RAW On Jack Of All Trades And Reliable Talent

[JNAProductions]

First off, this is OBVIOUSLY not RAI. A few levels in Bard should not make you roll 10 or better on literally every ability check ever.

But, just plain RAW... How do Reliable Talent and Jack Of All Trades interact? Since you're applying at least part of your proficiency to every ability check, does this make Reliable Talent apply to initiative? Skills you don't have full proficiency or Expertise in?

[sophontteks]

First off, this is OBVIOUSLY not RAI. A few levels in Bard should not make you roll 10 or better on literally every ability check ever.

But, just plain RAW... How do Reliable Talent and Jack Of All Trades interact? Since you're applying at least part of your proficiency to every ability check, does this make Reliable Talent apply to initiative? Skills you don't have full proficiency or Expertise in?

You are not adding your proficiency bonus, so reliable talent doesn't interact at all.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

You are not adding your proficiency bonus, so reliable talent doesn't interact at all.

Correct. There's no possible interaction between the two. Reliable Talent only applies to checks that include your proficiency bonus; JoAT applies only to checks that don't.

[clash]

Sage advice suggests that it does apply, at the very least RAI: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/07/02/does-jack-of-all-trades-and-the-reliable-talent-work-together/

[sophontteks]

They work together. JOAT works on all skills without proficiency and RT works on all the skills with proficiency. Such poor wording there. Either that or Jeremy lost his mind.

[clash]

Also see sage advice compendium https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf

Relevant section

Can the rogue’s Reliable Talent feature be used in conjunction with Remarkable Athlete or Jack of All Trades?
For a rogue/fighter or a rogue/bard, Reliable Talent does
work along with Remarkable Athlete and Jack of All Trades.
Even though you add only half your proficiency bonus when
using one of those two features, that’s enough to qualify for
Reliable Talent.

[Citan]

Sage advice suggests that it does apply, at the very least RAI: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/07/02/does-jack-of-all-trades-and-the-reliable-talent-work-together/


They work together. JOAT works on all skills without proficiency and RT works on all the skills with proficiency. Such poor wording there. Either that or Jeremy lost his mind.
I think it's far too early to pick the forks, I find this tweet very ambiguous, the question I mean.
Maybe Jeremy answered "yes" simply because, since each feature targets a different set of skills, they "work together" because they are complementary.

If really he said that RAI both can be combined then... I think he doesn't realize at all the big can of worms he just opened there. :/

[sophontteks]

Also see sage advice compendium https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf

Relevant section

Can the rogue’s Reliable Talent feature be used in conjunction with Remarkable Athlete or Jack of All Trades?
For a rogue/fighter or a rogue/bard, Reliable Talent does
work along with Remarkable Athlete and Jack of All Trades.
Even though you add only half your proficiency bonus when
using one of those two features, that’s enough to qualify for
Reliable Talent.
Well, that's replaced the previous most stupid ruling I ever seen. It's taken the throne. I mean holy crap.

[Citan]

Ok I stand corrected. Crawford should really close his Twitter account...

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I am flabbergasted by that ruling in the errata. The errata specifically says that JoAT will trigger Reliable Talent because a portion of proficiency bonus is enough to qualify for anything requiring proficiency bonus. I think that's extraordinarily wrongheaded. Half a thing is not the thing.

[Everstar]

Well, that's replaced the previous most stupid ruling I ever seen. It's taken the throne. I mean holy crap.

What was the previous most stupid ruling?

[strangebloke]

Man, now I want to play the "Fastest Gun in the West," a rogue/bard multiclass named Han who uses a hand crossbow and has the alert feat.

Can't roll lower than 23 on initiative!

This gives further credence to my theory that bards are one of the top three classes in the game. (at least at the levels people actually play at) They were one of the strongest classes at release and Errata and additional books have only made them stronger.

---not that I would ever let this fly, as a DM.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Man, now I want to play the "Fastest Gun in the West," a rogue/bard multiclass named Han who uses a hand crossbow and has the alert feat.

Can't roll lower than 23 on initiative!

This gives further credence to my theory that bards are one of the top three classes in the game. (at least at the levels people actually play at) They were one of the strongest classes at release and Errata and additional books have only made them stronger.

---not that I would ever let this fly, as a DM.

If only there were an easy way to generate surprise to take advantage of the assassin's bonus damage so you could actually do proper cinematic quickdraw contests.

[strangebloke]

If only there were an easy way to generate surprise to take advantage of the assassin's bonus damage so you could actually do proper cinematic quickdraw contests.

Taking best advantage possible of going first is probably a hasted gloomstalker... which would make this concept even more ridiculous, since you'd get advantage on your initiative checks as well.

Off-topic, but DND in general has a huge problem with representing high-damage, low rate-of-fire character concepts. Snipers, cinematic samurai, etc. Rogue is as close as you can get, and even then it only sorta works. I've daydreamed a "Master" fighter archetype that forgoes extra attacks to deal massive damage on a single hit. Like instead of attacking three times with advantage, you attack once, but roll six dice and take the highest, and then roll triple damage (or 6 times damage if you crit)

I can't think it'd be overpowered, considering that it kind of precludes getting the full benefit of GWM and Sharpshooter.

[sophontteks]

What was the previous most stupid ruling?

Jeremy ruled that the verbal component of charm spells is separate from the verbal component described in the spell's description. Sounds fine for the suggestion spell that he made the ruling for, since its really strong and lacks a somatic component. But if you apply the same ruling to spells like enthrall, it renders them useless. Not to mention how stupid it is to roleplay this mechanic.

Screw that ruling. I've never seen a DM use it. Even with suggestion, the actual suggestion would have to be reasonable enough not to cause suspicion and any magic user would easily be able to notice that a caster is weaving magic into their words regardless.

It makes charm spells clunky to roleplay for no good reason and he even says in the ruling that they are "Muttering" the verbal component. If they can be so quiet about the verbal why even bother!

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Off-topic, but DND in general has a huge problem with representing high-damage, low rate-of-fire character concepts. Snipers, cinematic samurai, etc. Rogue is as close as you can get, and even then it only sorta works.

Taking best advantage possible of going first is probably a hasted gloomstalker... which would make this concept even more ridiculous.

The closest thing we've had in a purely mundane sense has been the OA samurai from 3.0 and the Iajutsu Mastery skill, I think. It's frustrating, because it's not like these are niche ideas. The monk who defeats any enemy with a single punch, the sniper, the gunslinger, the samurai... these are popular, mainstream concepts, and it's strange to me that in the, what, thirty years of the last four editions there's been virtually no way to model this.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The closest thing we've had in a purely mundane sense has been the OA samurai from 3.0 and the Iajutsu Mastery skill, I think. It's frustrating, because it's not like these are niche ideas. The monk who defeats any enemy with a single punch, the sniper, the gunslinger, the samurai... these are popular, mainstream concepts, and it's strange to me that in the, what, thirty years of the last four editions there's been virtually no way to model this.

I'd hazard a guess that it doesn't play well with the "decreasing HP" model of D&D combat.

Consider a few (non-exclusive, non-exhaustive) cases--

The class is powerful to feel right (actually one-shotting things of appropriate difficulty). Then what does the rest of the party do? It's Save or Dies all over again. Except worse.

The class requires significant set-up to do its thing. Then what does it do the rest of the time? Is useless (significantly less effective than everyone else)? No fun. Is still about as effective as everyone else? Broken--you're running at the norm on an off day and much better on an on-day.

The class does significant, but not overwhelming damage reliably. This is the most balanced--and that niche is occupied by the rogue in 5e. This runs into the "it doesn't feel right" effect--that sniper isn't killing his target with a single shot?

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I'd hazard a guess that it doesn't play well with the "decreasing HP" model of D&D combat.

Consider a few (non-exclusive, non-exhaustive) cases--

The class is powerful to feel right (actually one-shotting things of appropriate difficulty). Then what does the rest of the party do? It's Save or Dies all over again. Except worse.

The class requires significant set-up to do its thing. Then what does it do the rest of the time? Is useless (significantly less effective than everyone else)? No fun. Is still about as effective as everyone else? Broken--you're running at the norm on an off day and much better on an on-day.

The class does significant, but not overwhelming damage reliably. This is the most balanced--and that niche is occupied by the rogue in 5e. This runs into the "it doesn't feel right" effect--that sniper isn't killing his target with a single shot?

I think this is probably right, and the ways we've seen it work(ish) in the past generally work in that second bucket. You want significant setup time, such that while the fighter kills his dude in two turns, the sniper has one turn of setup followed by a one-turn kill. The other option is what you get out of the assassin subclass, which is slightly less effective than other rogue subclasses until a very particular set of circumstances are met. It's not bad enough to feel unfun, but it's at 90% often enough to make up for the times it runs at 400%.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think this is probably right, and the ways we've seen it work(ish) in the past generally work in that second bucket. You want significant setup time, such that while the fighter kills his dude in two turns, the sniper has one turn of setup followed by a one-turn kill. The other option is what you get out of the assassin subclass, which is slightly less effective than other rogue subclasses until a very particular set of circumstances are met. It's not bad enough to feel unfun, but it's at 90% often enough to make up for the times it runs at 400%.

