D&D (2024) Should reliable talent be a feature that all characters get with proficiency/expertise?

[renbot]

As much as I miss the ability to intentionally do so, the 5e DMing guidance to roll only when the check is consequential is supposed to take the place of Take 10. Any place where a PC could reliably Take 10 before is an appropriate situation for not rolling in the first place in 5e.
I do think some discussion of that would have been a useful sidebar in the DMG.

The reason I believe the "take 10" remains useful is to determine the EXTENT of a success. This is why I especially use it as a floor for Knowledge checks, just like PP is a floor for Perception checks. If a Wizard has a +5 Arcana and rolls a 2, they get the information of a DC15 check but can't get the info from DC20 check until/unless something changes.

 

[renbot]

Yes, but it should be one of those new Epic Feat for everyone else.

Very nice. Yoink!

(Is "yoink" still a thing? I'm old!)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

As much as I miss the ability to intentionally do so, the 5e DMing guidance to roll only when the check is consequential is supposed to take the place of Take 10. Any place where a PC could reliably Take 10 before is an appropriate situation for not rolling in the first place in 5e.
I do think some discussion of that would have been a useful sidebar in the DMG.

It takes the place of both, I'd say, as it's equally true for Take 20 when there are zero consequences for failing.

But the 5E problem is two-fold:

1) This is hidden away in waffle-y text in the DMG. And in the DMG is a big problem. Because it means players don't know about this, can't say to DMs "Wait why are we rolling?". Instead tons of DMs, like a significant minority at least (including some who should know better), don't actually follow this guidance (which should be a hard rule, not guidance). One of the great things with Take 10 and Take 20 is that they were presented to players, and were unavoidable. No-one forgot about them unless alcohol or similar was involved!

2) It's utterly imprecise. Some DMs forget the guidance exists, or ignore it because it's guidance and not presented as a rule, but there are many who know it, and want to follow it, but because it's totally imprecise and waffle-y, they usually enforce it as "if you couldn't fail a roll, we don't roll it". But that's not it - it's the lack of consequences that's the issue. Of the DMs I've played 5E with, I'd say what, nearly 50% have some issues here, making people make a lot of needless, consequence-less rolls and worse, feeling sometimes they have to make up consequences, because, after all, a roll has been failed. Another advantage of Take 10/20 was that a roll wasn't failed. There wasn't a roll, so that subset of DMs who feels every failed roll must result in punishments didn't have to come up with anything.

So I maintain there was no upside for D&D to removing Take 10/20, and significant downside.

 

[billd91]

1) This is hidden away in waffle-y text in the DMG. And in the DMG is a big problem. Because it means players don't know about this, can't say to DMs "Wait why are we rolling?". Instead tons of DMs, like a significant minority at least (including some who should know better), don't actually follow this guidance (which should be a hard rule, not guidance). One of the great things with Take 10 and Take 20 is that they were presented to players, and were unavoidable. No-one forgot about them unless alcohol or similar was involved!

I think the problem with this line of thinking is that the DMs who are least likely to follow that guidance are also the ones most likely to disallow Take 10 - which was a pretty common complaint from players back in 3e days.

 

[billd91]

This just might be the grey in my beard talking, but I never truly did away with "take 10" in 5e, although I don't call it that. I especially use this with Knowledge checks (I'm sorry, the Wizard simply HAS to have a higher Arcana check than the Barbarian, just like the Barbarian is better at swinging a greataxe) but my players have also learned that any proficiency can have a "passive score" and they are no longer confused when I say "what is your Passive Acrobatics?" as though that were a thing. As with the original "take 10," it never applies when under pressure or if the result has a significant negative/positive consequence, but unlike the original the PC never gets to say they are doing it, it is something that I grant them and I do so pretty sparingly.

With respect to knowledge checks, this is why I keep a list of the knowledge skills PCs are proficient with. Not only do I use it to help determine when to not roll for a tidbit of information, but PCs proficient with the skill generally get more in-depth answers when there's a rolled situation.

