One, I've never nerfed sneak attack. I don't think it was "overpowered" but guess who did... WIZARDS OF THE COAST as OD&D directly nerfs it. lol
As for calling this a nerf or RAW, RAI is unclear at this time. The problem is we never got new wording for Reliable Talent in the UA. Instead we got a line that says this:
ROLLING A 1
If you roll a 1 on the d20, the d20 Test automatically fails, regardless of any modifiers to the roll.
It says it fails, regardless of any modifiers. So I can read that as, it fails regardless. Meaning it takes priority over every thing else. A class feature is a modifier, its modifying your dice result. To simply say I am nerfing something cause I hate it, is not entirely correct. I am apply the same rule to everyone across the board.
EDIT: Unless someone can point me to sage advice or something else that clarifies this ruling, this is how I interrupt this rule.
One, I've never nerfed sneak attack. I don't think it was "overpowered" but guess who did... WIZARDS OF THE COAST as OD&D directly nerfs it. lol
As for calling this a nerf or RAW, RAI is unclear at this time. The problem is we never got new wording for Reliable Talent in the UA. Instead we got a line that says this:
ROLLING A 1
If you roll a 1 on the d20, the d20 Test automatically fails, regardless of any modifiers to the roll.
It says it fails, regardless of any modifiers. So I can read that as, it fails regardless. Meaning it takes priority over every thing else. A class feature is a modifier, its modifying your dice result. To simply say I am nerfing something cause I hate it, is not entirely correct. I am apply the same rule to everyone across the board.
EDIT: Unless someone can point me to sage advice or something else that clarifies this ruling, this is how I interrupt this rule.
Modifiers are adjustments to the roll that adds or subtracts to the results like a dex or proficiency modifier which it is what is referencing. Reliable talent doesn't modify the roll as it changes the result so it isn't affected by that.
One, I've never nerfed sneak attack. I don't think it was "overpowered" but guess who did... WIZARDS OF THE COAST as OD&D directly nerfs it. lol
As for calling this a nerf or RAW, RAI is unclear at this time. The problem is we never got new wording for Reliable Talent in the UA. Instead we got a line that says this:
ROLLING A 1
If you roll a 1 on the d20, the d20 Test automatically fails, regardless of any modifiers to the roll.
It says it fails, regardless of any modifiers. So I can read that as, it fails regardless. Meaning it takes priority over every thing else. A class feature is a modifier, its modifying your dice result. To simply say I am nerfing something cause I hate it, is not entirely correct. I am apply the same rule to everyone across the board.
EDIT: Unless someone can point me to sage advice or something else that clarifies this ruling, this is how I interrupt this rule.
Modifiers are adjustments to the roll that adds or subtracts to the results like a dex or proficiency modifier which it is what is referencing. Reliable talent doesn't modify the roll as it changes the result so it isn't affected by that.
And we disagree... Don't play at my table if you have an issue with that.
To be nicer. As a GM, if auto success/fail is applied to these checks, its applied to all checks. If someone was playing a rogue, I'd make sure they knew my ruling before we started. Then its up to them to play based on that information. Its not like I'd wait til they got to level 11 and then spring it on them. To me, the text above says if you roll a 1 you fail. How you define modifiers or interact with features, I don't really care.
One, I've never nerfed sneak attack. I don't think it was "overpowered" but guess who did... WIZARDS OF THE COAST as OD&D directly nerfs it. lol
As for calling this a nerf or RAW, RAI is unclear at this time. The problem is we never got new wording for Reliable Talent in the UA. Instead we got a line that says this:
ROLLING A 1
If you roll a 1 on the d20, the d20 Test automatically fails, regardless of any modifiers to the roll.
It says it fails, regardless of any modifiers. So I can read that as, it fails regardless. Meaning it takes priority over every thing else. A class feature is a modifier, its modifying your dice result. To simply say I am nerfing something cause I hate it, is not entirely correct. I am apply the same rule to everyone across the board.
EDIT: Unless someone can point me to sage advice or something else that clarifies this ruling, this is how I interrupt this rule.