The problem with the setup model is that it leaves you saying "I do nothing" for half your turns (or more). And then if your super attack fails, you're completely out of luck.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

The problem with the setup model is that it leaves you saying "I do nothing" for half your turns (or more). And then if your super attack fails, you're completely out of luck.

Yeah. What you want is for the setup to be something proactive: the sniper has to move to a particular position; the samurai has to get into melee range of something that's not flanked; the gunslinger is required to make a quip. The setup needs to be as engaging as the fighter saying "I attack".

[MeeposFire]

I am flabbergasted by that ruling in the errata. The errata specifically says that JoAT will trigger Reliable Talent because a portion of proficiency bonus is enough to qualify for anything requiring proficiency bonus. I think that's extraordinarily wrongheaded. Half a thing is not the thing.

I can't believe anybody is surprised as Crawford more often than not is a rules lawyer type and very much reads very much into the exact wording of the rules and in this case it is very much exactly what the rules say to do. The only way for it to not be as this ruling is to decide that the written rules mere essentially a mistake and must mean something else and as it turns out this is intended.

In all seriousness this is exactly the sort of reasoning and effect as crossbow expert where you have something if you go by the RAW allows you to apply something to other things that you may not think was intended (in this case using ranged attack in melee with no problems works for everything including spells and not just crossbows). In that case as well as it turns out not just was that the RAW it was also the RAI (which at the time was seeming fairly surprising considering this was early and there was so much talk about rulings over rules and simple English and this seemed very much a strict technical RAW reading).


I do remember when this ruling first came out and there was a few people muttering and others thinking it was pretty cool but mostly it was not seen as a big deal which is one reason it has not been pushed that much.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I can't believe anybody is surprised as Crawford more often than not is a rules lawyer type and very much reads very much into the exact wording of the rules and in this case it is very much exactly what the rules say to do. The only way for it to not be as this ruling is to decide that the written rules mere essentially a mistake and must mean something else and as it turns out this is intended.


Jack of All Trades applies to ability checks that do not include your proficiency bonus, and applies "half your proficiency bonus, rounded down". Reliable Talent applies "whenever you make an ability check that lets you add your proficiency bonus". Jack of All Trades does not add your proficiency bonus to an ability check; it adds a rounded portion of your proficiency bonus. Arguing that they work together is too clever by half.

[sophontteks]

At the very most it was in a grey zone that would need clarification, which Jeremy applied, likely in a drunken stupor.

[strangebloke]

I think this is probably right, and the ways we've seen it work(ish) in the past generally work in that second bucket. You want significant setup time, such that while the fighter kills his dude in two turns, the sniper has one turn of setup followed by a one-turn kill. The other option is what you get out of the assassin subclass, which is slightly less effective than other rogue subclasses until a very particular set of circumstances are met. It's not bad enough to feel unfun, but it's at 90% often enough to make up for the times it runs at 400%.

Making my own thread for this in a minute.

[MeeposFire]

Jack of All Trades applies to ability checks that do not include your proficiency bonus, and applies "half your proficiency bonus, rounded down". Reliable Talent applies "whenever you make an ability check that lets you add your proficiency bonus". Jack of All Trades does not add your proficiency bonus to an ability check; it adds a rounded portion of your proficiency bonus. Arguing that they work together is too clever by half.

Look at what you just wrote as it exactly states that Crawford is correct and it does not take a clever reading it only takes a reading of the actual rules and not adding extra rules into it that do not exist. You were and are making assumptions that do not actually exist anywhere in the rules. On page 12 of the PHB it talks about prof bonus and that sometimes it can be modified which means it can be halved or doubled. Are you really trying to say that a rogue with expertise cannot apply reliable talent to an expertise skill because the rules treat doubling and halving the same way outside of the value of the + given to the roll. On page 173 and 174 the rules say "Occasionally, your proficiency bonus might be multiplied or divided (doubled or halved for example) before you apply it" and this I think quite clearly shows that to the rules that the doubling or halving of the bonus does not change that it is your proficiency bonus only the value that it gives in that situation.

The game rules do not differentiate the amount given from your prof bonus in all cases it still is a prof bonus. In order for you to be correct you would need to show in the rules that says that anytime you apply a prof bonus that is not your full bonus then you are not actually applying your prof bonus (and at the same time you better hope that same set of rules also specifically specifies that when you double the bonus then it still is counted as a prof bonus when halving does not or again expertise skills cannot be used with reliable talent). As stated this is also apparently the RAI and not just a RAW "bug not feature" situation so even that cannot be used as a cover.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

You don't apply your proficiency bonus, halved; you apply a number which is half of your proficiency bonus. Expertise is not relevant here.

[MeeposFire]

You don't apply your proficiency bonus, halved; you apply a number which is half of your proficiency bonus. Expertise is not relevant here.



You do not add some generic bonus with JoaT you add half your prof bonus and in the rules on page 12 and 173-174 it talks about doing that and that does not make it NOT applying your prof bonus. It is a multiplier of the proficiency bonus and not some other thing entirely. If JoaT is not literally half of your prof bonus when do the rules on those pages I specified ever matter? Are you trying to say that whenever the bonus is halved it is never a prof bonus and so those rules are meaningless? It is not just JoaT that works with this by the way this also works with remarkable athlete and it uses the same sort of language. I do not think they could have written it much clearer without going into a bunch of examples of niche uses or making the rules really clunky to read. Earlier in the book the game explains about prof bonus and how it may be doubled or halved and then we have a class ability that says you use half of your prof mod on these abilities. This fits right in with what they were talking about on these pages. On the other hand you want it to be much more complicated by making this a completely separate bonus that ignores those rules that just so happens to reference proficiency bonus but is not in fact part of your prof bonus.

The game does not differentiate between prof bonus multipliers like you want it to. It does not anywhere say that if you apply half of your prof bonus that it is not your prof bonus. If you give me half a cheese burger it is still a cheese burger just not as much as I like it did not become a hot dog.

[OvisCaedo]

What's really funny is that JC even seemed to correct himself (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/895054958378143745) on his initial vague "yes" answer, only for it to then turn back into them working together for the actual compendium.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

The game does not differentiate between prof bonus multipliers like you want it to. It does not anywhere say that if you apply half of your prof bonus that it is not your prof bonus. If you give me half a cheese burger it is still a cheese burger just not as much as I like it did not become a hot dog.

...Half a cheeseburger isn't a cheeseburger.

[JNAProductions]

I was expecting some people to say "Half a proficiency isn't proficiency", but if that's the case, Expertise ALSO cancels out Reliable Talent, and that's certainly not intended.

[strangebloke]

I was expecting some people to say "Half a proficiency isn't proficiency", but if that's the case, Expertise ALSO cancels out Reliable Talent, and that's certainly not intended.

Counterpoint. If I have 2 cheeseburgers, I still have one cheeseburger.

The exact wording of expertise is "your proficiency bonus is doubled."

You're still adding proficiency, it's just bigger than anyone elses.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I was expecting some people to say "Half a proficiency isn't proficiency", but if that's the case, Expertise ALSO cancels out Reliable Talent, and that's certainly not intended.

I don't see how. Expertise doubles your proficiency bonus on skills that you're proficient with. It doesn't, critically, add a separate number. Jack of All Trades does not give you half proficiency, or apply your proficiency bonus halved; it applies a number derived from your proficiency bonus to things that you are specifically not proficient with.

[MeeposFire]

...Half a cheeseburger isn't a cheeseburger.

I see so when a cheese burger is halved it is no longer a cheese burger but some other object.

In all seriousness of course it is a cheeseburger it is just less of it but that does not make it not a cheese burger.

[RipTide]

I don't see how. Expertise doubles your proficiency bonus on skills that you're proficient with. It doesn't, critically, add a separate number. Jack of All Trades does not give you half proficiency, or apply your proficiency bonus halved; it applies a number derived from your proficiency bonus to things that you are specifically not proficient with.

The problem here is you claim that Jack of all Trades is creating a separate new number that is not a proficiency bonus. That is not the case. The number added from Jack of all Trades is still a proficiency bonus just modified. The exact wording is

You can add half your proficiency bonus, rounded down,

that says that the number is still your proficiency bonus not a new number. For your reasoning to be true the wording would have to be

You can add a number equal to half your proficiency bonus, rounded down,

That way the number added is something new and so separate from a proficiency bonus.

