Reliable talent too strong?

[Uncleterri]

Recently my DM has nerfed our rouges reliable talent ability so that he can only get a minimum of 18(10+expertise) instead of 23(10+dexmod+expertise). Was he right that the ability is too strong? Would you change anything about it?

[CheddarChampion]

I don't think it is too strong. Your average roll goes up by about 2.25 for what, 7-8 skills?
Not sure how to convince your DM otherwise though.

[Neoh]

That doesn't make any sense.

I'm against nerfing features, if a DM can't handle how some things work, it's his role to learn what he can do about it to balance things out without completely shutting down a player because he doesn't like it.

What's next? Will he nerf Pass without Trace because then the Wizard might get a 30 in Stealth?

[iTreeby]

Is it RAW? Obviously not. Are skills too good? I'd say by definition no. Without knowing more I'd guess that the actual issue is probably opposed skill checks specifically something like stealth vrs perception. Personally i would just buff npcs rather than nerf a specific ability but your dm can run their game how they want. It's hard to answer your question with more information but I think the true issue is going to be a rule zero type discussion.

[Sigreid]

I dont think it's needed. Near supernatural skill mastery is, to me, the rogue's OCT (one cool thing). Really the only thing they have that no other class can do.

[Burley]

I agree with everybody saying this is unnecessary and un-fun. Rogues are supposed to be rad at their certain skills.
If the DM thinks the rogue is breaking things, remove the rogue from that skill challenge sometimes.

Maybe a locked door exists, but the rogue is on the wrong side of it, or in a different room.
Maybe an official needs to be shmoozed, but the official really likes tall guys (because the official is an oligarch who never mentally progressed out of puberty), so, the dragonborn barbarian has to do the shmoozin'.


I don't like nerfing a single player because they're doing well. I do like finding ways to give the other players a chance to shine.

[Amechra]

Honestly? If someone spends 11 levels as a Rogue, they might as well be really good at the one thing that Rogues are really good at.

It'd be like nerfing Relentless Rage - by that point, your Barbarian should be good at not dying, because that is what Barbarians do.

[MilkmanDanimal]

Seems pretty terrible; Rogues are basically half Sneak Attack, half Skill Monkey. The whole point of Reliable Talent is the Rogue is just that good, and it's a level 11 ability; ask the DM if they're going to force a Fighter's third attack to be at disadvantage because it's "just too strong" to have three normal attacks. It's a reasonably high-level ability, and, yeah, it's hugely impactful. It's the same time spellcasters get 6th level spells.

[Sigreid]

Seems pretty terrible; Rogues are basically half Sneak Attack, half Skill Monkey. The whole point of Reliable Talent is the Rogue is just that good, and it's a level 11 ability; ask the DM if they're going to force a Fighter's third attack to be at disadvantage because it's "just too strong" to have three normal attacks. It's a reasonably high-level ability, and, yeah, it's hugely impactful. It's the same time spellcasters get 6th level spells.

Personally I dont count sneak attack as a rogue special thing. At the end of the day, it's just advantage and every class has some way of doing fairly comparable damage. Just my opinion. I think it's just a flavor difference between a rogue's single sneak attack and the fighter's 4 attacks and the Paladin's smites, for example. Reliable talent is what makes me pick rogue instead of something else.

[Chronos]

Reliable Talent is indeed a huge jump in capability. It's the point where it goes from being impossible to play as a rogue to possible. The problem isn't Reliable Talent. The problem is bounded accuracy, which is just bad game design all around. Reliable Talent is a partial fix for that problem.

See, the rogue's role inherently involves putting yourself in situations where a single failed roll can be disastrous. In a game where, by design, you inherently always have a significant chance of failing any given roll, that means that you can't afford to take chances like that, and so you can't afford to play a rogue like a rogue. Reliable talent makes those roll-or-die situations much less common, enough so that you can afford to take the risk.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Reliable Talent is indeed a huge jump in capability. It's the point where it goes from being impossible to play as a rogue to possible. The problem isn't Reliable Talent. The problem is bounded accuracy, which is just bad game design all around. Reliable Talent is a partial fix for that problem.

See, the rogue's role inherently involves putting yourself in situations where a single failed roll can be disastrous. In a game where, by design, you inherently always have a significant chance of failing any given roll, that means that you can't afford to take chances like that, and so you can't afford to play a rogue like a rogue. Reliable talent makes those roll-or-die situations much less common, enough so that you can afford to take the risk.