Modifiers are adjustments to the roll that adds or subtracts to the results like a dex or proficiency modifier which it is what is referencing. Reliable talent doesn't modify the roll as it changes the result so it isn't affected by that.
And we disagree... Don't play at my table if you have an issue with that.
To be nicer. As a GM, if auto success/fail is applied to these checks, its applied to all checks. If someone was playing a rogue, I'd make sure they knew my ruling before we started. Then its up to them to play based on that information. Its not like I'd wait til they got to level 11 and then spring it on them. To me, the text above says if you roll a 1 you fail. How you define modifiers or interact with features, I don't really care.
Then as both a DM and a player I would advise you to read and correctly interpret the rules as it seems like you are bad at it. Here is the rule for clarification.
Reliable Talent
By 11th level, you have refined your chosen skills until they approach perfection. Whenever you make an ability check that lets you add your proficiency bonus, you can treat a d20 roll of 9 or lower as a 10.
It doesn't have any modifiers as it lets you treat any roll of less than 10 as a 10 as long as it lets you add any proficiency bonus. The nat 1 rule would have no bearing on this class feature.
One, I've never nerfed sneak attack. I don't think it was "overpowered" but guess who did... WIZARDS OF THE COAST as OD&D directly nerfs it. lol
As for calling this a nerf or RAW, RAI is unclear at this time. The problem is we never got new wording for Reliable Talent in the UA. Instead we got a line that says this:
ROLLING A 1
If you roll a 1 on the d20, the d20 Test automatically fails, regardless of any modifiers to the roll.
It says it fails, regardless of any modifiers. So I can read that as, it fails regardless. Meaning it takes priority over every thing else. A class feature is a modifier, its modifying your dice result. To simply say I am nerfing something cause I hate it, is not entirely correct. I am apply the same rule to everyone across the board.
EDIT: Unless someone can point me to sage advice or something else that clarifies this ruling, this is how I interrupt this rule.
Modifiers are adjustments to the roll that adds or subtracts to the results like a dex or proficiency modifier which it is what is referencing. Reliable talent doesn't modify the roll as it changes the result so it isn't affected by that.
And we disagree... Don't play at my table if you have an issue with that.
To be nicer. As a GM, if auto success/fail is applied to these checks, its applied to all checks. If someone was playing a rogue, I'd make sure they knew my ruling before we started. Then its up to them to play based on that information. Its not like I'd wait til they got to level 11 and then spring it on them. To me, the text above says if you roll a 1 you fail. How you define modifiers or interact with features, I don't really care.
Reliable Talent changes any ability checks the rogue is proficient in that is lower than a 10 into a 10. Meaning if a rogue rolled a 1 in a skill check they are proficient in, they actually rolled a 10. It is the same as if they replaced 1-9 on a d20 with a 10. That's how reliable talent works by both RAW and RAI and it is more specific than the Nat 1 auto fail.
Then as both a DM and a player I would advise you to read and correctly interpret the rules as it seems like you are bad at it. Here is the rule for clarification.
Reliable Talent
By 11th level, you have refined your chosen skills until they approach perfection. Whenever you make an ability check that lets you add your proficiency bonus, you can treat a d20 roll of 9 or lower as a 10.
It doesn't have any modifiers as it lets you treat any roll of less than 10 as a 10 as long as it lets you add any proficiency bonus. The nat 1 rule would have no bearing on this class feature.
Reliable Talent changes any ability checks the rogue is proficient in that is lower than a 10 into a 10. Meaning if a rogue rolled a 1 in a skill check they are proficient in, they actually rolled a 10. It is the same as if they replaced 1-9 on a d20 with a 10. That's how reliable talent works by both RAW and RAI and it is more specific than the Nat 1 auto fail.
As I've said a few times now in this thread... As a GM, if auto success/fail is a thing in my game for checks outside of combat, than I'd rule it applies to everything. I do understand the point your making, I however disagree on how it would be played.
Personally if this rule stays in the released version of One D&D, I just wont use it. I'd use the current rules from 5e for ability/skill checks. I quite like how they work as is and was never really a fan of auto success/failure for them. I never understood why GM homebrewed it to be that way. The simple solution to this is this... Don't ask you're players to roll for something that cant be done. They can roll for things that can be done, but might be impossible for them.