Jack of all Trades as it is worded modifies the existing number it does not create a new number.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

The problem here is you claim that Jack of all Trades is creating a separate new number that is not a proficiency bonus. That is not the case. The number added from Jack of all Trades is still a proficiency bonus just modified. The exact wording is

You can add half your proficiency bonus, rounded down,

that says that the number is still your proficiency bonus not a new number. For your reasoning to be true the wording would have to be

You can add a number equal to half your proficiency bonus, rounded down,

That way the number added is something new and so separate from a proficiency bonus.

Jack of all Trades as it is worded modifies the existing number it does not create a new number.

From my perspective, for your claim to be true, the wording would say "your proficiency bonus halved". Additionally, the check you add it to is one that does not include your proficiency bonus. If they were the same thing, it would disqualify itself.

[sophontteks]

There is room for interpetation either way. I tend to think adding your proficiency would require at least your actual proficiency, but I can see the other side of the argument. It doesn't matter since they ruled that its totally a legitimate mechanic intended to work this way, so most rogues should be dipping bard at some point to take advantage of it.

[MeeposFire]

There is room for interpetation either way. I tend to think adding your proficiency would require at least your actual proficiency, but I can see the other side of the argument. It doesn't matter since they ruled that its totally a legitimate mechanic intended to work this way, so most rogues should be dipping bard at some point to take advantage of it.

I do not think I would say most. Only the ones that are really into skill use over anything else and of those only the ones that either do not mind having a lesser bonus or do not want to the sheer multiclassing in order to get that higher bonus on a lot more checks. It is nice though that you can really broaden your effectiveness without having to give up too many rogue levels though you do have to give up at least two. It is not exactly anti thematic either since both of these classes are really big into skill use and so giving up some combat prowess to get the best of both worlds seems like a fair choice to make.

[MeeposFire]

From my perspective, for your claim to be true, the wording would say "your proficiency bonus halved". Additionally, the check you add it to is one that does not include your proficiency bonus. If they were the same thing, it would disqualify itself.

I think you have this a bit backward at least how I see it. The bard ability says "you can add half your proficiency bonus, rounded down, to any ability check you make that doesn't already include your proficiency bonus".

Then on page 174 under skills it says "In either case proficiency in a skill means an individual can add his or her proficiency bonus to ability checks that involve that skill".

They both use essentially the same nomenclature and I do think it is incorrect to suggest that the JoaT bonus is a different and separate bonus from say a halved proficiency bonus.

As an example of what could be an instance of a potential different and separate bonus that uses proficiency bonus only for a value you can look at the hexblade's curse. That one says "You gain a bonus on damage rolls against the cursed target. The bonus equals your proficiency bonus".

The hexblade's curse certainly could be argued to represent what you are saying because it says in one sentence it is a bonus and then in a second sentence it states how that bonus happens to be the same value as your prof bonus. This is markedly different from JoaT and similar abilities that say "add half your prof bonus".

[th3g0dc0mp13x]

So you're all putting this to initiate which is cool but consider counterspell/dispell magic

---Rogue (arcane trickster) 11/ Bard (lore) 9---

They are a 12th level spell caster and has reliable talent so with 20 charisma and JoaT that makes his minimum roll a 18, anything but a ninth level spell for a third level slot. and a 45% chance of counterspelling even a 9th level spell.

Edit: NVM I just realized that glibness does this better.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Is there a compilation of JC's tweets on "rules clarifications" for 5E anywhere?

Asking for a phrend.

[th3g0dc0mp13x]

Is there a compilation of JC's tweets on "rules clarifications" for 5E anywhere?

Asking for a phrend.

www.sageadvice.eu

This is the best I've found.

[ThePolarBear]

From my perspective, for your claim to be true, the wording would say "your proficiency bonus halved". Additionally, the check you add it to is one that does not include your proficiency bonus. If they were the same thing, it would disqualify itself.

Exactly. Since it is NOT a check on whether a character is proficient with a skill or not, but if you roll a check while adding your proficiency bonus, and a proficiency bonus is a proficiency bonus no matter how big, halved, or doubled it is, if a proficiency bonus is added then Reliable Talent is applicable.

It doesn't matter if a character is proficient or not, just that their bonus is added to the roll. And since the bonus can be multiplied or halved BEFORE adding it, you are still using your proficiency bonus in the check, no matter in what form.

"it would disqualify itself" is non-sensical. The roll would be without proficiency bonus, therefore you add it.
You do not recursively check for it existing and then remove it if it is there. The feature never even mentions "removing a bonus". It has no bonus, therefore you add it. That's it.
It is also non-sensical since your "interpretation" would lead to the bonus continously add itself and stacking, since you are not adding a proficiency bonus, therefore you can add a number that is not a proficiency bonus and therefore not bound by the "add only once" rule for proficiency boni.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Exactly. Since it is NOT a check on whether a character is proficient with a skill or not, but if you roll a check while adding your proficiency bonus, and a proficiency bonus is a proficiency bonus no matter how big, halved, or doubled it is, if a proficiency bonus is added then Reliable Talent is applicable.

It doesn't matter if a character is proficient or not, just that their bonus is added to the roll. And since the bonus can be multiplied or halved BEFORE adding it, you are still using your proficiency bonus in the check, no matter in what form.

"it would disqualify itself" is non-sensical. The roll would be without proficiency bonus, therefore you add it.
You do not recursively check for it existing and then remove it if it is there. The feature never even mentions "removing a bonus". It has no bonus, therefore you add it. That's it.
It is also non-sensical since your "interpretation" would lead to the bonus continously add itself and stacking, since you are not adding a proficiency bonus, therefore you can add a number that is not a proficiency bonus and therefore not bound by the "add only once" rule for proficiency boni.

That is nonsense.

[ThePolarBear]

That is nonsense.

No, it's not. The feature says that you add half your proficiency bonus. For the rules on the proficiency bonus, half of it or all of it is still adding a proficiency bonus, and the feature itself calls for "that doesn't already add your proficiency bonus", not "in a skill you are already proficient with".
"ALREADY"

There's no recursion in the feature, and the feature itself makes no mention on removing a proficiency bonus if it's already there, making the your "it would disqualify itself" comment non-sensical. For two different reasons.

For it to work as you wanted, Reliable Talent would need to call for "full value of your proficiency bonus or more" or something like that. The fact that you only take half of the proficiency bonus is STILL adding the proficiency bonus for the rules.

[Pharaon]

That is nonsense.

I was on the "no way this combo works" side of the fence until I cracked open the book and read the text on both.



Starting at 2nd level, you can add half your proficiency bonus, rounded down, to any ability check you make that doesn’t already include your proficiency bonus.



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.

To me, the word "already" in JoAT is what really makes it work.

[JakOfAllTirades]

I was on the "no way this combo works" side of the fence until I cracked open the book and read the text on both.





To me, the word "already" in JoAT is what really makes it work.

I don't see how the word "already" helps in any way.

[JakOfAllTirades]

www.sageadvice.eu

This is the best I've found.

Hmph. It's over 1800 pages.

[Pharaon]

I don't see how the word "already" helps in any way.

I take the "already" in this case to imply "you weren't adding proficiency before, but now you are (for half)."

If they wanted to prevent this ridiculous - and it is ridiculous - combo (which apparently they don't, given the official errata), they could have phrased JoAT as "gain a bonus equal to half your proficiency bonus" or made Reliable Talent only work with Expertise skills.

[Crgaston]

I pulled this from the SRD

Occasionally, your proficiency bonus might be multiplied or divided (doubled or halved, for example) before you apply it. For example, the rogue's Expertise feature doubles the proficiency bonus for certain ability checks. If a circumstance suggests that your proficiency bonus applies more than once to the same roll, you still add it only once and multiply or divide it only once.

I really don’t see any other way to read this, the description of JoAT, and the description of Reliable Talent all together than by saying JoAT is adding your proficiency bonus, and therefore Reliable Talent applies.

[MeeposFire]

I take the "already" in this case to imply "you weren't adding proficiency before, but now you are (for half)."

If they wanted to prevent this ridiculous - and it is ridiculous - combo (which apparently they don't, given the official errata), they could have phrased JoAT as "gain a bonus equal to half your proficiency bonus" or made Reliable Talent only work with Expertise skills.

It would also be prevented if they did what they did with expertise and say it works with ability checks in which you are proficient rather than get your prof bonus. Jack of all trades does nto make you proficient in any given skill or tool but it does allow you to use 1/2 your prof bonus with them.

[th3g0dc0mp13x]

Crawford has clarified further they work together on a character not on the same ability check. https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/10/15/how-would-reliable-talent-work-with-a-roguebard-and-their-jack-of-all-trades/

[sophontteks]

Crawford has clarified further they work together on a character not on the same ability check. https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/10/15/how-would-reliable-talent-work-with-a-roguebard-and-their-jack-of-all-trades/
Alright, sanity returns. Funny to think of what state he was in when he made the first ruling. Like its 3 am and he can't sleep "Well, yeah, all abilities work together. What a silly question."