I'm not so sure about that, at the very least calling it "impossible" to play a Rogue is an extreme exaggeration. I've played a Rogue, if I wasn't confident in whether I could do something that could easily result in my death nobody was going to convince me that I had to do it "because that's what Rogues do, they scout 30ft ahead and check for all the traps and sneak on their own into the slave traders mansion filled with summoned demons. If we don't see you in 30 minutes Ted, we're going to the tavern to mourn and looking for your replacement, good luck and leave your cloak of protection with us, it was expensive and getting it back from your body when you die would be too much trouble."

No. Reliable Talent lets you have the confidence to say "I've become good enough that I can take the risks I avoided earlier. The odds aren't just good that I can succeed, I can guarantee it."

Should the Barbarian's lose all sense of reason when they rage and run face first into an army all by their lonesome, because that's what Barbarian's do? Does a Warlock have to take every opportunity to strike a bargain with that shady guy down the street because that's what Warlocks do? Does your Bard have to sexualize a casual conversation with the duke of this city because that's what they do?

Don't play a stereotype, play a person. If your party is throwing you into a likely death because "it's your job as a rogue" go be your own rogue elsewhere. Go be a Swashbuckler who hasn't invested a single proficiency into the typical Rogue skills and use your reliable talent for Persuasion and Performance, be an Inquisitive who fights with their mind and spots minute details with unnering frequency with Insight and Perception, be the "self taught wizard" Arcane Trickster who couldn't get so far as book learning magic but has a knack for a little bit of the arcane and a little bit of the urchin life with Arcana and Sleight of Hand. Not every Rogue is the Assassin who overvalues their auto crit feature and puts themselves into danger trying to outrun their own party to succeed a stealth check against the next room of enemies.

Remember that people don't look at your character and see "rogue" hovering above their head. They see a person, who could be any number of things but is exceptionally skilled at a small handful of things, those of which don't automatically have to involve endangering their life.
/Rant

[Nagog]

Considering it's the only reason to play Rogue up to 11 (everything past that is... lackluster, except perhaps sneak attack dice), reliable talent is also a core tenant of the Rogue. Rogue's don't get spells(except AT obv.), they don't get maneuvers, but Reliable Talents essentially become spells. Reliable Talent in lockpicking essentially replicates Knock. In Persuasion, Charm Person. Acrobatics, Jump.

Personally, if a DM feels the need to nerf a player ability/spell/ RAW rule, I lose faith in their DMing. It shows that they would rather feel in control of the game than give their players the opportunity to feel powerful and useful.
On the other hand, I respect a DM who is willing and able to speak to a powergaming player about overshadowing the rest of the party. For that reason, I let players know I do not allow the PAM/GWM combo, as that will always, on any build, overtake any other damage build. So I tell them before they take it so they don't waste a feat/ASI taking it only for it to be useless in the way they planned. For a class feature, this would deter anyone from playing the class up to that level.

If you want to turn it on them, take 2 levels of Bard and nab Jack of All Trades. With all the skills you'll be proficient in normally, and half proficiency in everything else, the lowest you could get on literally any skill check ever is a 12. Show him that it can always be much much worse. >:D

[stoutstien]

Considering it's the only reason to play Rogue up to 11 (everything past that is... lackluster, except perhaps sneak attack dice), reliable talent is also a core tenant of the Rogue. Rogue's don't get spells(except AT obv.), they don't get maneuvers, but Reliable Talents essentially become spells. Reliable Talent in lockpicking essentially replicates Knock. In Persuasion, Charm Person. Acrobatics, Jump.

Personally, if a DM feels the need to nerf a player ability/spell/ RAW rule, I lose faith in their DMing. It shows that they would rather feel in control of the game than give their players the opportunity to feel powerful and useful.
On the other hand, I respect a DM who is willing and able to speak to a powergaming player about overshadowing the rest of the party. For that reason, I let players know I do not allow the PAM/GWM combo, as that will always, on any build, overtake any other damage build. So I tell them before they take it so they don't waste a feat/ASI taking it only for it to be useless in the way they planned. For a class feature, this would deter anyone from playing the class up to that level.

