D&D 5E Reliable Talent. What the what?

[cthulhu42]

If you would always fail on a 1, then you need to roll for every trivial action you take, because you might roll a 1. It doesn't matter whether your minimum check result would normally beat the DC by 10, because every action has a chance of failure.

I'm only suggesting a roll for checks that could have consequences for failure. There's nothing about implementing a nat 1 fail that demands a roll for every mundane action.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using EN World mobile app

 

[BookBarbarian]

Have you ever picked a lock?

Yes, but modern locks don't necessarily translate to their fantasy equivalents.

It's not meant to be picked in few seconds. Unless you are a world class burglar(read reliable talent).

There are techniques for quickly picking locks, such as raking, which would be a good approach as long as you are not concerned with leaving behind scratch marks. Likewise inserting a tension tool and hitting the lock with a hammer can occasionally cause all the pins to rest correctly so a lock can be opened, but it's obviously not a sure thing. Works better on Padlocks then door locks. Also still a technique for modern locks and not fantasy ones.

DC 20 for lockpicking in pathetic. Because there is no failure penalty and you can roll as much as you want(if you have the time). That means that commoner with the tools can open a DC 20 lock in a few minutes.

What DM is having commoners describe their approach to an action that also requires the DM to call for the commoner to make a Dexterity (Thieve's Tools) check to determine success or failure? It is perfectly within the purview of a DM to state that an approach fails without setting a DC. "You're a commoner, you don't know how to pick locks" works just fine. It also works fine for PCs.

DC 20 lock is a lock that you buy for 5€.

On the whole I am very much against things like "this type of lock has a DC 20" to me DCs are set by a DM after a PC has stated an approach to a scenario and the DM has determined the outcome of the approach is uncertain. The PCs approach can greatly effect what DC I choose to set for a DC on any check.

And retries happen. Default example are the locks. They are not traps that will blow in your face if you fumble one roll.

If I as a DM set a scenario where the time it takes to pick a lock, whether a few seconds, or an hour, or 5 hours, has no bearing on success or failure the i should just let any character succeed at the action, because there is clearly no drama to it.

I think it's better to just set up better failure outcomes that advance the story. Like if they fail to pick the lock the door/chain/ etc will rattle loudly and alert nearby denizens to the parties presence works much better than just "You fail to pick the lock, no other consequences happen"

If you are hard pressed for quick pick lock? Though break. DON'T BE hard pressed to pick locks. It's a time consuming process.

Agreed. Bring a crowbar.

 

[Charlaquin]

Just to be clear, I am the op, not Ovinomancer, although he has voiced many of my concerns far more eloquently than I could have.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using EN World mobile app

Right! Sorry for the mix up, my bad there.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I'm only suggesting a roll for checks that could have consequences for failure. There's nothing about implementing a nat 1 fail that demands a roll for every mundane action.

The reason to roll is because the outcome is uncertain. The rules tell us this. Once you implement failure on a 1, the outcome is always uncertain (unless failure is guaranteed, I guess). Granted, if it doesn't matter that everyone is falling down all the time then you don't have to stop and narrate it, but it's still happening in the background for as long as that's the rule which best describes how the world works.

Something you could do, which would probably get you closer to what you're looking for without as many unintended side-effects, is to implement failure on a 1 for checks with a minimum DC of 15 or whatever. Most people are going to fail on a 1 against DC 15 anyway, so this would create less collateral damage. You could also say that Reliable Talent doesn't work on a 1, so the check result would only be 16 or whatever in that case. Either way, it's obvious that you're just nerfing the rogue, so I'm not sure how the player would feel about that (especially since they can just spend luck to reroll it anyway).

 

[cthulhu42]

The reason to roll is because the outcome is uncertain. The rules tell us this. Once you implement failure on a 1, the outcome is always uncertain (unless failure is guaranteed, I guess). Granted, if it doesn't matter that everyone is falling down all the time then you don't have to stop and narrate it, but it's still happening in the background for as long as that's the rule which best describes how the world works.

Something you could do, which would probably get you closer to what you're looking for without as many unintended side-effects, is to implement failure on a 1 for checks with a minimum DC of 15 or whatever. Most people are going to fail on a 1 against DC 15 anyway, so this would create less collateral damage. You could also say that Reliable Talent doesn't work on a 1, so the check result would only be 16 or whatever in that case. Either way, it's obvious that you're just nerfing the rogue, so I'm not sure how the player would feel about that (especially since they can just spend luck to reroll it anyway).

I'm not nerfing anything yet. I'm asking for experiences and opinions and considering options.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using EN World mobile app

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I'm not nerfing anything yet. I'm asking for experiences and opinions and considering options.

Right, well, if you do end up deciding to nerf this class feature, then you may want to consider giving rogues something else to compensate. Maybe give them an extra skill proficiency or two to compensate, if you don't want to disrupt the balance across pillars.

 

[Horwath]

Why do you hold "lock-picking" to realistic standards?

This is a fantasy game where lots of things happen much more quickly than IRL.

And don't tell me the Rogue "needs" to do her stuff excruciatingly slowly when a fighter only needs 20 seconds to kill a dragon, and the Wizard only needs 6 seconds to bust open that lock. Or magically transport himself and the whole party inside the vault.

No, just like you can shoot a Crossbow nine times in 6 seconds (including winding it up eight times), a Rogue only needs a few seconds to do her stuff.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Well, in D&D physical actions(realistic without magic) try to follow laws of physics. Some more successfully than others

And magic is added with some laws that bound that magic also. More or less...

Fighter can kill a dragon in one second if he gets lucky. Same as a burglar can pick a lock in few seconds if he gets the tumblers in right position on the first try.(high enough roll)

And you can shoot a bow 9 times in 6 seconds if you are extremely skilled with it(lvl20 fighter??). Crossbow? not so much. Unless it is repeating with a magazine for bolts.

Crossbow had an Action loading time in playtest(realistic), but many people whined that they "cannot play" their imagined character if crossbow is slow loading...

 

[CapnZapp]

And you can shoot a bow 9 times in 6 seconds if you are extremely skilled with it(lvl20 fighter??). Crossbow? not so much. Unless it is repeating with a magazine for bolts.

Crossbow had an Action loading time in playtest(realistic), but many people whined that they "cannot play" their imagined character if crossbow is slow loading...

No, regular Crossbows with the CE feat.


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Horwath]

No, regular Crossbows with the CE feat.


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

I was talking about realism. I know about CE feat. Hate the crossbow mechanics TBH in 5e.

 

[CapnZapp]

I was talking about realism. I know about CE feat. Hate the crossbow mechanics TBH in 5e.

Okay, so now we're at the same point in the discussion.

And my point is, you were talking about realism. D&D isn't about that. From the realism angle (really, a simulationism angle) Reliable Talent might well look wonky. But that's not a design parameter.

In the end, feel free to houserule, but don't accuse the ability of being broken. It's only broken if you evaluate it on a scale it was never designed for.

Cheers

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app