D&D 5E Tweaking Reliable Talent and comparing it with Indomitable

[Quartz]

What if Reliable Talent were once per short rest?

The rogue's Reliable Talent (RT) skill is gained only a little after the fighter gets Indomitable. The latter ability is 1 / long rest whereas RT is always on. Further, RT is an offensive skill whereas Indomitable is a defensive skill. Now, I remember reading that Indomitable was originally - in the playtest - permanent Advantage on all saves, which would put it in line with RT.

So how would it affect the game if RT were nerfed in the same way that Indomitable was? Make it once per Short Rest. (Recovery on a Short Rest because it's gained at a higher level.)

 

[DEFCON 1]

So how would it affect the game if RT were nerfed in the same way that Indomitable was? Make it once per Short Rest. (Recovery on a Short Rest because it's gained at a higher level.)

It wouldn't occur as often.

 

[Mort]

While it's tempting to compare reliable talent to indomitable, I think a better comparison is with the fighter's 3rd attack - also received at 11th.

Both are proper tier changing abilities that reward a commitment of 11 levels and both truly show an actual shift in the game - where the class can truly outshine those of lower levels.

Indomitable is not that ability - and is underwhelming besides (I'm considering house ruling it to grant a mini legendary resistance when the fighter hits 9th level). So if you do compare the two - my preference would be to raise indomitable not to lower reliable talent.

 

[Xeviat]

Indomitable is already a weak version of the Lucky feat, so I wouldn't compare anything to it.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So how would it affect the game if RT were nerfed in the same way that Indomitable was? Make it once per Short Rest. (Recovery on a Short Rest because it's gained at a higher level.)

Honestly, aside from gimmick builds that abuse Athletics in combat, skill checks don't come up that often. If you made Reliable Talent only usable once per Short Rest, then it wouldn't change that much, because it would still be there for those few times when you really needed it.

I still wouldn't be a fan of this change, though, because it slows down gameplay by making the rogue player stop and think about whether they want to use it right now. They already made the tough decision, to play a skill-based character rather than a combat-focused one, so forcing more tough decisions whenever they want to apply that choice would be overkill. It's similar to how many utility spells work - the tough decision was in whether to learn and prepare them, so if you do happen to have the right tool for the job, it's preferable to just have it work automatically.

Out of curiosity, is this thread intentionally jumping onto the "nerf rogues" bandwagon? Or was it just a coincidence?

 

[Esker]

Out of curiosity, is this thread intentionally jumping onto the "nerf rogues" bandwagon? Or was it just a coincidence?

I suspect a stealth campaign by intellect devourers, annoyed that rogues are proficient in intelligence saves (because who's good at intelligence saves??), and determined to spread throughout the board using Body Thief on unsuspecting users.

 

[Fenris-77]

Yeah, I'd rather buff the fighter than nerf the rogue.

 

[Quartz]

While it's tempting to compare reliable talent to indomitable, I think a better comparison is with the fighter's 3rd attack - also received at 11th.

That's a good observation but I think RT is a better ability - assuming skill rolls are used enough - because it pretty much negates Disadvantage while retaining the benefits of possible Advantage..

 

[Esker]

That's a good observation but I think RT is a better ability - assuming skill rolls are used enough - because it pretty much negates Disadvantage while retaining the benefits of possible Advantage..

It only negates disadvantage for DCs that are auto-successes. For anything above that threshold, the impact of disadvantage is exactly the same as without RT.

As for whether it's better than an extra attack, I don't know how it's possible to compare them in a way that generalizes at all across campaigns.

 

[Mort]

That's a good observation but I think RT is a better ability - assuming skill rolls are used enough - because it pretty much negates Disadvantage while retaining the benefits of possible Advantage..

That's a tough sell.

Even assuming skills are used "enough," (and that's a bit of a big if for many campaigns) then it's likely roughly equal, IMO.

Keep in mind, reliable talent doesn't raise the ceiling on skills, it just raises the floor.

