping your eye out for trouble? A passive check with advantage, and I'll usually take into account your full capability (20+). For a Perception check this means you'll probably get a sense something is wrong, (the "hint" approach), but will need to do something to make a check. Climb a tree to get a better vantage point? Then I might ask for you to roll. 6. The DM asks for a check dependent upon the actions the character takes. In many cases, the action resolves the question itself with a success, or with no chance for success, so no roll is needed. If the character has no chance for success, there's no point in a roll. 7. Advantage to a passive check (+5 modifier) does not increase your capability, only your chance for success. That is, your measure of capability is 20 + ability and/or proficiency modifiers, not circumstantial modifiers. -- There are a number of factors as to why I prefer to do things this way. 1. I want to eliminate re-rolls. Not by an arbitrary rule that says "no rerolls," but because the rolls already take into account that you will continue to retry until successful, unless there's some other factor. 2. I want to reward proficiency. The chance of outright failure is lower with proficiency, although the circumstances matter here too. 3. I want to better define the guidelines of when to roll. We already hand-wave all sorts of skill checks. By basing most rolls off of passive scores there's a guide to work with. You can still opt not to make a check even when the DC is higher than the passive score. I do that all the time, because their score might be increased due to advantage, but frequently because there is no consequence to taking some extra time. This directly ties into the frequent advice given about when to ask for a skill check, but utilizes the passive score to help with that guideline when needed. I also take into account the character's full capability (20 + modifiers) here. -- Now we have altered the math in a few ways because we feel that 5e makes things too easy. That's our personal preference. As mentioned before, I think that most of the published DCs are too low. It's not a hard and fast rule, and is largely irrelevant since we don't use the publishes APs. But when people complain about expertise and reliable talent, particularly in relation to passive Perception checks, this is the first thing I'd consider. Again, the detection DC for traps in ToH seems way too low for a dungeon of that nature. We also felt that the idea that somebody untrained could be significantly better than somebody trained in some cases, and also that the difference between no modifiers and expertise got too wide. In addition, the way proficiency is defined is inconsistent across different aspects of the game. Using this for skills only is simple, using it across the game like we did is more complex. So we use the following system: Non-proficient: Ability modifier, with a maximum bonus of +1 (we'll actually probably use a maximum bonus of 1 less than proficiency at a given level). Proficient: Ability modifier or proficiency modifier, whichever is higher. Expertise: Ability modifier plus proficiency modifier. -- For reliable talent itself, it's more or less redundant for me since it's essentially the same as a passive score. The complaint still seems like one of degree of benefit. That people don't like how many things it makes an auto-success by rule. That, to me, is a math issue. Either reliable talent should work differently, such as a +5 bonus (which is essentially advantage, although it could stack with advantage) would probably do the trick for most people. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Reliable Talent. What the what?
Top