For example, dont ever let your players roll for, "give me your crown king" as that is impossible. However if a door takes a DC 25 to move and you have 1 or more players who can make that DC, let them roll for it, even let the players who can't move it roll. If they fail with a high roll you can even explain that with all your might you push the door and can feel it to start to wiggle but your unable to move it any more. That way they know it can be done, but they don't require the strength to do so.
Then as both a DM and a player I would advise you to read and correctly interpret the rules as it seems like you are bad at it. Here is the rule for clarification.
Reliable Talent
By 11th level, you have refined your chosen skills until they approach perfection. Whenever you make an ability check that lets you add your proficiency bonus, you can treat a d20 roll of 9 or lower as a 10.
It doesn't have any modifiers as it lets you treat any roll of less than 10 as a 10 as long as it lets you add any proficiency bonus. The nat 1 rule would have no bearing on this class feature.
Reliable Talent changes any ability checks the rogue is proficient in that is lower than a 10 into a 10. Meaning if a rogue rolled a 1 in a skill check they are proficient in, they actually rolled a 10. It is the same as if they replaced 1-9 on a d20 with a 10. That's how reliable talent works by both RAW and RAI and it is more specific than the Nat 1 auto fail.
As I've said a few times now in this thread... As a GM, if auto success/fail is a thing in my game for checks outside of combat, than I'd rule it applies to everything. I do understand the point your making, I however disagree on how it would be played.
Personally if this rule stays in the released version of One D&D, I just wont use it. I'd use the current rules from 5e for ability/skill checks. I quite like how they work as is and was never really a fan of auto success/failure for them. I never understood why GM homebrewed it to be that way. The simple solution to this is this... Don't ask you're players to roll for something that cant be done. They can roll for things that can be done, but might be impossible for them.
For example, dont ever let your players roll for, "give me your crown king" as that is impossible. However if a door takes a DC 25 to move and you have 1 or more players who can make that DC, let them roll for it, even let the players who can't move it roll. If they fail with a high roll you can even explain that with all your might you push the door and can feel it to start to wiggle but your unable to move it any more. That way they know it can be done, but they don't require the strength to do so.
I don't like the auto fail/success of a nat 1/20 either and hope it does not make it into the official release (you can see that in the other nat 1/20 thread). I am just stating how Reliable Talent works both RAW and RAI as it may affect the feedback people give the UA, and RAW and RAI are very important to consider when giving feedback to UA.
Which is valid, and why I edited my response to be very clear that I would inform my players how I would rule those instances regardless of RAW/RAI by stating
If someone was playing a rogue, I'd make sure they knew my ruling before we started. Then its up to them to play based on that information. Its not like I'd wait til they got to level 11 and then spring it on them.
The player would understand what I wanted before they started as a rogue, because I know I'd be ruling against RAW/RAI and if they didn't like that, then they can choose something else. May that make some players dislike me? Sure. But its not something I would surprise them with.
But even with that, this rule even if it goes into place, will not be used at my tables either way. I don't like auto success/failure.
Which is valid, and why I edited my response to be very clear that I would inform my players how I would rule those instances regardless of RAW/RAI by stating
If someone was playing a rogue, I'd make sure they knew my ruling before we started. Then its up to them to play based on that information. Its not like I'd wait til they got to level 11 and then spring it on them.
The player would understand what I wanted before they started as a rogue, because I know I'd be ruling against RAW/RAI and if they didn't like that, then they can choose something else. May that make some players dislike me? Sure. But its not something I would surprise them with.
But even with that, this rule even if it goes into place, will not be used at my tables either way. I don't like auto success/failure.