If you want to turn it on them, take 2 levels of Bard and nab Jack of All Trades. With all the skills you'll be proficient in normally, and half proficiency in everything else, the lowest you could get on literally any skill check ever is a 12. Show him that it can always be much much worse. >:D

So you don't like DMs reducing players' options unless you want to reduce options to counter powergamers. Then your suggestion for a player who feels like the adjustment was misplaced is to thumb their nose at them by using another form of improving skill check roles by powergaming?

[Misterwhisper]

So the plan for weakening one of the weakest classes in the game is to nerf their only really good ability.

Just reroll as something else.

With the new class options from the UA a few months back even a barbarian has 4 skills and 2 expertise at level 1. A lore bard has more skills, rangers also get 4 skills and an expertise at level 1 with cunning whatever.

Rogue damage is already average at the best of times, and garbage if you can’t sneak attack.

Seriously, just reroll.

Also, screw the dm that pulls this 11 levels into a game.

[JNAProductions]

Considering it's the only reason to play Rogue up to 11 (everything past that is... lackluster, except perhaps sneak attack dice), reliable talent is also a core tenant of the Rogue. Rogue's don't get spells(except AT obv.), they don't get maneuvers, but Reliable Talents essentially become spells. Reliable Talent in lockpicking essentially replicates Knock. In Persuasion, Charm Person. Acrobatics, Jump.

Personally, if a DM feels the need to nerf a player ability/spell/ RAW rule, I lose faith in their DMing. It shows that they would rather feel in control of the game than give their players the opportunity to feel powerful and useful.
On the other hand, I respect a DM who is willing and able to speak to a powergaming player about overshadowing the rest of the party. For that reason, I let players know I do not allow the PAM/GWM combo, as that will always, on any build, overtake any other damage build. So I tell them before they take it so they don't waste a feat/ASI taking it only for it to be useless in the way they planned. For a class feature, this would deter anyone from playing the class up to that level.

If you want to turn it on them, take 2 levels of Bard and nab Jack of All Trades. With all the skills you'll be proficient in normally, and half proficiency in everything else, the lowest you could get on literally any skill check ever is a 12. Show him that it can always be much much worse. >:D

I wouldn't agree with the sentiment "Every nerf is bad."

I'd agree with the general statement "Buffs are, usually, better than nerfs," though. People generally like getting more goodies, people generally dislike losing stuff or being weakened.

I think that the bigger issue is not that the DM feels Reliable Talent is too strong (because it's an AWESOME ability-I wouldn't consider it too good due to what it is, but it's my number one reason to play a Rogue) it's that they unilaterally nerfed it. If the DM had said "Hey, I feel like Reliable Talent is too strong-can we talk about changing it?" that's a different story from handing down judgement from on high.

As for needing to nerf it in general... No. If it applied to saves or attack rolls, then yes, god yes, but it doesn't. It lets you be the absolute, undisputed MASTER of your chosen Expertise skills, and often the best even with just regular proficiencies... But is that a problem? I only really see it as an issue if someone else ALSO wants to be the skill monkey, and invested in similar skills, but is feeling weaker than the Rogue. In general, I've found that as the Rogue, people are happy to let me be the sneaky or talky person and they stick to their niches-the Wizard blasts, knows stuff, and does BFC; the Fighter smashes and tanks; the Cleric provides wisdom and heals, as well as smashing and tanking it up with the Fighter.

Also, while RAW JoAT and Reliable Talent mesh ridiculously well together, at my tables they don't interact. And I don't think any DM is unreasonable in saying that the half-prof from JoAT doesn't proc Reliable Talent.

[greenstone]

Recently my DM has nerfed our rouges reliable talent ability so that he can only get a minimum of 18(10+expertise) instead of 23(10+dexmod+expertise). Was he right that the ability is too strong? Would you change anything about it?

In my last game, out GM expressed unhappiness often with the bard's +16 Charisma (Deception).

On the other hand, the GM did give a luckstone to a bard…

[ad_hoc]

Should also remove level 6+ spells as they're really good.

[Darc_Vader]

Also, while RAW JoAT and Reliable Talent mesh ridiculously well together, at my tables they don't interact. And I don't think any DM is unreasonable in saying that the half-prof from JoAT doesn't proc Reliable Talent.

For the record, this is how Sage Advice says they interact as well. Adding half your proficiency bonus is not the same as adding your proficiency bonus, so Reliable Talent doesn’t proc off of it.