Heck, in a campaign where the DM uses passive skills, and uses the passive skill score as a floor - the ability becomes much less useful.

 

[Quartz]

Keep in mind, reliable talent doesn't raise the ceiling on skills, it just raises the floor.

And it raises the floor by 45%, 9 points on the d20. It's twice as good as Advantage in that way. More, it raises the floor from - assuming a Proficiency Bonus of +4 and a stat bonus of +4 and no Expertise - 9 to 18 and 18 is often a success.

Heck, in a campaign where the DM uses passive skills, and uses the passive skill score as a floor - the ability becomes much less useful.

That's effectively giving everyone Reliable Talent.

 

[Ashrym]

Passive skill checks should be used when there's no real risk but not enough time or inability for repeat checks and the "take 20" option.

It's not meant to give reliable talent to everyone and is the exception to the general resolution. When it's more likely to happen (like perception because no one knows to perceive 20 times usually) it gets mentioned more.

I wouldn't compare reliable talent to indomitable either. As mentioned, it's meant to be like 3rd extra attack, and a big marker ability moving into a higher tier of play.

 

[Mycroft]

I think Fighters should get some better saving throw action, like they had in AD&D; maybe at 5th level (as they get nothing compared to the other extra attack classes at that level) they can add 1/2 their proficiency bonus to any save that doesn't already use their proficiency bonus, or something.

 

[Parmandur]

Passive skill checks should be used when there's no real risk but not enough time or inability for repeat checks and the "take 20" option.

It's not meant to give reliable talent to everyone and is the exception to the general resolution. When it's more likely to happen (like perception because no one knows to perceive 20 times usually) it gets mentioned more.

I wouldn't compare reliable talent to indomitable either. As mentioned, it's meant to be like 3rd extra attack, and a big marker ability moving into a higher tier of play.

I believe that one hardcover a month was the official strategy in the beginning at least. One major difference between the two rates of production is that the designers are now more familiar with 5E than they ever got with 4E.

 

[Quartz]

I wouldn't compare reliable talent to indomitable either. As mentioned, it's meant to be like 3rd extra attack, and a big marker ability moving into a higher tier of play.

The third attack involves rolling a die; Reliable Talent often obviates rolling that die. Not really a fair comparison IMO.

 

[Mort]

I wouldn't compare reliable talent to indomitable either. As mentioned, it's meant to be like 3rd extra attack, and a big marker ability moving into a higher tier of play.

The third attack involves rolling a die; Reliable Talent often obviates rolling that die. Not really a fair comparison IMO.

The important part is the second part of the sentence "...and a big marker ability moving into a higher tier of play..."

In execution reliable talent is also nothing like gaining 6th level spells (spellcasters), the ability to stay up regardless of wounds (barbarian), extra radiant damage on every attack (paladin, this one might be a bit underwhelming? Then again it adds up) etc. but the point is, these abilities have a clear change in tier feel.

 

[Krachek]

Do we need that all classes equals in all aspect of the game.
that all classes progress at the same pace, restore abilities at the same rate?
i call this the 4ed syndrome.

 

[Mistwell]

Is there any ability of the rogue people don't want to nerf?

 

[Mycroft]

Do we need that all classes equals in all aspect of the game.
that all classes progress at the same pace, restore abilities at the same rate?
i call this the 4ed syndrome.

Yeah, and I have grown a bit tied of the one proficiency bonus to rule them all. In the playtest there was bit more granularity. It kind of irks me that a 20th level wizard is as skilled/accurate with trained weapons as a 20th level fighter.

 

[Krachek]

Yeah, and I have grown a bit tied of the one proficiency bonus to rule them all. In the playtest there was bit more granularity. It kind of irks me that a 20th level wizard is as skilled/accurate with trained weapons as a 20th level fighter.

But the 20th fighter attack four time.
bound accuracy don’t irk me.
the will to normalize short rest and long rest classes irk me more.