I have been trying to figure out how I feel about the new auto success/failure for things outside of combat since reading the OD&D playtest ruleset.
At first I wasn't a big fan of it, because I actually liked that it was impossible for the wizard with an 8 in strength to move a door that has a DC of 25. And I was never a fan of the "if they can't do it, don't let them roll for it". Because yes, I pretty much agree with that, I'd never let a player try to talk a king into handing over their kingdom, but when it comes to other things, like searching a room, moving a heavy object, ext. things that are possible, but not for that character... I'd totally let them roll for it, only for one reason... I honestly don't know every one of my players skills bonus. I run to campaigns and one of them has 8 players. How would I know there abilities off hand?
So starting off, that is my first issue, but recently, something more important occurred to me when talking to another play about this. When you should and shouldn't let someone roll and the example we talked about was a level 11 rogue with reliable talent. Where honestly they wouldn't be scoring less than 15 on most rolls... However, if a Nat 1 is always a failure, does that mean, a rogue would need to start rolling on all this little checks they wouldn't normally have to because well now they can fail a DC 10 stealth check.
Nope. If a rogue rolls 9 or less on a d20 then reliable talent changes it to a 10 even if they rolled a nat one. Meaning they can never roll below a 10 on a die roll for checks they are proficient in. So they can never critically fail at it as they can never get below a ten on a roll before modifiers.
If they do go through with this change, hopefully they'd change the wording on reliable talent as well as it would definitely be ridiculous for one class to ignore the auto fails .
Hopefully they just scrap the idea entirely though.
If they do go through with this change, hopefully they'd change the wording on reliable talent as well as it would definitely be ridiculous for one class to ignore the auto fails .
Hopefully they just scrap the idea entirely though.
Remember it only works on skills they are proficient in. They can still fail on skills they are not. It is why they call it reliable talent because it is one they can't fail on. I see no reason to change it.
If they do go through with this change, hopefully they'd change the wording on reliable talent as well as it would definitely be ridiculous for one class to ignore the auto fails .
Hopefully they just scrap the idea entirely though.
Remember it only works on skills they are proficient in. They can still fail on skills they are not. It is why they call it reliable talent because it is one they can't fail on. I see no reason to change it.
This change means very little for skill checks you aren't proficient in though. Generally speaking if you roll a 1 you're probably going to fail unless you have expertise. The fact that rogues ignore it whilst all the other expertise classes get hit seems wrong.
If they do go through with this change, hopefully they'd change the wording on reliable talent as well as it would definitely be ridiculous for one class to ignore the auto fails .
Hopefully they just scrap the idea entirely though.
Remember it only works on skills they are proficient in. They can still fail on skills they are not. It is why they call it reliable talent because it is one they can't fail on. I see no reason to change it.
This change means very little for skill checks you aren't proficient in though. Generally speaking if you roll a 1 you're probably going to fail unless you have expertise. The fact that rogues ignore it whilst all the other expertise classes get hit seems wrong.
You mean proficiency, right? Because even if you have expertise and roll a nat 1 you still fail. Reliable talent doesn't care about expertise. It cares if you are proficient in a skill.
As far as others if someone creates a halfling they can also ignore their 1st nat ones per each roll due to their luck feature. I still don't see an issue here.
No i meant expertise. because currently one of the few ways you would pass a skill check on a nat 1 would be with expertise. Rogues having reliable talent bypasses all that.
Which basically means the Nat 1 auto failing is only going to effect some of the builds that would auto pass checks and not others. If they're going to add this bad change they should do it evenly so it effects everyone.
No i meant expertise. because currently one of the few ways you would pass a skill check on a nat 1 would be with expertise. Rogues having reliable talent bypasses all that.
Which basically means the Nat 1 auto failing is only going to effect some of the builds that would auto pass checks and not others. If they're going to add this bad change they should do it evenly so it effects everyone.
Please explain as expertise does nothing from preventing you from failing a nat 1 under the UA rules. Also I still disagree with it affecting rogues.
