Random thought hit me- since 5e's checks are based on 8+ stuff, shouldn't reliable talent be anything 7 or less be counted as an 8? not that big of a difference, but, just something that crept into my mind.
The 8 + Prof + Modifier is just a thing for determining save DCs for PCs. For monsters it's done based on CR. So no, there's no reason Reliable Talent should be tied to how PCs calculate DCs.
Medium difficulty checks are designed to have a ~50% success chance, typically requiring you to roll 10 or 11 to succeed. If Reliable Talent replaces rolls with 8, it becomes SUBSTANTIALLY less useful.
Medium difficulty checks are DC15. You will typically have +3 or more in an Ability Score where you place a Proficiency (and hence qualify for a Reliable Talent). You already have +3 from your PB, so that's already more than 50% pass rate. You'll also have 2/3 chance of having Expertise, which adds another +3. Realistically, your bonus will likely be between +9 and +11, making it about 70%-80% likely to pass (without Reliable Talent).
With the current formulation, you need either Expertise or +2 Ability Modifier to guarantee a pass. In the proposed version, you'd need Expertise or a +4. It's hardly crippling, and speaking as a DM...I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that you have to have high Ability Score to guarantee a pass - my Rogue had a minimum Stealth of 23 at L10, which played havoc with the DM's game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Also note that no ability mod/skill mod fundamentally overwrites reality- if an alert guard is standing with his back to the wall as he guards a locked door in a lit hallway, the DM is 100% justified in saying it's impossible for a Stealth check alone to get you on the other side of that door undetected. If a DM is complaining that skill checks are ruining their game, they either have a sense of "How Things Should Go" that's rigid enough to create problems for a table, or they just need to learn that they can in fact say "no" to outrageous "can I try this" requests.
The inquisitive rogue does in fact use 8 as the minimum value for insight checks (prior to reliable talent). I suspect they chose 10 simply because it's a nice round number and about the desired power level, there isn't much justification to favor one threshold over another. If anything, 11 would actually be the most logical minimum value, as that would mean you cannot roll below average.
One additional point not presently mentioned, in 3e, you had the option to “take a 10” on a skill check, forgoing the roll and treating the roll as if it were a 10 - slightly below the average roll of 10.5, and an easy number to instinctively add other numbers to.
It seems reasonable to think that Reliable Talent was designed in homage to taking a 10. I also suspect it is significantly better (you can apply it after seeing the roll), because a lot of individuals still use taking a 10 as a homerule and Wizards wanted the Rogue to still feel unique even at those tables.
You will typically have +3 or more in an Ability Score where you place a Proficiency
I wouldn't say that's typical at all, at least not in my experience
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You will typically have +3 or more in an Ability Score where you place a Proficiency
I wouldn't say that's typical at all, at least not in my experience
Really? Proficiency Bonus at level 1 is a +2 so you've only got to have a 12 in an ability score to get a +3 and if you're using standard array or point buy that's likely to be true of 4 out of 6 scores. I'd say that's more than enough to warrant calling it "typical" for abilities you give proficiency to
You will typically have +3 or more in an Ability Score where you place a Proficiency
I wouldn't say that's typical at all, at least not in my experience
Really? Proficiency Bonus at level 1 is a +2 so you've only got to have a 12 in an ability score to get a +3 and if you're using standard array or point buy that's likely to be true of 4 out of 6 scores. I'd say that's more than enough to warrant calling it "typical" for abilities you give proficiency to
Link was saying +3 in the stat mod, before proficiency
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Random thought hit me- since 5e's checks are based on 8+ stuff, shouldn't reliable talent be anything 7 or less be counted as an 8? not that big of a difference, but, just something that crept into my mind.
The 8 + Prof + Modifier is just a thing for determining save DCs for PCs. For monsters it's done based on CR. So no, there's no reason Reliable Talent should be tied to how PCs calculate DCs.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Medium difficulty checks are designed to have a ~50% success chance, typically requiring you to roll 10 or 11 to succeed. If Reliable Talent replaces rolls with 8, it becomes SUBSTANTIALLY less useful.
Medium difficulty checks are DC15. You will typically have +3 or more in an Ability Score where you place a Proficiency (and hence qualify for a Reliable Talent). You already have +3 from your PB, so that's already more than 50% pass rate. You'll also have 2/3 chance of having Expertise, which adds another +3. Realistically, your bonus will likely be between +9 and +11, making it about 70%-80% likely to pass (without Reliable Talent).
With the current formulation, you need either Expertise or +2 Ability Modifier to guarantee a pass. In the proposed version, you'd need Expertise or a +4. It's hardly crippling, and speaking as a DM...I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that you have to have high Ability Score to guarantee a pass - my Rogue had a minimum Stealth of 23 at L10, which played havoc with the DM's game.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Counterpoint: it wouldn't be a very "reliable" talent if you didn't succeed at medium difficulty tasks near 100% of the time.
Also note that no ability mod/skill mod fundamentally overwrites reality- if an alert guard is standing with his back to the wall as he guards a locked door in a lit hallway, the DM is 100% justified in saying it's impossible for a Stealth check alone to get you on the other side of that door undetected. If a DM is complaining that skill checks are ruining their game, they either have a sense of "How Things Should Go" that's rigid enough to create problems for a table, or they just need to learn that they can in fact say "no" to outrageous "can I try this" requests.
The inquisitive rogue does in fact use 8 as the minimum value for insight checks (prior to reliable talent). I suspect they chose 10 simply because it's a nice round number and about the desired power level, there isn't much justification to favor one threshold over another. If anything, 11 would actually be the most logical minimum value, as that would mean you cannot roll below average.
One additional point not presently mentioned, in 3e, you had the option to “take a 10” on a skill check, forgoing the roll and treating the roll as if it were a 10 - slightly below the average roll of 10.5, and an easy number to instinctively add other numbers to.
It seems reasonable to think that Reliable Talent was designed in homage to taking a 10. I also suspect it is significantly better (you can apply it after seeing the roll), because a lot of individuals still use taking a 10 as a homerule and Wizards wanted the Rogue to still feel unique even at those tables.
I wouldn't say that's typical at all, at least not in my experience
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Really? Proficiency Bonus at level 1 is a +2 so you've only got to have a 12 in an ability score to get a +3 and if you're using standard array or point buy that's likely to be true of 4 out of 6 scores. I'd say that's more than enough to warrant calling it "typical" for abilities you give proficiency to
Link was saying +3 in the stat mod, before proficiency
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)