Even fluff-wise they don’t really work together, as JoaT is just being generally good at things, while Expertise implies extensive training in a single skill beyond what most people typically receive.

[Nagog]

So you don't like DMs reducing players' options unless you want to reduce options to counter powergamers. Then your suggestion for a player who feels like the adjustment was misplaced is to thumb their nose at them by using another form of improving skill check roles by powergaming?

Oh please, everybody knows the PAM/GWM massively upsets the damage scaling of every single melee build ever. That's simply a fact. And when there is a combination of powergamers and new players, or powergamers and RP players (considering I run a very RP focused game, that is most often the case), allowing one player to blow their way through combat like that, massively outshining every other player, it ruins immersion for everybody who doesn't use it. I do allow PAM, and I do allow GWM, but not together. I let the players know that before they pick them up to ensure they know they'd have to choose which one they'd like to use each turn. It's not a shortcoming of my DMing, if the party all had GWM/PAM, I could easily just throw enemies at them that have higher AC so they're more likely to miss with the accuracy debuff, or resistances to reduce the extra 10 damage to 5 damage, or just a large healthpool so they can tank it. The problem arises when it diminishes the fun for other players.

Reliable Talent, on the other hand, is a class skill. It's a great class skill, related specifically to skill checks, which is not an integral pillar of the game, rather they are tools the player may use in a given situation. If their DM wants to nerf it this considerably, then roll with it. Getting Jack of All Trades to feed into it isn't gamebreaking at all, unless you consider any sort of focus to a build to be powergaming and unfair. In fact, I'd say that combining Jack of All Trades with Reliable Talent is a great compromise between this DM's nerf and the player's ability. The DM was concerned that some skills would automatically be above 20, which is a commonly considered "difficult" DC, so he insists that when the player uses Reliable Talent, they cannot add their ability modifier to the roll. With Jack of All Trades, this DM's rule would still be in effect, meaning the lowest they could roll on any ability check is a 12. Still, not above 20, but a respectable ability to solve some easier DC problems.

If the player is denied any ability to adjust and adapt to the challenges the campaign/DM gives them, then why is multiclassing a thing? Why are any choices presented throughout the character creation process?

[Yakmala]

Arcane casters can make wishes.

Clerics can get their gods to intervene.

Barbarians can be resistant to almost all types of damage.

So no, I don't think being really good at a few skill rolls is too strong.

[Willie the Duck]

Recently my DM has nerfed our rouges reliable talent ability so that he can only get a minimum of 18(10+expertise) instead of 23(10+dexmod+expertise). Was he right that the ability is too strong? Would you change anything about it?

Honestly, as a mental exercise, just replace any potentially number with "automatically succeeds" and think about what that changes. As in, Rogues automatically succeed on any skill check they make (or perhaps just checks for skills with which they have expertise, both are reasonable thought experiments). Does this make a rogue run away with your game --particularly when the fighter gets 3 attacks/round* and the casters have 6th-level spells**? I'm going to guess no. It does kind of grate on one's sense of game design in a 'so why do we even have a skill-check system if the rogue is just going to obviate it?' kind of way. So I get why it 'feels' off, but I don't find it at all too strong.
*Or, let's be honest, 4-5 since they have PAM or another way to get bonus-action and reaction-based attacks
**Which of course are limited times per day while skill checks are not, but if the cultural wisdom around here is remotely accurate, most groups seem to find constraining the 5/15-minute workday and getting the prescribed number of encounters per long rest to be a real challenge.

What I suspect is going on is that a rogue with reliable talent and expertise in perception and stealth is effectively immune to being snuck up on, and able to sneak up on automatically, anyone else except another rogue with the same setup. That... doesn't seem right, regardless of power. It also makes a whole bunch of challenges that the DM might think to throw at the party untenable. Of course a simple Spiderclimb spell makes all sorts of challenges that a DM might think to throw at a party untenable, so that's really not inherently overpowering (although I can see why a DM might want to occasionally shut down both solutions).