I do not think I would say most. Only the ones that are really into skill use over anything else and of those only the ones that either do not mind having a lesser bonus or do not want to the sheer multiclassing in order to get that higher bonus on a lot more checks. It is nice though that you can really broaden your effectiveness without having to give up too many rogue levels though you do have to give up at least two. It is not exactly anti thematic either since both of these classes are really big into skill use and so giving up some combat prowess to get the best of both worlds seems like a fair choice to make.

Nah, ability checks work with initiative, dispel magic, counterspell, and telekinesis. Skills aren't properly abusing this. Taking a 10 on initiative alone is pretty ridiculous. Taking 10 on the spells essentially mean they can not fail, saved only by the fact that it wouldn't come online until high level.

[Malifice]

Man, now I want to play the "Fastest Gun in the West," a rogue/bard multiclass named Han who uses a hand crossbow and has the alert feat.

Can't roll lower than 23 on initiative!

This gives further credence to my theory that bards are one of the top three classes in the game. (at least at the levels people actually play at) They were one of the strongest classes at release and Errata and additional books have only made them stronger.

---not that I would ever let this fly, as a DM.

They have HUGE problems with 'at-will' damage unless you MC.

In days that cleave to the recommended 6ish encounter adventuring day, they can struggle a bit; ditto campaigns with gritty realism long resting.

In Nova campaigns they're fine, because they don't have to worry about resource management and can just dump full caster slots at will.

[sophontteks]

They have HUGE problems with 'at-will' damage unless you MC.

In days that cleave to the recommended 6ish encounter adventuring day, they can struggle a bit; ditto campaigns with gritty realism long resting.

In Nova campaigns they're fine, because they don't have to worry about resource management and can just dump full caster slots at will.
Damage is over-rated. A good concentration control spell sets the stage and the cleanup work is left to the help.

[OvisCaedo]

Alright, sanity returns. Funny to think of what state he was in when he made the first ruling. Like its 3 am and he can't sleep "Well, yeah, all abilities work together. What a silly question."

But sanity goes back out the window if you look at the actual official Sage Advice PDF (http://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf), which explicitly states that half proficiency bonus IS enough to qualify for Reliable Talent. I'm very confused as to when and where the official disconnect on this came from.

[Malifice]

Damage is over-rated. A good concentration control spell sets the stage and the cleanup work is left to the help.

Indeed, but you burn through the good ones pretty fast on those longer adventuring days (6+ encounters) and in games with gritty rest in play.

Fighters and Rogues etc can chug along all day long.

On longer adventuring days (dungeons etc) as recommended by the DMG you're using a lot of slots for utility and back up healing, and your at will options (melee attacks and cantrips) are quite lacklustre.

It's their one big weakness.

They're great in Nova campaigns (1-2 super duper deadly fight per long rest).

[sophontteks]

Indeed, but you burn through the good ones pretty fast on those longer adventuring days (6+ encounters) and in games with gritty rest in play.

Fighters and Rogues etc can chug along all day long.

On longer adventuring days (dungeons etc) as recommended by the DMG you're using a lot of slots for utility and back up healing, and your at will options (melee attacks and cantrips) are quite lacklustre.

It's their one big weakness.

They're great in Nova campaigns (1-2 super duper deadly fight per long rest).
They are less strong in a campaign that has no non-combat encounters and sees 6+ combat encounters per day, espesially early on.

But they will always beat a fighter in non-combat encounters. Bards are top tier party faces and skill monkeys with bonus skills, JoaT, and expertise. Most official campaigns I've seen are set up with about 1/3 of encounters being combat, so without fighting at all they are still more useful then most other classes most of the time, and this is before casting any spells for utility.

In combat, "damage is over-rated." No need to nova like a dps caster. Just cast a couple key control spells and finish the fight casting vicious mockery while handing out inspiration. Song of rest is there for healing on short rest without burning spells and inspiration returns on short rests too.

It takes a lot to burn out a bard in comparison to a wizard. Wizards have the same number of spell slots but rely almost entirely upon spells. Bards do not, yet hardly sacrifice in spell power in exchange for this gift. This is why I would argue they are top tier. Wizards certainly get burned out without long rest but bards, not so much. Weaker, certainly, but still top tier.

[Citan]

Crawford has clarified further they work together on a character not on the same ability check. https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/10/15/how-would-reliable-talent-work-with-a-roguebard-and-their-jack-of-all-trades/
Ok, so that's what I said earlier, JC took the question in "are they compatible" to answer "they don't overlap, they complement each other".

Fiiew. The can of worms has been closed. XD

But sanity goes back out the window if you look at the actual official Sage Advice PDF (http://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf), which explicitly states that half proficiency bonus IS enough to qualify for Reliable Talent. I'm very confused as to when and where the official disconnect on this came from.
Oh my, it has not.
So, what to conclude? XD


It takes a lot to burn out a bard in comparison to a wizard. Wizards have the same number of spell slots but rely almost entirely upon spells. Bards do not, yet hardly sacrifice in spell power in exchange for this gift. This is why I would argue they are top tier. Wizards certainly get burned out without long rest but bards, not so much. Weaker, certainly, but still top tier.
As far as I am from putting Wizard on a pedestal like some people here, you are wrong on that assumption.

First, Wizard gets Arcane Recovery, which Bards gets not.
This amounts, in the end, to 10 level worths of spell slots. That may not seem much, but still that should be somewhere around what, 15% (no time to properly do the maths, so let's say it's like having the slots of a 3rd level fullcaster in addition to the previous). Even at level 10, it's still quite a few more Shields / Absorb Elements / Sleep / Disguise Self you can cast. :)

Second, Wizards can ritual-cast whatever spell is in their book, and they learn 2 spells per level, in addition to potentially adding others as they adventure.
So while a Bard can certainly take care of several chores with high reliability (Expertise) and others with decent reliability (Jack of All Trades), Wizards could take care of it with 100% reliability without consuming any slot: searching a magic opening (Detect Magic vs Perception / Investigation), secretly following a target (Survival vs Find Familiar)... Of course Bard also can learn most of spells a Wizard has, but then you eat into one of the precious spell known. So the opportunity cost is still bigger for the Bard.

Third, although this concerns only a minority of players, Wizards ends with free 1st and 2nd level spell, and 3rd levels per short rest. Which is another huge boost in casting.

Fourth, many Schools provide benefits to improve resource management as far as their related spells are concerned: evocation: better damage = less probability of needing another one, abjuration = better check and saves (so same), conjuration = unbreakable concentration (same), bladesong = better AC and concentration (same), War Magic = better AC and saves (same), enchantemnt = twin (better benefit for cost), illusion = reality (same), necromant = better undead (same), divination = regain slots (lesser total cost), transmuter = free spell (more resources),
So apart from Abjuration which ends as the most resilient of all so much better resource management, with Bladesinger and War Wizard not too far behind, at least when you cast spells from your school, you have a much better benefit/cost ratio than a Bard casting the same spell.

So, yeah, sure, Wizard mostly rely on spells for everything (one could argue also for skills since we now have Skill Empowerment) but it has been built for that so in the end as long as you think about how to use your resources it's fine. ;)

[RSP]

Occasionally, your proficiency bonus might be multiplied or divided (doubled or halved, for example) before you apply it. For example, the rogue's Expertise feature doubles the proficiency bonus for certain ability checks. If a circumstance suggests that your proficiency bonus applies more than once to the same roll, you still add it only once and multiply or divide it only once.

"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."

"Jack of All Trades"
Starting at 2nd level, you can add half your proficiency bonus, rounded down, to any ability check you make that doesn't already include your proficiency bonus."

Assuming the above are all true (AFB so pulled from online but they seem accurate), I don't see how else to read these than the two abilities work in concert and a Bard 2/Rogue 11 would apply Reliable Talent to all ability checks.

I'd also say Sage Advice Compendium>Crawford Tweets, in terms of "official source."

I think, for the tweet from Crawford regarding the two abilities not working together to make sense, we'd need an errata changing Reliable Talent to state something along the lines of "Whenever you make an ability check with a Skill you have Proficiency with, you can treat a d20 roll of 9 or lower as a 10." (That is, changing the condition on which Reliable Talent is based to be having proficiency, and not having it based on applying the proficiency bonus [which can be halved or doubled])

But again, with the current wording of the abilities, I don't see how they wouldn't work together.

[Arial Black]

At the end of the latest tweet exchange where JC says they don't apply to the same roll, he was asked why they don't both apply to the same roll?

This was the reply:- "You can't add your proficiency bonus, or any portion of it, to a roll more than once".

Help me out here guys! How would this combo add your proficiency bonus (or any portion of it) twice?

JOAT adds it once (halved), Joat only applies because you don't already apply it normally (because you are not proficient), but all Reliable Talent does is give you a minimum of 10 on the d20 roll; it doesn't add the proficiency bonus again!

Does it?

[sophontteks]

At the end of the latest tweet exchange where JC says they don't apply to the same roll, he was asked why they don't both apply to the same roll?