I know that's the point. Before the ua change, really you were still generally going to fail on a one for most skill checks unless you had expertise or reliable talent or some other big skill boost.
So if they're going to implement this bad change they should implement it across the board and hit everything so a 1 will always fail regardless of anything else at all.
Giving rogues the ability to bypass 1's for things that they are proficient in is the definition of "reliable" in reliable talent. Spell casters at level 11 are starting to get into outright encounter ending abilities and beginning to break the fabric of reality. It does not, in any way, hurt to have the rogue be able to ignore nat 1's on the skills they are proficient with. It is their late game signature thing. Let them have it.
I know that's the point. Before the ua change, really you were still generally going to fail on a one for most skill checks unless you had expertise or reliable talent or some other big skill boost.
So if they're going to implement this bad change they should implement it across the board and hit everything so a 1 will always fail regardless of anything else at all.
Sorry but I'm going to have to disagree. As someone has already mentioned it is their late game schtick. It is like asking to take away the encounters ending spells from spellcasters. I also don't see most of these changes making it through as some of these changes are unpopular.
2-9 becoming 10 would still be good and keep them in line with everyone else who can auto fail.
Hopefully you're right and they won't do this one anyway as it did have very flimsy reasoning. The only reason seemed to be that a lot of people didn't know the rule and were house ruling it anyway.
2-9 becoming 10 would still be good and keep them in line with everyone else who can auto fail.
Hopefully you're right and they won't do this one anyway as it did have very flimsy reasoning. The only reason seemed to be that a lot of people didn't know the rule and were house ruling it anyway.
Right it would keep them in line, but as their signature late game ability they SHOULDN'T be in line with other characters. You aren't suggesting we remove brutal critical from barbarians because the crit changes are trying to reduce the swingyness of crits. This is their thing, the thing that makes a rogue a rogue, leave them alone. Anyone can get expertise, only a rogue is a reliable talent.
Well no im not because the discussion was about the skill changes not the attack crit changes. Also the brutal critical is a very different thing, it just some changes to numbers it doesnt fundamentally change the role play aspect.
You're talking about it being a signature ability. The bardic inspiration becomes a d10 as does the maneuver dice at about the same level but neither can be used to negate the nat 1 on the skill check with the ua changes like reliable talent.
There are lots of ways of mitigating low dice rolls. All of them will now fail except reliable talent and other ways of ignoring ones.
Anyway i dont really want to nerf reliable talent, id rather just keep the raw values mattering on skill checks and remove the randomness of 1's and 20's
Well no im not because the discussion was about the skill changes not the attack crit changes. Also the brutal critical is a very different thing, it just some changes to numbers it doesnt fundamentally change the role play aspect.
You're talking about it being a signature ability. The bardic inspiration becomes a d10 as does the maneuver dice at about the same level but neither can be used to negate the nat 1 on the skill check with the ua changes like reliable talent.
There are lots of ways of mitigating low dice rolls. All of them will now fail except reliable talent and other ways of ignoring ones.
Anyway i dont really want to nerf reliable talent, id rather just keep the raw values mattering on skill checks and remove the randomness of 1's and 20's
Right, they mitigate low rolls. Reliable talent from rogue outright prevents low rolls. Nat 1 and nat 20 rule is fine. Rogues having the unique ability at high levels to ignore nat 1 on specific checks is a cool class defining feature. Leave it alone.
I don't know rogues might hate me as a DM. If I am going to play with auto success/fail, I am playing with auto success/fail.
I understand the point that its a core feature of there's, but how does that not apply to Bardic Inspiration, or other effects that adjust rolls? Those guys just have to deal with their features being handicapped because of this but rogue gets a pat on the back.
To be honest 2-9 is a good compromise and most likely how I'd rule it at my table. I've actually quite grown to love that you can't auto fail or auto succeed at skills or ability checks and this variation really isn't something I am looking forward to.
I don't know rogues might hate me as a DM. If I am going to play with auto success/fail, I am playing with auto success/fail.
I understand the point that its a core feature of there's, but how does that not apply to Bardic Inspiration, or other effects that adjust rolls? Those guys just have to deal with their features being handicapped because of this but rogue gets a pat on the back.