 

[CreamCloud0]

doesn't the rogue get reliable talent on every single one of their skills? so other classes having it on skills they've managed to get expertise on (a feature that isn't all that widespread iirc) doesn't seem all that big of a deal to me, being able to have your character attempt something secure in the knowledge that you have a minimum bar of proficiency you will always achieve, knowing you can't roll a 1 and have the situation explode in your face or be totally incompetent at what they're meant to be amazing at.

majorly failling at what your character is designed to be best at never feels good.

 

[Pauln6]

With respect to knowledge checks, this is why I keep a list of the knowledge skills PCs are proficient with. Not only do I use it to help determine when to not roll for a tidbit of information, but PCs proficient with the skill generally get more in-depth answers when there's a rolled situation.

For me, I prefer to look at character background, history, profession, personality etc to decide if the specific subject (rather than broad brush subjects) should be easier/proficient for that one roll such as a soldier making a history roll vs a military history vs military history of his former regiment.

 

[Clint_L]

Absolutely not. If something is supposed to be that trivial, then you shouldn't be rolling in the first place. If you can fail the roll with a low roll, then it's not trivial. Reliable Talent is an amazing ability that's on par with 3 attacks per round; giving it away for free (even a weaker version of it) is a terrible idea.

I tend to agree with this sentiment - this really would be a huge nerf to rogues. "If everyone's super, no one is." And I also agree that you shouldn't be rolling on trivial tasks. I only ask players to roll on something easy if failure is conceivable, say on a natural 1, and something fun and interesting would happen as a result.

I'll maintain all day long that natural 1s are the best rolls in the game, and we shouldn't be doing anything to minimize the already tiny chance of them occurring. Failure is when interesting things happen in the story - it's when players and the DM have to improvise.

majorly failling at what your character is designed to be best at never feels good.

See, I just totally disagree with this statement. I think an unexpected failure, especially at something that you expect to succeed at, is almost always entertaining, and my players love when natural 1s happen because they know it is going to be fun. We get more excited for them than for natural 20s.

 

[DeviousQuail]

For a game using bounded accuracy there should be more abilities/features/etc. that raise the floor of a roll without altering the ceiling. Things like Reliable Talent, Portent, and Elemental Adept do this already so its not like the system can't handle it as a mechanic. Reroll abilities like Elven Accuracy, Lucky, Great Weapon Fighting, Halfling Luck, and Savage Attacker also have the chance to increase the floor though it's not guaranteed. The granddaddy of them all is Advantage. It may not necessarily raise the floor but it increases the average without changing the maximum and anyone playing 5e knows how to use it. Unfortunately, due to the canceling/redundant nature of advantage you can only hang so much off of it.

While I wouldn't want to change the basic proficiency system I would like to see feats and items that can give you 'treat rolls of X-Y as Y+1' for some checks. Items like Belt of the Olympian (treat Athletics checks of 1-5 as 6), The Seeker's Incense (1/day you can breathe in this incense, treat Perception checks of 1-7 as 8 for the next hour), the Quick Reflexes (when you roll initiative you can use your reaction to make your d20 roll a 10 instead of rolling), or the Headsman's Axe (when you roll damage treat all rolls below your proficiency bonus as your proficiency bonus).

Adding on to what I already said: I talked with my brother and he said all my suggestions for altering an already rolled d20 should be 2-5 as 6, 2-7 as 8, etc. Leaving the natural 1 leaves a small chance of failure and doesn't mess with abilities like the Halfling's Lucky feature.

 

[Pauln6]

Adding on to what I already said: I talked with my brother and he said all my suggestions for altering an already rolled d20 should be 2-5 as 6, 2-7 as 8, etc. Leaving the natural 1 leaves a small chance of failure and doesn't mess with abilities like the Halfling's Lucky feature.

Yes I agree that natural 1 should remain a failure (or at least bare minimal success). Even the smartest wizard forgets an important piece of information from time. Klaatu verikto.... mumble...