This was the reply:- "You can't add your proficiency bonus, or any portion of it, to a roll more than once".

Help me out here guys! How would this combo add your proficiency bonus (or any portion of it) twice?

JOAT adds it once (halved), Joat only applies because you don't already apply it normally (because you are not proficient), but all Reliable Talent does is give you a minimum of 10 on the d20 roll; it doesn't add the proficiency bonus again!

Does it?
No, it makes no sense at all. It's pure gibberish.

[smcmike]

At the end of the latest tweet exchange where JC says they don't apply to the same roll, he was asked why they don't both apply to the same roll?

This was the reply:- "You can't add your proficiency bonus, or any portion of it, to a roll more than once".

Help me out here guys! How would this combo add your proficiency bonus (or any portion of it) twice?

JOAT adds it once (halved), Joat only applies because you don't already apply it normally (because you are not proficient), but all Reliable Talent does is give you a minimum of 10 on the d20 roll; it doesn't add the proficiency bonus again!

Does it?

Actually, this response was to the question of why Remarkable Athlete and Jack of All Trades don’t stack. He did not explain why he thinks Reliable Talent doesn’t stack with JoaT

[sophontteks]

Actually, this response was to the question of why Remarkable Athlete and Jack of All Trades don’t stack. He did not explain why he thinks Reliable Talent doesn’t stack with JoaT
ooh. Well that makes sense. I missed that.

Back to Reliable talent and Jack of all trades. There's two pages of answer to that question already. Half of something does not equal something.

[ThePolarBear]

Fiiew. The can of worms has been closed. XD

Oh my, it has not.
So, what to conclude? XD

I don't have an answer, but last 2016 version of the SA Compendium doesn't have the Reliable Talent/JoAT interaction in it, while the last one for 2017 has it. There's no official Sage Advice article coming up to a quick search in the period between October 2016 and August 2017. The question on twitter was asked before the August Sage Advice article. I don't know WHEN the answer (the one in SA-Comp) appeared, but given that i can't find anything between the two articles, i guess it was written after the tweet.

So, either the answer got copied incorrectly in the article and then there remained, or the tweet with the question was marked as "interesting for publication" and the answer got changed after realizing that a feature or another didn't actually work as answered via tweet. It has happened before, it will keep happening. However, if "generic you" agree with "latest, precedence", then the latest publication is the SA Compendium, most likely.

edit:

Back to Reliable talent and Jack of all trades. There's to pages of answer to that question already. Half of something does not equal something.

Unless specified otherwise. Specific > general. Rules for Proficiency Bonus.

[Arial Black]

Back to Reliable talent and Jack of all trades. There's to pages of answer to that question already. Half of something does not equal something.

True.

Also true: double something does not equal something.

Therefore, Reliable Talent cannot be used for the skills in which you have Expertise.

You can't have it both ways; either 'apply half/double proficiency' IS applying your proficiency, or it is NOT. Which is it?

[sophontteks]

True.

Also true: double something does not equal something.

Therefore, Reliable Talent cannot be used for the skills in which you have Expertise.

You can't have it both ways; either 'apply half/double proficiency' IS applying your proficiency, or it is NOT. Which is it?
If I pay $5 for a $10 item. Its a no go. If I pay $20, its perfectly fine. If it wants your proficiency bonus then you must at least be applying your full proficiency bonus.

Works fine both ways. Only in the case where its halved am I not providing my full proficiency bonus and not meeting the prerequisites for reliable talent.

[RSP]

ooh. Well that makes sense. I missed that.

Back to Reliable talent and Jack of all trades. There's two pages of answer to that question already. Half of something does not equal something.


If I pay $5 for a $10 item. Its a no go. If I pay $20, its perfectly fine. If it wants your proficiency bonus then you must at least be applying your full proficiency bonus.

Works fine both ways. Only in the case where its halved am I not providing my full proficiency bonus and not meeting the prerequisites for reliable talent.

Except Reliable Talent applies when the proficiency bonus is added to an Ability Check, and, according to the rules for Proficiency Bonus, a half-Proficiency bonus counts as a Proficiency Bonus. Nothing in Reliable Talent states the full proficiency bonus must be applied to gain the benefit of the ability.

"Occasionally, your proficiency bonus might be modified (doubled or halved, for example) before you apply it."

A half proficiency bonus is still a "proficiency bonus," per the RAW, which means it triggers Reliable Talent, per the RAW.

For your second example, it would be like saying whether you're paying $5 for an item, or $10 for an item, you're still "paying for an item."

[sophontteks]

Except Reliable Talent applies when the proficiency bonus is added to an Ability Check, and, according to the rules for Proficiency Bonus, a half-Proficiency bonus counts as a Proficiency Bonus. Nothing in Reliable Talent states the full proficiency bonus must be applied to gain the benefit of the ability.

"Occasionally, your proficiency bonus might be modified (doubled or halved, for example) before you apply it."

A half proficiency bonus is still a "proficiency bonus," per the RAW, which means it triggers Reliable Talent, per the RAW.

For your second example, it would be like saying whether you're paying $5 for an item, or $10 for an item, you're still "paying for an item."
I disagree. Half of something is not something. It implies the full bonus. And I retort, If I try to pay half of what an item is worth, I'm not paying for anything at all. The deal is refused.

I see where your coming from though. I see the grey zone, but the writers already weighed in and clarified the ruling. Certainly any DM can rule against them.

[Saggo]

I disagree. Half of something is not something. It implies the full bonus. And I retort, If I try to pay half of what an item is worth, I'm not paying for anything at all. The deal is refused.

I see where your coming from though. I see the grey zone, but the writers already weighed in and clarified the ruling. Certainly any DM can rule against them.

The nuance should still be acknowledged, regardess of whether Reliable Talent was intended to only work with full proficiency or higher, that pg 12 is clear: adding a modified (in either direction) proficiency bonus is adding your proficiency bonus. The philosophy that half of something is not something is immaterial here, because pg 12 doesn't care. Otherwise Remarkable Athlete and Jack of All Trades would stack.

Either Crawford mispoke in the one of the two tweets or Reliable Talent is a typo by omission, neither of which is unprecedented.

[Xetheral]

I'm confused by the arguments that "half of a something is not a something".

For example, consider a hamburger. By the argument above, half of a hamburger would not be a hamburger. Would three quarters of a hamburger be a hamburger? How many bites do I need to take of my hamburger before it would stop being a hamburger?

The argument above suggests the answer to that last question should be "one", but that doesn't make any sense to me... why should my hamburger cease to be a hamburger just because I took a bite? I would have thought instead that the answer should be "all of them": it's still a hamburger until I've finished eating it.

[sophontteks]

I'm confused by the arguments that "half of a something is not a something".

For example, consider a hamburger. By the argument above, half of a hamburger would not be a hamburger. Would three quarters of a hamburger be a hamburger? How many bites do I need to take of my hamburger before it would stop being a hamburger?

The argument above suggests the answer to that last question should be "one", but that doesn't make any sense to me... why should my hamburger cease to be a hamburger just because I took a bite? I would have thought instead that the answer should be "all of them": it's still a hamburger until I've finished eating it.
If I asked you for a hamburger and you gave me half a hamburger I would not be satisfied. I would say "No, I asked for a hamburger." It didn't cease to be a hamburger, yet it also didn't satisfy my expectations of what a hamburger is. How would you feel if you went to a burger place and they gave you half of one. Would you be satisfied that it is a burger or would you feel that they didn't hold up their end of the agreement?

So, technically you could say that it ceases to be a hamburger the moment any of it is missing. Its at that point that you would have to explicitly state that its not a whole burger to avoid confusion when you go to trade or sell it.

So here this ability asks you to give it your proficiency bonus and you only give it half. That's not what is asked for. It wanted the whole thing.

[RSP]

I disagree. Half of something is not something. It implies the full bonus. And I retort, If I try to pay half of what an item is worth, I'm not paying for anything at all. The deal is refused.

I see where your coming from though. I see the grey zone, but the writers already weighed in and clarified the ruling. Certainly any DM can rule against them.

I don't mean to continue to repeat this, (nor am I trying to argue a point that is clearly in conflict even with JC's official postings) but a couple times it's been mentioned by others as well with no direct response from you (that I saw, though I may have missed it):

the argument of "half of something is not something" is moot in this conversation as the RAW spells out that half of a proficiency bonus is still a proficiency bonus. I think that's a key part of any discussion dealing with the application of a proficiency bonus, "half" is still a something (proficiency bonus), in this case.

[sophontteks]

I don't mean to continue to repeat this, (nor am I trying to argue a point that is clearly in conflict even with JC's official postings) but a couple times it's been mentioned by others as well with no direct response from you (that I saw, though I may have missed it):

the argument of "half of something is not something" is moot in this conversation as the RAW spells out that half of a proficiency bonus is still a proficiency bonus. I think that's a key part of any discussion dealing with the application of a proficiency bonus, "half" is still a something (proficiency bonus), in this case.
Yeah I read your post I just didn't reply to it yet because I don't have a book in front of me. It sounds like a good point though.

