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

[DND_Reborn]

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.

Yes, this is the idea of applying reliable talent to only one die (the lowest) and I think also a good idea.

Example. the rogue gets a 3 and an 8. The 3 becomes a 10, but the 8 is lower and used due to disadvantage.

I'll have to run some numbers but I think this might work better. The best part is I could use the same rule for advantage. If the rolls were 3 and 8, the 3 becoming a 10 would make 10 the result.

 

[Seramus]

I disagree that Reliable Talent should be nerfed, on the grounds that skills need to be increasingly capable of solving problems in the Exploration and Social pillars to keep up with full casters.

But adhering to the premise of the OP, applying Reliable Talent to the lowest roll only seems to be the best answer.

 

[MarkB]

The best part is I could use the same rule for advantage. If the rolls were 3 and 8, the 3 becoming a 10 would make 10 the result.

Isn't that how it works already? Whichever of those results got bumped up to 10 (or even if both of them did), the result would be the same.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

To clarify, I'm saying that Reliable Talent and advantage/disadvantage don't stack. Either Reliable Talent makes your odds 100% (when the DC is less than or equal to 10 more than your modifier) or it has no impact (when the DC is 11+ more than your modifier, ignoring edge cases where how close you come to succeeding matters.) Functionally, advantage/disadvantage impact probability, Reliable Talent shrinks the range where probability matters.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Why do you hate characters having nice things?

Bit of an extreme accusation there.
Its somewhat worse than ruling that casters get one less level 6 spell slot, but that also is quite withing a DM's purview to houserule.

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

The OP asked how would other people rule, and asked for their thoughts.
People telling the OP their thoughts on nerfing the ability are the premise of the OP.

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.

Did you consider the fact that Reliable talent currently mitigates disadvantage, so part of the purpose of the rule might be to help mitigate disadvantage?

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.

That's kinda the point of being reliable. The rogue doesn't have auto-success options like spells. They can't just decide to see through illusions and disguises, or transport themselves across the world, or fully heal someone on death's door.
But even in the middle of foul weather or a raging battle, a rogue has a decent chance of spotting an ambush, climbing a tree, or stopping you from bleeding out. Its pretty much what the Rogue class does.

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.

The potential of a more severe nerf, does not mean that removing some of the functionality of a class' level 11 ability isn't a nerf.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Isn't that how it works already? Whichever of those results got bumped up to 10 (or even if both of them did), the result would be the same.

For advantage when both rolls are below 10, yes. But advantage still helps because it decreases the odds of getting a 10 overall, and of course you still take the highest roll if it exceeds 10 anyway.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The OP asked how would other people rule, and asked for their thoughts.
People telling the OP their thoughts on nerfing the ability are the premise of the OP.

Exactly. I am the OP. (Sorry, but your response seems to be implying I am not? Maybe you are just quoting me because you are agreeing? Sometimes hard to tell online.)

Did you consider the fact that Reliable talent currently mitigates disadvantage, so part of the purpose of the rule might be to help mitigate disadvantage?

But does it? The text never specifies either way. I've looked in Sage Advice as well and can't find any references about what happens with Reliable Talent and advantage/disadvantage.

The rogue doesn't have auto-success options like spells.

Very true. But the rogue's abilities are usable whenever. And again, this is only an issue when RT has disadvantage, which doesn't happen often IME but when it does happen, it should still have some impact on the feature IMO. The talent is still reliable, just not as much.

If you apply RT to only the lowest roll, consider if you roll a 15 and a 3. RT makes the 3 into a 10, so the lower roll is still 10.
Now if you roll a 3 and an 8, the 3 becomes a 10 but the 8 is the lower roll.

Anyway, as I mentioned before I have to run some numbers today when I have time. That will help me decide which idea I think operates the best when disadvantage is applied.

 

[Spohedus]

I wouldn't support nerfing rogues, and haven't heard many complaints that they need one relative to other classes, and especially with their 11th level ability. How does disadvantage keep a fighter from getting 3 attacks/turn? What affect does disadvantage have on the druid's ability to become an air elemental? What impact does it have on the Heal spell, or Globe of Invulnerability? Or the Conjuration wizard's 10th level ability that doesn't allow damage to break concentration on conjure spells? In the grand scheme of things, let the skill monkey be the God of skills at high levels. They can't chain lightning, or wall of force, or roll a 20 to hit and THEN burn 8d8 divine smite attacks.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Its somewhat worse than ruling that casters get one less level 6 spell slot, but that also is quite withing a DM's purview to houserule.

The trouble with houserules is houserule bloat. You can very quickly end up with more houserules than actual rules, making the game unmanageable and the rules impossible to remember.

That's not to say you shouldn't have houserules.

But houserules should address actual real problems that are likely to occur. Houserules for hypotheticals which are never likely to cause an issue in a game are nothing but pointless bloat (In this situation, if the DM feels Reliable Talent would trivialise a difficult obstacle, they can address it quite easily by increasing the DC of the obstacle, no need to write extra rules).

KISS is an underlying design principle in 5e.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I wouldn't support nerfing rogues, and haven't heard many complaints that they need one relative to other classes, and especially with their 11th level ability.

That's fine. Obviously this isn't a big deal to many people, but to address your questions:

How does disadvantage keep a fighter from getting 3 attacks/turn? It hinders their chance of success in each of those three attacks.
What affect does disadvantage have on the druid's ability to become an air elemental? None unless the druid is attempting an attack roll or skill check or save where that disadvantage would apply.
What impact does it have on the Heal spell, or Globe of Invulnerability? None, but how often can a caster use those spells in relation to how often a rogue can use RT? Once or twice versus several (dozens perhaps).
Or the Conjuration wizard's 10th level ability that doesn't allow damage to break concentration on conjure spells? Well, if the check was made with disadvantage, a DM could rule the PC still had to make a check, but allowing one of the two dice to "auto-succeed". So, you could apply it here (and likely we would... we want to be fair to the rogue after all. ).

In the grand scheme of things, let the skill monkey be the God of skills at high levels.

Expertise alone accomplishes this. RT makes it overkill for those skills. We just reached tier 4 and our rogues are +17 and +16 to Stealth. With RT, they are pretty much undetectable when they get to Hide (often considering one has a Ring of Invisibility and the other is a Wizard with Invisibility prepared all the time).

They can't chain lightning, or wall of force, or roll a 20 to hit and THEN burn 8d8 divine smite attacks.

True, but those other classes don't get Expertise, Cunning Action, Uncanny Dodge, or any of the other at will abilities of a rogue. And as for the 20 to hit, see my other thread about playing with critcal hits:

D&D 5E - Do you play without Critical Hits?

Just curious if any groups out there play without the natural 20 is a critical hit mechanic? I know certain features would have to be altered, such as Champion fighters. Anyone? (listening intently in the echoing silence...) EDIT: Just to be clear this is simply a discussion, I am not...

www.enworld.org