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

[Coroc]

...
So if you finish 2 assignments early, you take 2 candies? I agree that this is not ambiguous. It's not terribly helpful because it's not straightforwardly analogous though, and has some weird distracting BDSM spin on it.

Your post has a weird distracting thread derailing spin on it ....

 

[Coroc]

Given it's equally likely that the 'a' in the context of the rule could mean 'any' instead of 'one', your insistence that said 'a' must be read as 'one' is baffling.

Except the "Whenever" as a preamble makes it totally clear even for me as a non native speaker that a as in any is the meaning.

 

[Li Shenron]

And yet, you've proven... nothing.

Good one!

Exactly because there's nothing to prove.

 

[Coroc]

Not at all.

Without disadvantage, RT increases from 10.5 to 12.75 which is approximately a proportional +21% increase.

With disadvantage (defaulting a single d20 to 10), RT increases from 7.125 to 8.7125 which is about +22%.

With disadvantage (defaulting both to 10), RT increases from 7.125 to 10.9625 which is about +54%.

That's just to say that twisting numbers to "prove" your point is easy. That's what politicians and spin doctors do all the time.

I think you and @dnd4vr took two different cases. In case 2 you fixed the worse die to the 10, whereas he did take one of those two (no matter if the worse or the better) for his computation.

I think your computation would be the exact, still since it is totally clear that RT does give you a 10 on every skill roll the computation itself is only interesting in the first and third case, since the second is not applicable at all.

 

[Flamestrike]

M/C Bard with 11 levels of Rogue. Jack of all Trades + Reliable Talent.

Is adding half your PB enough for RT to trigger?

 

[Mort]

M/C Bard with 11 levels of Rogue. Jack of all Trades + Reliable Talent.

Is adding half your PB enough for RT to trigger?

No,

Reliable talent only triggers if you can add your proficiency bonus.

Jack of all trades only triggers if you can't.

Also, unlike the OP question, this one was addressed by sage advice.

 

[BluejayJunior]

You're free to read this however you want in your game, but any interpretation other than that the whenever refers to the ability check and a d20 roll means that one die roll per ability check is changed is results determinative thinking.

Let's do a substitution exercise.

Whenever you finish an assignment early, you can treat yourself to a candy. How many candies are you taking? If the answer is multiple, teacher is going to crack you knuckles with the yardstick.

This is 100% not ambiguous.

So if I finish two assignments early, I can only get one candy. That's what you're saying?

You are free to read that interpretation as RAW, but it is definitely not the only RAW way to read it. If it was meant to be that explicitly singular, it would clearly state that is effects a single die.
The rule states, "treat a d20 roll of 9 or lower". A die roll can only have one result. You cannot roll multiple results on a die. That is why it is singular.

Or if you don't like that. Disadvantage tells you to roll 2 dice and use the lowest result. That die is then used for your result. Reliable talent then tells you to treat that roll as a 10 if it was 9 or lower.

If I say that a dog can be brown, does that mean that only one dog in the entire world can be brown at any moment?

 

[EscherEnigma]

As a rule of thumb, if a statement is ambiguous, you look to context and surrounding language to determine meaning.

And the surrounding context is that when there are limits to how often you apply an ability (be it per long rest, per short rest, per turn, etc), the PhB is unambiguous.

So at my table I'd say "most generous": If they had intended to limit it, they would have used different language.

But as a player, I'd accept whatever the GM goes with cause I'm happy to be playing regardless of how one specific rogue ability works.

 

[Ovinomancer]

As a rule of thumb, if a statement is ambiguous, you look to context and surrounding language to determine meaning.

And the surrounding context is that when there are limits to how often you apply an ability (be it per long rest, per short rest, per turn, etc), the PhB is unambiguous.

So at my table I'd say "most generous": If they had intended to limit it, they would have used different language.

But as a player, I'd accept whatever the GM goes with cause I'm happy to be playing regardless of how one specific rogue ability works.

Best Answer.

The rules do not attempt to hide meanings. If something is meant to be limited, the rules are clear about it. If you're looking at an ambiguous section, you should start your interpretation by assuming intended limits to be explicit, not implied.