[Xetheral]

If I asked you for a hamburger and you gave me half a hamburger I would not be satisfied. I would say "No, I asked for a hamburger." It didn't cease to be a hamburger, yet it also didn't satisfy my expectations of what a hamburger is. How would you feel if you went to a burger place and they gave you half of one. Would you be satisfied that it is a burger or would you feel that they didn't hold up their end of the agreement?

So, technically you could say that it ceases to be a hamburger the moment any of it is missing. Its at that point that you would have to explicitly state that its not a whole burger to avoid confusion when you go to trade or sell it.

So here this ability asks you to give it your proficiency bonus and you only give it half. That's not what is asked for. It wanted the whole thing.

I get what you're saying in a transactional context (with the caveat that if you asked for a hamburger expecting to get a 4oz burger, and I instead gave you half of a 8oz burger, you might well still be satisfied), but I see no reason why a transactional context is appropriate for interpreting Reliable Talent.

In other words, it would seem to me that Reliable Talent's condition is a qualitative test, where half of my proficiency bonus is still my proficiency bonus, just as my hamburger with a bite out if it is still my hamburger. I don't see any reason to think that that Reliable Talent's condition is instead supposed to be a quantitative test, where half of my proficiency bonus isn't enough of a proficiency bonus, just as half of a hamburger may not be enough hamburger.

[sophontteks]

I get what you're saying in a transactional context (with the caveat that if you asked for a hamburger expecting to get a 4oz burger, and I instead gave you half of a 8oz burger, you might well still be satisfied), but I see no reason why a transactional context is appropriate for interpreting Reliable Talent.

In other words, it would seem to me that Reliable Talent's condition is a qualitative test, where half of my proficiency bonus is still my proficiency bonus, just as my hamburger with a bite out if it is still my hamburger. I don't see any reason to think that that Reliable Talent's condition is instead supposed to be a quantitative test, where half of my proficiency bonus isn't enough of a proficiency bonus, just as half of a hamburger may not be enough hamburger.
When something tells you to add your profeciency bonus do you not assume its the entire bonus?

Its just how we use words. When we say we want something, its generally applied we want it whole. The game uses this language everywhere. If something says "add your strength bonus" and you say "Well I'll add half my strength bonus because that is still adding my strength bonus" you're not following the rules. Typically this wouldn't be a big deal, but what if your strength was negative?

We never say add your whole strength bonus or add our whole profeciency. Whole is implied.

To me this is just trying to pick apart implied aspects of language to your advantage. Somewhere it would have to state that half is allowed as Rsp29a mentions. If that doesn't exist, then, no.

[Xetheral]

When something tells you to add your profeciency bonus do you not assume its the entire bonus?

Its just how we use words. When we say we want something, its generally applied we want it whole. The game uses this language everywhere. If something says "add your strength bonus" and you say "Well I'll add half my strength bonus because that is still adding my strength bonus" you're not following the rules. Typically this wouldn't be a big deal, but what if your strength was negative?

We never say add your whole strength bonus or add our whole profeciency. Whole is implied.

To me this is just trying to pick apart implied aspects of language to your advantage. Somewhere it would have to state that half is allowed as Rsp29a mentions. If that doesn't exist, then, no.

In the statement "add your proficiency bonus", I agree that a quantitative context is implied, because the magitude of the proficiency bonus matters. However, the question "did you add your proficiency bonus?" doesn't automatically have the same implication--depending on context, the question could be quantitative or qualitative. Reliable Talent's condition is more analogous to the above question than the above statement, and I see a qualitative context as superior because nothing in Reliable Talent depends on the magnitude of the proficiency bonus.

For example, "Eat the hamburger" is an instruction that is implictly quantitative. Eating half doesn't comply with the instruction. By contrast, the question "Did you eat the hamburger?" could be quantitative or qualitative. If asked of a child by a parent who wants the child to finish a meal, it's likely quantitative. (If the child ate half of the hamburger, the correct answer is "no".) If asked of one friend by another friend who was hoping to eat the hamburger themselves, it's likely qualitative. (If the friend ate half of the hamburger, the correct answer is "yes".)

[JoeJ]

In the statement "add your proficiency bonus", I agree that a quantitative context is implied, because the magitude of the proficiency bonus matters. However, the question "did you add your proficiency bonus?" doesn't automatically have the same implication--depending on context, the question could be quantitative or qualitative. Reliable Talent's condition is more analogous to the above question than the above statement, and I see a qualitative context as superior because nothing in Reliable Talent depends on the magnitude of the proficiency bonus.

For example, "Eat the hamburger" is an instruction that is implictly quantitative. Eating half doesn't comply with the instruction. By contrast, the question "Did you eat the hamburger?" could be quantitative or qualitative. If asked of a child by a parent who wants the child to finish a meal, it's likely quantitative. (If the child ate half of the hamburger, the correct answer is "no".) If asked of one friend by another friend who was hoping to eat the hamburger themselves, it's likely qualitative. (If the friend ate half of the hamburger, the correct answer is "yes".)

Half a hamburger could arguably be a smaller hamburger, but half an airplane is just a pile of scrap.

[smcmike]

I am excited about this thread. It has real potential to go for a month or two. For what it’s worth, I’ve been convinced by the text citations that half a proficiency bonus counts, and am more curious to hear why people think this is a horrible outcome in terms of balance.

[Cybren]

...Half a cheeseburger isn't a cheeseburger.

Wait, which half?

[MaxWilson]

I am flabbergasted by that ruling in the errata. The errata specifically says that JoAT will trigger Reliable Talent because a portion of proficiency bonus is enough to qualify for anything requiring proficiency bonus. I think that's extraordinarily wrongheaded. Half a thing is not the thing.

Nitpick: sage advice and/or Twitter are not errata. Errata is what gets included in the next PHB reprint, and is a separate (much smaller) document.

[RSP]

I am excited about this thread. It has real potential to go for a month or two. For what it’s worth, I’ve been convinced by the text citations that half a proficiency bonus counts, and am more curious to hear why people think this is a horrible outcome in terms of balance.

Yeah I was a little surprised with the reactions earlier in the thread. If you're comparing a Bard 2/Rogue 11 to a Bard 13, I'd say the Bard is still the better character and wouldn't be too worried about the skillmonkey Rogue. One more level and the Bard, if Lore, is probably equal to the multiclass Rogue in skills anyway (thanks to Peerless Skill), and is a full caster to boot.

[sophontteks]

I am excited about this thread. It has real potential to go for a month or two. For what it’s worth, I’ve been convinced by the text citations that half a proficiency bonus counts, and am more curious to hear why people think this is a horrible outcome in terms of balance.
It comes online too late to be a horrible outcome, really. Level 17 and things get stupid, but by then the campaigns over anyway. The best thing is getting a minimum of a 10 roll on initiative.

[RSP]

It comes online too late to be a horrible outcome, really. Level 17 and things get stupid, but by then the campaigns over anyway. The best thing is getting a minimum of a 10 roll on initiative.

If the worst thing it does is give great Counterspell and Dispel Magic rolls at level 17, I still don't see a problem. Using a 3rd level slot to auto Counterspell an 8th level spell is great, but it's kind of a One trick pony, and I'd rather have 9th level spells. Plus, many opponents will just Counter that 3rd level spell. (Let me know if I'm missing something at the level 17 mark, though)

Having a higher average initiative on a class that is meant to be quick thinking and fast reacting isn't a bad thing. Also, I think it averages out to be the same as having Alert, or close enough. If a mainly non-caster multiclass gets 1 effect if a feat as their "this is broken" late game ability, I'm not worried; they're still nowhere close to broken (again compare to full Lore Bard, or full Wizard).

I just don't see why this is a big deal. It doesn't even let the character get higher scores; it just gives them the average if they're below it.

[sophontteks]

If the worst thing it does is give great Counterspell and Dispel Magic rolls at level 17, I still don't see a problem. Using a 3rd level slot to auto Counterspell an 8th level spell is great, but it's kind of a One trick pony, and I'd rather have 9th level spells. Plus, many opponents will just Counter that 3rd level spell. (Let me know if I'm missing something at the level 17 mark, though)

Having a higher average initiative on a class that is meant to be quick thinking and fast reacting isn't a bad thing. Also, I think it averages out to be the same as having Alert, or close enough. If a mainly non-caster multiclass gets 1 effect if a feat as their "this is broken" late game ability, I'm not worried; they're still nowhere close to broken (again compare to full Lore Bard, or full Wizard).

I just don't see why this is a big deal. It doesn't even let the character get higher scores; it just gives them the average if they're below it.
Its not I said as much. I would just take Crawford's ruling and be done with it, but it doesn't matter really what you decide since it'd be a very rare case.