If you don't like the Nat 1/20 auto fail/success rule, I suggest you join the discussion on the forum thread for it. Always nice to have another voice in an debate. Because I think the better solution that having to deal with making a ruling that goes against RAW/RAI if you don't like the Nat 1/20 auto fail/success rule is to just not have that rule become RAW/RAI to begin with.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
One, I've never nerfed sneak attack. I don't think it was "overpowered" but guess who did... WIZARDS OF THE COAST as OD&D directly nerfs it. lol
As for calling this a nerf or RAW, RAI is unclear at this time. The problem is we never got new wording for Reliable Talent in the UA. Instead we got a line that says this:
It says it fails, regardless of any modifiers. So I can read that as, it fails regardless. Meaning it takes priority over every thing else. A class feature is a modifier, its modifying your dice result. To simply say I am nerfing something cause I hate it, is not entirely correct. I am apply the same rule to everyone across the board.
EDIT: Unless someone can point me to sage advice or something else that clarifies this ruling, this is how I interrupt this rule.
Modifiers are adjustments to the roll that adds or subtracts to the results like a dex or proficiency modifier which it is what is referencing. Reliable talent doesn't modify the roll as it changes the result so it isn't affected by that.
And we disagree... Don't play at my table if you have an issue with that.
To be nicer. As a GM, if auto success/fail is applied to these checks, its applied to all checks. If someone was playing a rogue, I'd make sure they knew my ruling before we started. Then its up to them to play based on that information. Its not like I'd wait til they got to level 11 and then spring it on them. To me, the text above says if you roll a 1 you fail. How you define modifiers or interact with features, I don't really care.
Then as both a DM and a player I would advise you to read and correctly interpret the rules as it seems like you are bad at it. Here is the rule for clarification.
Reliable Talent
By 11th level, you have refined your chosen skills until they approach perfection. Whenever you make an ability check that lets you add your proficiency bonus, you can treat a d20 roll of 9 or lower as a 10.
It doesn't have any modifiers as it lets you treat any roll of less than 10 as a 10 as long as it lets you add any proficiency bonus. The nat 1 rule would have no bearing on this class feature.
Reliable Talent changes any ability checks the rogue is proficient in that is lower than a 10 into a 10. Meaning if a rogue rolled a 1 in a skill check they are proficient in, they actually rolled a 10. It is the same as if they replaced 1-9 on a d20 with a 10. That's how reliable talent works by both RAW and RAI and it is more specific than the Nat 1 auto fail.
As I've said a few times now in this thread... As a GM, if auto success/fail is a thing in my game for checks outside of combat, than I'd rule it applies to everything. I do understand the point your making, I however disagree on how it would be played.
Personally if this rule stays in the released version of One D&D, I just wont use it. I'd use the current rules from 5e for ability/skill checks. I quite like how they work as is and was never really a fan of auto success/failure for them. I never understood why GM homebrewed it to be that way. The simple solution to this is this... Don't ask you're players to roll for something that cant be done. They can roll for things that can be done, but might be impossible for them.
For example, dont ever let your players roll for, "give me your crown king" as that is impossible. However if a door takes a DC 25 to move and you have 1 or more players who can make that DC, let them roll for it, even let the players who can't move it roll. If they fail with a high roll you can even explain that with all your might you push the door and can feel it to start to wiggle but your unable to move it any more. That way they know it can be done, but they don't require the strength to do so.
I don't like the auto fail/success of a nat 1/20 either and hope it does not make it into the official release (you can see that in the other nat 1/20 thread). I am just stating how Reliable Talent works both RAW and RAI as it may affect the feedback people give the UA, and RAW and RAI are very important to consider when giving feedback to UA.
Which is valid, and why I edited my response to be very clear that I would inform my players how I would rule those instances regardless of RAW/RAI by stating
The player would understand what I wanted before they started as a rogue, because I know I'd be ruling against RAW/RAI and if they didn't like that, then they can choose something else. May that make some players dislike me? Sure. But its not something I would surprise them with.
But even with that, this rule even if it goes into place, will not be used at my tables either way. I don't like auto success/failure.
If you don't like the Nat 1/20 auto fail/success rule, I suggest you join the discussion on the forum thread for it. Always nice to have another voice in an debate. Because I think the better solution that having to deal with making a ruling that goes against RAW/RAI if you don't like the Nat 1/20 auto fail/success rule is to just not have that rule become RAW/RAI to begin with.