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.