[smcmike]

Yeah, the thing about initiative is that it’s nice to go first, but it really can’t break the game, since someone always gets to go first.

[Tanarii]

Wait, which half?
The bun. It's not a cheeseburger if it's just the bun. Even with cheese.

It's still a cheeseburger if it's patty with cheese wrapped in lettuce. Tomatoes optional.

[Arial Black]

If I pay $5 for a $10 item. Its a no go. If I pay $20, its perfectly fine. If it wants your proficiency bonus then you must at least be applying your full proficiency bonus.

Works fine both ways. Only in the case where its halved am I not providing my full proficiency bonus and not meeting the prerequisites for reliable talent.

I've taken my final exam, but failed. By 1 point!

It was question 23 that made the difference: 2+2=?

My answer was 256. They marked it wrong, because they said the answer is 4.

My counter is that 256 is at least 4! If you asked for 4 hamburgers and I gave you 256 hamburgers you still got 4 hamburgers, didn't you?

So, by my reckoning, 256=4.

But, obviously, 4 =/= 256, because if you asked for 256 hamburgers and only got 4, then you would not have got 256 hamburgers!

So, definitely, 256=4 but 4 =/= 256.

Maths is easy. Why did they mark my answer wrong?

[sophontteks]

I've taken my final exam, but failed. By 1 point!

It was question 23 that made the difference: 2+2=?

My answer was 256. They marked it wrong, because they said the answer is 4.

My counter is that 256 is at least 4! If you asked for 4 hamburgers and I gave you 256 hamburgers you still got 4 hamburgers, didn't you?

So, by my reckoning, 256=4.

But, obviously, 4 =/= 256, because if you asked for 256 hamburgers and only got 4, then you would not have got 256 hamburgers!

So, definitely, 256=4 but 4 =/= 256.

Maths is easy. Why did they mark my answer wrong?
Amazing you only failed by one point. But cool story.

[Pharaon]

Amazing you only failed by one point. But cool story.

I think a better example is a game situation:

I cast fireball and two targets are affected. Target A fails the save and takes full damage. Target B makes the save and takes half damage.

Who in this situation has taken damage from fireball?

[MaxWilson]

Crawford has clarified further they work together on a character not on the same ability check. https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/10/15/how-would-reliable-talent-work-with-a-roguebard-and-their-jack-of-all-trades/

*facepalm*

While I agree with his eventual ruling, it's ridiculous that he can't just come out and say, "What was I thinking? I was wrong." Instead he has to claim that he was right all along about a question that nobody was asking and doesn't make much sense. (Of course the abilities "work together on a character"! Abilities don't go away just because you get other abilities.)

[MaxWilson]

the argument of "half of something is not something" is moot in this conversation as the RAW spells out that half of a proficiency bonus is still a proficiency bonus. I think that's a key part of any discussion dealing with the application of a proficiency bonus, "half" is still a something (proficiency bonus), in this case.

Does not compute.

Do you let people cast 5th level spells using 3rd level spell slots, because "half a 5th level spell slot is still a 5th level spell slot?"

Your proficiency bonus is a numeric quantity. If you're a 9th level character, it's +4. If you're adding +2 from Jack of All Trades, you're adding half your proficiency bonus, but you're not adding your proficiency bonus.

It's true though that Reliable Talent could be worded better: "full proficiency bonus" (if they're intended not to stack) or "part or all of your proficiency bonus" (if they are intended to stack). In all likelihood, the designers simply never thought about this question at all when writing the rules, so any answer a given DM comes up with will be consistent with the design intent (which didn't exist).

[RSP]

Does not compute.

Do you let people cast 5th level spells using 3rd level spell slots, because "half a 5th level spell slot is still a 5th level spell slot?"

Your proficiency bonus is a numeric quantity. If you're a 9th level character, it's +4. If you're adding +2 from Jack of All Trades, you're adding half your proficiency bonus, but you're not adding your proficiency bonus.

It's true though that Reliable Talent could be worded better: "full proficiency bonus" (if they're intended not to stack) or "part or all of your proficiency bonus" (if they are intended to stack). In all likelihood, the designers simply never thought about this question at all when writing the rules, so any answer a given DM comes up with will be consistent with the design intent (which didn't exist).

Not sure why it "does not compute." Here's the RAW:

"Your proficiency bonus can’t be added to a single die roll or other number more than once. Occasionally, your proficiency bonus might be modified (doubled or halved, for example) before you apply it. If a circumstance suggests that your proficiency bonus applies more than once to the same roll or that it should be multiplied more than once, you nevertheless add it only once, multiply it only once, and halve it only once."

The specific line "Occasionally, your proficiency bonus might be modified (doubled or halved, for example) before you apply it," is pretty clear that half your proficiency bonus still counts as your proficiency bonus.

I don't see any other way to interpret the RAW; I mean it specifically says halving your proficiency bonus counts as applying proficiency bonus. Applying proficiency bonus is the basis of getting the benefit of Reliable Talent. The RAW isn't ambiguous here (though JC's tweets are conflicting).

[sophontteks]

Not sure why it "does not compute." Here's the RAW:

"Your proficiency bonus can’t be added to a single die roll or other number more than once. Occasionally, your proficiency bonus might be modified (doubled or halved, for example) before you apply it. If a circumstance suggests that your proficiency bonus applies more than once to the same roll or that it should be multiplied more than once, you nevertheless add it only once, multiply it only once, and halve it only once."

The specific line "Occasionally, your proficiency bonus might be modified (doubled or halved, for example) before you apply it," is pretty clear that half your proficiency bonus still counts as your proficiency bonus.

I don't see any other way to interpret the RAW; I mean it specifically says halving your proficiency bonus counts as applying proficiency bonus. Applying proficiency bonus is the basis of getting the benefit of Reliable Talent. The RAW isn't ambiguous here (though JC's tweets are conflicting).
Oh, if it said somewhere that halving it still counts as adding your proficiency bonus in regard to abilities I'd agree. And like you said, if it actually said "Half of your proficiency bonus still counts as your proficiency bonus." That would about wrap things up. Sadly what you said only mentioned that it can be modded, which we are aware of already.

But when asked for something, its generally applied we want the whole thing. They could have made the language better and said full or partial, but they didn't. Instead the guy who wrote the rules clarified what he meant when someone asked him.

[Cybren]

That post reads like sophistry. It's talking about when you apply your proficiency bonus, and given scenarios on how you'd do that, with the specific example in question directly clarified

[sophontteks]

That post reads like sophistry. It's talking about when you apply your proficiency bonus, and given scenarios on how you'd do that, with the specific example in question directly clarified

Its talking about adding proficiency bonuses multiple times. That's it. It never says that modding one's proficiency still counts as adding one's proficiency for abilities, so i found his conclusion was fallacious. It in no way impacts the argument I made its just stating that it can be modded, which we all know already.

I argue that when you halve the proficiency bonus you aren't meeting the requirements of an ability that asks for your proficiency bonus. Half of your proficiency bonus is very much less then your proficiency bonus. And the reason doubling it is fine is because twice of something does satisfy the requirement, with change.

You don't have to agree with me.

EDIT: Sorry, I think his argument was cool. I'm just saying why I don't agree with his conclusion. I said before that I think its a big grey zone. The people who wrote this weren't lawyers. That's why I tend to, sometimes begrudgingly, refer to the clarifications they post. I totally agree that it can be read as being legal raw, but I believe adding one's proficiency implies "Adding one's whole profeciency." we just don't often say whole. We assume whole unless otherwise specified.

[Pharaon]

Its talking about adding proficiency bonuses multiple times. That's it. It never says that modding one's proficiency still counts as adding one's proficiency for abilities, so i found his conclusion was fallacious. It in no way impacts the argument I made its just stating that it can be modded, which we all know already.

I argue that when you halve the proficiency bonus you aren't meeting the requirements of an ability that asks for your proficiency bonus. Half of your proficiency bonus is very much less then your proficiency bonus. And the reason doubling it is fine is because twice of something does satisfy the requirement, with change.

You don't have to agree with me.

"Occasionally, your proficiency bonus might be modified (doubled or halved, for example) before you apply it."

"Before you apply it" means your proficiency bonus still has been applied, even if it is modified.

So when you have JoAT and Remarkable Athlete, you don't get to add half your proficiency bonus twice, since your (modified) proficiency bonus has already been added.

[Asmotherion]

I think it's far too early to pick the forks, I find this tweet very ambiguous, the question I mean.
Maybe Jeremy answered "yes" simply because, since each feature targets a different set of skills, they "work together" because they are complementary.

If really he said that RAI both can be combined then... I think he doesn't realize at all the big can of worms he just opened there. :/

Or he does, and simply happily admits that specific builds like the Bard/Rogue were intended to work together amazingly well. I don't know. 5e does have this feel of ambiguity that could either mean "geniusly works as planed", or "figure it out yourselves, and do what works best for you". :P

All in all, I admire the marketing plan, as they allow the whole thing to develop organically into what the comunity actually wants the answear to be, instead of giving a clearly defined Raw answear and having to change the way the game was played on all tables all along!