To be honest 2-9 is a good compromise and most likely how I'd rule it at my table. I've actually quite grown to love that you can't auto fail or auto succeed at skills or ability checks and this variation really isn't something I am looking forward to.
Then you are doing the same thing when DMs nerf sneak attacks thinking it is overpowered. When you start nerfing class features you make it less fun for the player. Those players might not want to play that class if DMs start doing that and if it goes too far then they might not play at all. Reliable talent is not longer reliable at that point. I would wait until they start putting class changes in UA before you start nerfing core class features. UA is meant to be played with the current content so changing something that is not being tested is not in the spirit of UA.
I do think that if nat 1s are going to be treated as auto fails, reliable talent shouldn't be an exception. It's still a very powerful ability. And it doesn't impact them nearly as much as people trying to nerf sneak attack etc.
That said I also wouldn't be calling for a roll if the rogue would have succeeded on their minimum value anyway, so it really wouldn't affect anything in my games. If a character isn't going to fail on a nat 1 and isn't going to succeed on a nat 20 I wouldn't tell them to roll. This will only impact my games when it comes to saving throws or contested checks such as when grappling.
I wouldn't worry too much about the UA and class features right now though, class features will probably be updated with the new proposed rules in mind (if the new rules aren't rolled back anyway) when we get playtest material for class changes.
I have been trying to figure out how I feel about the new auto success/failure for things outside of combat since reading the OD&D playtest ruleset.
At first I wasn't a big fan of it, because I actually liked that it was impossible for the wizard with an 8 in strength to move a door that has a DC of 25. And I was never a fan of the "if they can't do it, don't let them roll for it". Because yes, I pretty much agree with that, I'd never let a player try to talk a king into handing over their kingdom, but when it comes to other things, like searching a room, moving a heavy object, ext. things that are possible, but not for that character... I'd totally let them roll for it, only for one reason... I honestly don't know every one of my players skills bonus. I run to campaigns and one of them has 8 players. How would I know there abilities off hand?
So starting off, that is my first issue, but recently, something more important occurred to me when talking to another play about this. When you should and shouldn't let someone roll and the example we talked about was a level 11 rogue with reliable talent. Where honestly they wouldn't be scoring less than 15 on most rolls... However, if a Nat 1 is always a failure, does that mean, a rogue would need to start rolling on all this little checks they wouldn't normally have to because well now they can fail a DC 10 stealth check.
Reliable talent replaces the roll it doesnt modify the roll. There is no change to Reliable Talent.
Nope. If a rogue rolls 9 or less on a d20 then reliable talent changes it to a 10 even if they rolled a nat one. Meaning they can never roll below a 10 on a die roll for checks they are proficient in. So they can never critically fail at it as they can never get below a ten on a roll before modifiers.
If they do go through with this change, hopefully they'd change the wording on reliable talent as well as it would definitely be ridiculous for one class to ignore the auto fails .
Hopefully they just scrap the idea entirely though.
Remember it only works on skills they are proficient in. They can still fail on skills they are not. It is why they call it reliable talent because it is one they can't fail on. I see no reason to change it.
This change means very little for skill checks you aren't proficient in though. Generally speaking if you roll a 1 you're probably going to fail unless you have expertise. The fact that rogues ignore it whilst all the other expertise classes get hit seems wrong.
You mean proficiency, right? Because even if you have expertise and roll a nat 1 you still fail. Reliable talent doesn't care about expertise. It cares if you are proficient in a skill.
As far as others if someone creates a halfling they can also ignore their 1st nat ones per each roll due to their luck feature. I still don't see an issue here.
No i meant expertise. because currently one of the few ways you would pass a skill check on a nat 1 would be with expertise. Rogues having reliable talent bypasses all that.
Which basically means the Nat 1 auto failing is only going to effect some of the builds that would auto pass checks and not others. If they're going to add this bad change they should do it evenly so it effects everyone.
