D&D 5E Reliable Talent and Disadvantage - order of precedence?

[DND_Reborn]

This ignores the higher roll as "a d20 roll of 10 or lower."

But the lower roll does not ignore it. So it is still satisfied. You can argue it either way and be correct.

So it's up to the GM to decide to take the Middle Road or Least Generous, because the Most Generous ruling doesn't respect RAI.

I agree it is completely up to the DM, but even the most generous interpretation is what is followed by many of the people replying to this thread and mine from a couple weeks ago. Many responses in my thread felt I was nerfing rogues if I didn't rule it in the most generous manner.

IMO you can justifiably rule it any of those three ways, and there are probably others I haven't thought of.

 

[NotAYakk]

RELIABLE T ALENT
By 11th level, you have refined your chosen skills until they approach perfection. Whenever you make an ability check that lets you add your proficiency bonus, you can treat a d20 roll of 9 or lower as a 10.

Emphasis mine.

"a d20 roll" could be "any d20 roll" or "one d20 roll" and be consistent with the rules as written. A singular coukd be "singular at a time" (inaming the die rolled) or "singular per wrapping event" (only applies to one d20 roll sub-event).

In addition, "Whenever" could refer to the d20 being 9 or under (the "any" interpretation), or making an ability check (either interpretation).

English is full of ambiguities, and 5e D&D is written in natural language. Pretending it isn't is wrong.

Nothing breaks if you use the more generous interpretation, so following the rule if thumb that if it ain't breaking things, be generous to players, I'd use the more generous interpretation.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Just to share the numbers I came up with in examining this all before:

(Rolling: Average)

Flat d20: 10.5
Disadv.: 7.175

RT (Flat d20): 12.75
Disadv. & RT (1 die only): 8.7125
Disadv. & RT (both dice): 10.9625

So, with a normal roll, disadvantage decreases the average result by 3.325
But, if you have RT, with disadvantage, and applying RT to only one of the two dice, the average decreases by 4.0375!

In other words, disadvantage hurts you more if you have RT than if you don't. It seems like if you have RT disadvantage should not impact you as much as if you didn't have RT.

Now, if you allow RT to apply to both dice rolled when you have disadvantage, the average only decreases by 1.7875. THAT makes more sense to me. It obviously still impacts the roll (an average decrease of almost 2 points), but not as much as if you didn't have RT.

Make your own decisions, but I decided to me disadvantage still impacts RT enough that I am satisfied with the "more generous" interpretation.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I always do the result of a roll.

So, you roll normally (with advantage or disadvantage).
Then you take that result and replace it with whatever class ability allows you to replace that result.

So, disadvantage 8 and 4 results as a 4. "I don't like that roll - Portent" or "No d20s below 10: Reliable talent"

 

[TwoSix]

Arguing strict RAW in 5e is, at best, an utter waste of your time. Pick the ruling that gives you the result you want at your table.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Function
The zero conditional is used to make statements about the real world, and often refers to general truths, such as scientific facts. In these sentences, the time is now or always and the situation is real and possible.

Sorry, but I don't see any ambiguities here. People are just not following the rule of the 0th conditional if they consider the general 'a' to mean a specific '1'.

Ironically, if I were to treat the 'a' as '1', I would still default both dice to 10s because it needs to be the general truth:
- Dm, roll stealth, at disadvantage, mwa ha ha!
- Me, picks up two d20s and rolls..
'I have a d20 roll of 1, sorry 10, and a d20 roll of 4, sorry 10.'
- DM, grumble clever word play mumble

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Oops, 'can' is a form of 'will', so we're actually using the first conditional - so that's talking about real possibility.

My argument therefore focuses more on the conjunction 'whenever' and indefinite article 'a'. Whenever creates a blanket statement and use of 'a' refers to something for the first time - not limiting it to once.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Just to play devil's advocate (because it is fun ):

Dm, roll stealth, at disadvantage, mwa ha ha!
Me, picks up two d20s and rolls..
'I have a d20 roll of 1, sorry 10, and a d20 roll of 4, sorry 10.'
- DM, actually, you used your reliable talent on the 1, so the 4 still stands. Sorry, 4. mwa ha ha!

Explanation: you used RT on the first roll, satisfying all its conditions. It has been used. You can't use it again if the DM doesn't allow you to. You might not like it, but your DM has final arbitration over the rules.

Note it says whenever you make an ability check, you can treat a d20 roll, not any d20 roll. You can argue it the other way as you're doing, but it doesn't make this logic any less valid.

I mean, I get your point, but you can't assume your way is what the designers had in mind. There are multiple ways you can rule this and they are as justifiable as your interpretation. I searched high and low when I started the other thread on (Un)Reliable Talent, I've tweeted JC, etc. and there is no official ruling on how disadvantage works with a feature like Reliable Talent that I have found.

 

[Quartz]

'I have a d20 roll of 1, sorry 10, and a d20 roll of 4, sorry 10.'
- DM, actually, you used your reliable talent on the 1, so the 4 still stands. Sorry, 4. mwa ha ha!

Actually, this answers the question, because not only does RT have unlimited uses over the adventuring day but it can be used more than once in the same round. So the order of precedence is not actually relevant - you simply treat any roll of 9 or less as 10.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Actually, this answers the question, because not only does RT have unlimited uses over the adventuring day but it can be used more than once in the same round. So the order of precedence is not actually relevant - you simply treat any roll of 9 or less as 10.

This is the "most generous" option as I wrote about before and more commonly accepted than not. I was opposed to it until I ran the numbers and realized the amount of difference plus the frequency with which it comes up, simply is not worth a house-rule to go against the "common use".