[sophontteks]

"Occasionally, your proficiency bonus might be modified (doubled or halved, for example) before you apply it."

"Before you apply it" means your proficiency bonus still has been applied, even if it is modified.

So when you have JoAT and Remarkable Athlete, you don't get to add half your proficiency bonus twice, since your (modified) proficiency bonus has already been added.
I'm not sure how it matters whether it was before or after. You aren't applying your whole proficiency bonus. Its just semantics. No matter the order of operations, you come up with half of your proficiency, which isn't enough to satisfy the condition of adding your proficiency bonus.

I totally see your side, but I believe as written it wants the entire proficiency bonus.

EDIT: Actually I got it. RAW would be a lawyer picking it apart, so even if they intended it to say "whole" because it doesn't state whole specifically, its allowed by RAW, where as RAI would be me saying "Well they clearly implied that this would need the whole proficiency bonus."

[Pharaon]

I'm not sure how it matters whether it was before or after. You aren't applying your whole proficiency bonus. Its just semantics. No matter the order of operations, you come up with half of your proficiency, which isn't enough to satisfy the condition of adding your proficiency bonus.

I totally see your side, but I believe as written it wants the entire proficiency bonus.

EDIT: Actually I got it. RAW would be a lawyer picking it apart, so even if they intended it to say "whole" because it doesn't state whole specifically, its allowed by RAW, where as RAI would be me saying "Well they clearly implied that this would need the whole proficiency bonus."

Just be clear, both sides are rules-lawyering the hell out of this. And I reject your interpretation of RAI, given the WOTC Sage Advice Compendium document says JoAT works with Reliable Talent on the same ability check.




Can the rogue’s Reliable Talent feature be used in conjunction with Remarkable Athlete or Jack of All Trades?

For a rogue/fighter or a rogue/bard, Reliable Talent does work along with Remarkable Athlete and Jack of All Trades. Even though you add only half your proficiency bonus when using one of those two features, that’s enough to qualify for Reliable Talent.

I also agree that the timing of applying a modified proficiency bonus doesn't matter. So of we ignore the word "before" for a moment, what we're left with is "you apply it," where "it" is "your proficiency bonus," albeit modified.

[Crgaston]

"Occasionally, your proficiency bonus might be modified (doubled or halved, for example) before you apply it."

"Before you apply it" means your proficiency bonus still has been applied, even if it is modified.

So when you have JoAT and Remarkable Athlete, you don't get to add half your proficiency bonus twice, since your (modified) proficiency bonus has already been added.

I think this is the most telling point. Either JoAT works with Reliable talent, or it combines with Remarkable Athelete.

The answer can’t be neither, and it can’t be both.

[MaxWilson]

I think this is the most telling point. Either JoAT works with Reliable talent, or it combines with Remarkable Athelete.

The answer can’t be neither, and it can’t be both.

Cogently argued, Crgaston and Pharaon.

[Arial Black]

I think this is the most telling point. Either JoAT works with Reliable talent, or it combines with Remarkable Athelete.

The answer can’t be neither, and it can’t be both.

Correct.

And the reason that JoAT works with Reliable Talent and NOT with Remarkable Athlete is that adding half or double your proficiency bonus does indeed count as adding your proficiency bonus.

And the reason for THAT is that your proficiency bonus may not be added more than once unless an ability specifically says it can (like Expertise). This is a design decision to prevent various absurdities and to protect bounded accuracy.

Think about it; right now we are talking about two abilities that each add some portion of your proficiency bonus to an ability check. IF it only counted as 'adding the proficiency bonus' if the full (or greater) bonus is added, then there would be NO restriction on adding half your bonus as many times as you like, as long as you have different abilities which do that.

So in the future we could easily have Remarkable Athlete and JoAT and six other abilities which all add half your proficiency bonus to the same ability check, resulting in them combining to add FOUR TIMES your proficiency bonus, making you much better at using skills you are NOT proficient in than you are using skills in which you ARE proficient!

If this theoretical 17th level character with all eight of these hypothetical abilities is proficient in a skill then he adds +6 to his rolls, if he has Expertise in a skill he adds +12 to his rolls, and if he is not proficient at all then he adds +24.

To prevent this, the writers made clear that adding any portion of your proficiency bonus counts as adding your proficiency bonus, because you can only add that once (barring a stated exception).

And as a result of that, JoAT and Reliable Talent MUST work together on the same roll. JC's apparent objection to adding the bonus more than once simply does not apply to this combination.

[sophontteks]

Just be clear, both sides are rules-lawyering the hell out of this. And I reject your interpretation of RAI, given the WOTC Sage Advice Compendium document says JoAT works with Reliable Talent on the same ability check.

Jeremy clarified that they don't.
Did he go back on his own word? Yeah.
But that's RAI.

[ThePolarBear]

Jeremy clarified that they don't.
Did he go back on his own word? Yeah.
But that's RAI.

Again, the SA Compendium 2017 has come out AFTER the tweet, not before. Since the Compendium is still by JC, the RAI is that JoAT works with RT. So, in the end, he did go back, but not in the way that you think.

It's not from "they work" to "they don't", but from "they don't" to "they work".

At least assuming that the Wizards site didn't miss any Sage Advice while searching for them and that the SA Compendium doesn't have an error in it.

[sophontteks]

Again, the SA Compendium 2017 has come out AFTER the tweet, not before. Since the Compendium is still by JC, the RAI is that JoAT works with RT. So, in the end, he did go back, but not in the way that you think.

It's not from "they work" to "they don't", but from "they don't" to "they work".

At least assuming that the Wizards site didn't miss any Sage Advice while searching for them and that the SA Compendium doesn't have an error in it.

Holy crap. I'm done. Thats crazy.
It wentfrom it works to it dont and back.

[Tensubde]

First off, this is OBVIOUSLY not RAI. A few levels in Bard should not make you roll 10 or better on literally every ability check ever.

But, just plain RAW... How do Reliable Talent and Jack Of All Trades interact? Since you're applying at least part of your proficiency to every ability check, does this make Reliable Talent apply to initiative? Skills you don't have full proficiency or Expertise in?

So just an update for anyone else in 2020 who went down this rabbit while. Sage advice updated at some point since this thread was last used. So they went back on it again, apparently. It reads as follows:

"Can the rogue’s Reliable Talent feature be used in conjunction with Remarkable Athlete or Jack of All Trades? No. Each of these features has a precondition for its use; Reliable Talent activates when you make an ability check that uses your proficiency bonus, whereas the other two features activate when you make an ability check that doesn’t use your proficiency bonus. In other words, a check that qualifies for Reliable Talent doesn’t qualify for Remarkable Athlete or Jack of All Trades. And Remarkable Athlete and Jack of All Trades don’t work with each other, since you can add your proficiency bonus, or any portion thereof, only once to a roll."

[Zhorn]

well how about that...
Necromancy used for the power of good... never thought I'd see the day.

[Kuu Lightwing]

Okay, the ruling validity aside, Jeremy should really be ashamed of himself replying "Yes" and then adding "Actually no, but I meant that you can have those on the same character" two years after initial reply, from what it looks like.
Because that's totally not misleading at all.

[Lunali]

well how about that...
Necromancy used for the power of good... never thought I'd see the day.

Not really for good, if no one posted to the thread no one would read the old thread and get the information that's no longer accurate. In fact, it's now more likely that someone will read the first page of the thread and stop, resulting in bad rulings.

[Kuu Lightwing]

You really shouldn't just assume what is and isn't RAI. A quick Google search of what the developers actually think would reveal that it is, in fact, quite intended.

If you read the thread you'd realize that developers actually are flip-floppy on the issue and Jeremy changed his mind pretending it's not what he actually meant.

[LudicSavant]

If you read the thread you'd realize that developers actually are flip-floppy on the issue and Jeremy changed his mind pretending it's not what he actually meant.

It seems to me like we had a clear statement of RAI at the time (via the official compendium), then it got flip-flopped. Is that not the case? Please correct me if so.


Also see sage advice compendium https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf

Relevant section

Can the rogue’s Reliable Talent feature be used in conjunction with Remarkable Athlete or Jack of All Trades?
For a rogue/fighter or a rogue/bard, Reliable Talent does
work along with Remarkable Athlete and Jack of All Trades.
Even though you add only half your proficiency bonus when
using one of those two features, that’s enough to qualify for
Reliable Talent.

Either way, it seems like it was not "OBVIOUSLY not RAI." I don't think folks should just assume what's RAI independent of dev statements, let alone with such certainty that they feel a need for allcaps. :\

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: rather than post your opinion about Thread Necromancy in an expired thread, please just Report it and don't post.