D&D 5E (Un)-Reliable Talent? How do you do it?

[Mort]

Not really. It makes it irrelevant if both rolls are under 10 (less than 1 in 4). Since your roll with advantage will be better than the 10 (typically), advantage is still good to have. With reliable talent, disadvantage is not that big a deal since your worst case scenario is still a 10.

Yes - and that's the point. Disadvantage on (proficient) skills does not affect an 11+ level rogue like it does other classes. As I said prior, it's an 11th level (3rd tier) ability and meant to be on par with other big 11th level abilities. It's not a ribbon ability.

 

[DND_Reborn]

What you are proposing is not a compromise, it's still a big nerf to the ability.

Just because you say it is thus, does not make it so.

Obviously, I feel disadvantage should still have some impact on the feature, especially since advantage still impacts it. I feel this compromise allows reliable talent to still function to a degree even in the face of disadvantage, stopping the really bad results. And it also allows advantage to more likely result in an even better roll. Considering how easy it is to get advantage, overall it is a bump to the ability, not a "big nerf" as you seem to think.

But since you feel that way, you've made your point; I completely disagree so there is no point in discussing it further with you.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Agreed.

I think getting around disadvantage is part of the point.

It's absolutely the point. Need to pick a lock whilst dangling by your feet from a rope over a vat of acid?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Just because you say it is thus, does not make it so.

Why do you hate characters having nice things?

Obviously, I feel disadvantage should still have some impact on the feature,

Why? The rogue is a hero. Picking locks in difficult situations is what they do.

This is rogue:

 

[DND_Reborn]

Why do you hate characters having nice things?

Why do you insist on posting in a thread without actually contributing to it from the point of view of the OP?

If you don't agree with what I am doing or like it, why bother posting? You are not going to change my mind.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Why do you insist on posting in a thread without actually contributing to it from the point of view of the OP?

If you don't agree with what I am doing or like it, why bother posting? You are not going to change my mind.

If you aren't interested in other people's take, why bother posting?

 

[CapnZapp]

Why do you insist on posting in a thread without actually contributing to it from the point of view of the OP?

If you don't agree with what I am doing or like it, why bother posting? You are not going to change my mind.

I've argued for years that posts should agree with the basic premise of the original premise, or be moderated as the derailing it is. (A poster that disagrees with your very thread premise can start his own thread instead of pooping in yours)

Sadly, I have had no luck in convincing the mod team how this far too often blights constructive discussion on the site.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I've argued for years that posts should agree with the basic premise of the original premise, or be moderated as the derailing it is. (A poster that disagrees with your very thread premise can start his own thread instead of pooping in yours)

Sadly, I have had no luck in convincing the mod team how this far too often blights constructive discussion on the site.

If the initial premise is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of a rule, isn't it reasonable for other people to try and explain why it is the way it is?

 

[DND_Reborn]

If you aren't interested in other people's take, why bother posting?

When people post things that are constructive and in line with the premise of the OP, I AM interested.

Example:

I'd only do that if also giving a minimum of 15 on a roll with advantage.

Interesting quirk of the system: Reliable Talent does not affect passive scores.

This post dealt with responding to my idea, and offered a way to balance it out, which I feel was a great idea and I said so.

For everyone clamoring "don't nerf it", it is a waste of time.

I've argued for years that posts should agree with the basic premise of the original premise, or be moderated as the derailing it is. (A poster that disagrees with your very thread premise can start his own thread instead of pooping in yours)

Sadly, I have had no luck in convincing the mod team how this far too often blights constructive discussion on the site.

Agreed. I often read thread OPs which I don't agree with and I think aren't a good idea, or are just plain silly, and the best policy if I have nothing to contribute is not to bother. At worst (which I am fine with really) is someone saying "Well, I don't think it is a good idea, but if it works for you have fun."

If the initial premise is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of a rule, isn't it reasonable for other people to try and explain why it is the way it is?

It isn't. Reliable Talent still functions normally when there is no disadvantage or advantage. IF the purpose of the rule was to help mitigate disadvantage, it would have either:

A. granted advantage to checks instead of putting a floor on them, or
B. specified in the feature that it worked even if the rogue had disadvantage on the check.

Since it does neither, it is perfectly reasonable to rule the reliable talent only applies to one die. If you have the Lucky feat and have disadvantage, you can only reroll one die, after all.

Finally, rogue is one of my two most beloved classes (along with wizard). I play them quite often. I find reliable talent TOO good, especially in situations which force disadvantage.

Even making it a floor of 5 instead of 10 when there is disadvantage will allow it to "help" 36% of the time. Now, if I ruled reliable talent could not be used AT ALL when there was disadvantage, I would agree THAT would be nerfing it, because then you don't get to use it at all.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'm not sure how @iserith meant this suggestion to be interpreted, but there is a way of doing it that might accomplish what the OP wants. That is, the minimum 10 applies to the lower of the 2 rolls, but then you take the lowest remaining roll as your result. This means that if both of your rolls are below 10, your actual roll with disadvantage will be the second lowest. This means Disadvantage still will matter some of the times, and those are the times it sounds like the OP was wanting it to matter.

This was exactly my thought on the way to rule it if I felt Reliable Talent needed to be less reliable.

Roll both dice and the lowest of the two (if under 10) gets bumped up to 10. Then you take the lowest of the two at that point. Thus if the second die had also been under 10, that's how you'll get a result for the Rogue that is under a normal Reliable Talent result.