FieserMoep
Explorer
I think that is the underlying problem here.
People expect realism in a setting that is high fantasy and intended to portray awsome stories - not so much the daily grind and this paradigm gets even more relevant the higher the level goes.
It is not the fault of the rogue or his talents to be good. It may be your fault that you intend to challenge such a guy with the most mundane task.
It is like the LotR movies. If you expect to challenge Legolas with an acrobatics check to see if he can balance on some narrow thing you may be out of scope of what that character is capable off. That dude is surfing on shields down some stairs while he shoots and kills some big baddies.
Reliable does not make him better at the actual interesting stuff, it just makes him better at the stuff you may not even roll for anymore at this point of his career.
Aside of realism, the other problem is "balance". People expect DnD5e to be some sort of MMO where every class is just as good as the other on the same level. This is fundamentally - and by design - not true. Some classes start slow and get insane later (traditionally full casters) and some may peak at certain levels for they get stuff that really defines them. For the rouge that is reliable. Skill checks are by far the most mundane yet also the WEAKEST way to interact with the DnD world outside of just narrative interaction. You can not "force" a roll like you could most times with just initiating combat and you not "break" reality as you could with a spell and literally achieve ANYTHING as long as you convince the DM. Skill checks are grounded in the mundane and can only do so much while they also rely on the DM more heavily than "premade" stuff like monsters unless you play in a heavily home brewed environment. A character that pretty much relies on these for that is the concept of the class gets - reliable - at them. That is not removing drama, that is just reducing tedious mishaps at that point. Do we actually need to derail the campaign that the super humanly gifted guy rolled a 1 one just so happens to not get the DC after spending 10 levels in that profession and god knows how many "guard notices you, gets sliced, skip and continue" moments?
How does the story benefit from that? If he wants to be a notorious thieve that steals from the less privileged for a low but steady income - so be it.
If he wants to target bigger fish and automatically sneaks past some regular guard - so be it.
I may have missed it, but there are not many master thieves in literature that fail a low risk heist because of their own incompetence at the first obstacle they encounter. Mostly because that misses the point of the master thieve and an interesting story in the first place. For that you had 10 levels before he got reliable.
People expect realism in a setting that is high fantasy and intended to portray awsome stories - not so much the daily grind and this paradigm gets even more relevant the higher the level goes.
It is not the fault of the rogue or his talents to be good. It may be your fault that you intend to challenge such a guy with the most mundane task.
It is like the LotR movies. If you expect to challenge Legolas with an acrobatics check to see if he can balance on some narrow thing you may be out of scope of what that character is capable off. That dude is surfing on shields down some stairs while he shoots and kills some big baddies.
Reliable does not make him better at the actual interesting stuff, it just makes him better at the stuff you may not even roll for anymore at this point of his career.
Aside of realism, the other problem is "balance". People expect DnD5e to be some sort of MMO where every class is just as good as the other on the same level. This is fundamentally - and by design - not true. Some classes start slow and get insane later (traditionally full casters) and some may peak at certain levels for they get stuff that really defines them. For the rouge that is reliable. Skill checks are by far the most mundane yet also the WEAKEST way to interact with the DnD world outside of just narrative interaction. You can not "force" a roll like you could most times with just initiating combat and you not "break" reality as you could with a spell and literally achieve ANYTHING as long as you convince the DM. Skill checks are grounded in the mundane and can only do so much while they also rely on the DM more heavily than "premade" stuff like monsters unless you play in a heavily home brewed environment. A character that pretty much relies on these for that is the concept of the class gets - reliable - at them. That is not removing drama, that is just reducing tedious mishaps at that point. Do we actually need to derail the campaign that the super humanly gifted guy rolled a 1 one just so happens to not get the DC after spending 10 levels in that profession and god knows how many "guard notices you, gets sliced, skip and continue" moments?
How does the story benefit from that? If he wants to be a notorious thieve that steals from the less privileged for a low but steady income - so be it.
If he wants to target bigger fish and automatically sneaks past some regular guard - so be it.
I may have missed it, but there are not many master thieves in literature that fail a low risk heist because of their own incompetence at the first obstacle they encounter. Mostly because that misses the point of the master thieve and an interesting story in the first place. For that you had 10 levels before he got reliable.