Please explain as expertise does nothing from preventing you from failing a nat 1 under the UA rules. Also I still disagree with it affecting rogues.
I know that's the point. Before the ua change, really you were still generally going to fail on a one for most skill checks unless you had expertise or reliable talent or some other big skill boost.
So if they're going to implement this bad change they should implement it across the board and hit everything so a 1 will always fail regardless of anything else at all.
Giving rogues the ability to bypass 1's for things that they are proficient in is the definition of "reliable" in reliable talent. Spell casters at level 11 are starting to get into outright encounter ending abilities and beginning to break the fabric of reality. It does not, in any way, hurt to have the rogue be able to ignore nat 1's on the skills they are proficient with. It is their late game signature thing. Let them have it.
Ideally they just wouldn't implement this change anyway as it is awful. But if they do it they should at least be even about it.
Sorry but I'm going to have to disagree. As someone has already mentioned it is their late game schtick. It is like asking to take away the encounters ending spells from spellcasters. I also don't see most of these changes making it through as some of these changes are unpopular.
2-9 becoming 10 would still be good and keep them in line with everyone else who can auto fail.
Hopefully you're right and they won't do this one anyway as it did have very flimsy reasoning. The only reason seemed to be that a lot of people didn't know the rule and were house ruling it anyway.
Right it would keep them in line, but as their signature late game ability they SHOULDN'T be in line with other characters. You aren't suggesting we remove brutal critical from barbarians because the crit changes are trying to reduce the swingyness of crits. This is their thing, the thing that makes a rogue a rogue, leave them alone. Anyone can get expertise, only a rogue is a reliable talent.
Well no im not because the discussion was about the skill changes not the attack crit changes. Also the brutal critical is a very different thing, it just some changes to numbers it doesnt fundamentally change the role play aspect.
You're talking about it being a signature ability. The bardic inspiration becomes a d10 as does the maneuver dice at about the same level but neither can be used to negate the nat 1 on the skill check with the ua changes like reliable talent.
There are lots of ways of mitigating low dice rolls. All of them will now fail except reliable talent and other ways of ignoring ones.
Anyway i dont really want to nerf reliable talent, id rather just keep the raw values mattering on skill checks and remove the randomness of 1's and 20's
Right, they mitigate low rolls. Reliable talent from rogue outright prevents low rolls. Nat 1 and nat 20 rule is fine. Rogues having the unique ability at high levels to ignore nat 1 on specific checks is a cool class defining feature. Leave it alone.
I don't know rogues might hate me as a DM. If I am going to play with auto success/fail, I am playing with auto success/fail.
I understand the point that its a core feature of there's, but how does that not apply to Bardic Inspiration, or other effects that adjust rolls? Those guys just have to deal with their features being handicapped because of this but rogue gets a pat on the back.
To be honest 2-9 is a good compromise and most likely how I'd rule it at my table. I've actually quite grown to love that you can't auto fail or auto succeed at skills or ability checks and this variation really isn't something I am looking forward to.
Then you are doing the same thing when DMs nerf sneak attacks thinking it is overpowered. When you start nerfing class features you make it less fun for the player. Those players might not want to play that class if DMs start doing that and if it goes too far then they might not play at all. Reliable talent is not longer reliable at that point. I would wait until they start putting class changes in UA before you start nerfing core class features. UA is meant to be played with the current content so changing something that is not being tested is not in the spirit of UA.
I do think that if nat 1s are going to be treated as auto fails, reliable talent shouldn't be an exception. It's still a very powerful ability. And it doesn't impact them nearly as much as people trying to nerf sneak attack etc.
That said I also wouldn't be calling for a roll if the rogue would have succeeded on their minimum value anyway, so it really wouldn't affect anything in my games. If a character isn't going to fail on a nat 1 and isn't going to succeed on a nat 20 I wouldn't tell them to roll. This will only impact my games when it comes to saving throws or contested checks such as when grappling.
I wouldn't worry too much about the UA and class features right now though, class features will probably be updated with the new proposed rules in mind (if the new rules aren't rolled back anyway) when we get playtest material for class changes.