[stoutstien]

Oh please, everybody knows the PAM/GWM massively upsets the damage scaling of every single melee build ever. That's simply a fact. And when there is a combination of powergamers and new players, or powergamers and RP players (considering I run a very RP focused game, that is most often the case), allowing one player to blow their way through combat like that, massively outshining every other player, it ruins immersion for everybody who doesn't use it. I do allow PAM, and I do allow GWM, but not together. I let the players know that before they pick them up to ensure they know they'd have to choose which one they'd like to use each turn. It's not a shortcoming of my DMing, if the party all had GWM/PAM, I could easily just throw enemies at them that have higher AC so they're more likely to miss with the accuracy debuff, or resistances to reduce the extra 10 damage to 5 damage, or just a large healthpool so they can tank it. The problem arises when it diminishes the fun for other players.

Reliable Talent, on the other hand, is a class skill. It's a great class skill, related specifically to skill checks, which is not an integral pillar of the game, rather they are tools the player may use in a given situation. If their DM wants to nerf it this considerably, then roll with it. Getting Jack of All Trades to feed into it isn't gamebreaking at all, unless you consider any sort of focus to a build to be powergaming and unfair. In fact, I'd say that combining Jack of All Trades with Reliable Talent is a great compromise between this DM's nerf and the player's ability. The DM was concerned that some skills would automatically be above 20, which is a commonly considered "difficult" DC, so he insists that when the player uses Reliable Talent, they cannot add their ability modifier to the roll. With Jack of All Trades, this DM's rule would still be in effect, meaning the lowest they could roll on any ability check is a 12. Still, not above 20, but a respectable ability to solve some easier DC problems.

If the player is denied any ability to adjust and adapt to the challenges the campaign/DM gives them, then why is multiclassing a thing? Why are any choices presented throughout the character creation process?

Optimizing for damage is not really optimizing. If I have players who thinks PaM/GMW is the best thing ever I'd count my blessings.

[Pex]

My feeling is the DM can't stand the idea a PC being so good at something he can't fail. There always must be a chance of failure for everything or else there's no challenge. Doesn't matter how powerful a spell is. A monster can make the saving throw. Doesn't matter how much damage a character does in an attack. He can roll low and miss. Never fail to pick a lock? How dare a player.

[iTreeby]

What I suspect is going on is that a rogue with reliable talent and expertise in perception and stealth is effectively immune to being snuck up on, and able to sneak up on automatically, anyone else except another rogue with the same setup. That... doesn't seem right, regardless of power. It also makes a whole bunch of challenges that the DM might think to throw at the party untenable. Of course a simple Spiderclimb spell makes all sorts of challenges that a DM might think to throw at a party untenable, so that's really not inherently overpowering (although I can see why a DM might want to occasionally shut down both solutions).

This is my thinking as well, many monsters don't have skill proficiencies and can't actually succeed by default but that doesn't really take into account exotic senses or even actually using lighting correctly. I feel like the DM may be too inexperienced to understand how limited stealth rolls can be in the first place. I know we've all seen the hidden vrs unseen can if worms but I don't think needing reliable talent really even addresses the issue, especially since pass without trace exists anyway.

[Keravath]

...
What I suspect is going on is that a rogue with reliable talent and expertise in perception and stealth is effectively immune to being snuck up on, and able to sneak up on automatically, anyone else except another rogue with the same setup. That... doesn't seem right, regardless of power. It also makes a whole bunch of challenges that the DM might think to throw at the party untenable. Of course a simple Spiderclimb spell makes all sorts of challenges that a DM might think to throw at a party untenable, so that's really not inherently overpowering (although I can see why a DM might want to occasionally shut down both solutions).

1) I think the DM in this case is over-reacting. Reliable talent makes it harder to fail skill checks but all it does is make the average roll you would make the floor. If you have +13 to a skill, you will still roll over 20 most of the time. Making the minimum 10+expertise is essentially the same as reducing reliable talent to a minimum of 5 rather than 10. Honestly, what is the point? It makes the player feel bad for an unnecessary nerf while not actually fixing whatever the DM seems to think was a problem since the character will still succeed on most skill checks. It is basically just a confrontational waste of time that just decreases the chance of the rogue rolling 19-23. If the DC is less than 19 the rogue auto succeeds anyway and if the DC is 24 or more then nothing has changed. So all the DM has done is to make it possible (though still not likely to fail skill checks with DCs from 19-23). If the DM is really bothered then they can just adjust the DC as appropriate to provide a challenge to the rogue while setting most of the challenges at a DC where the rogue would auto succeed but which might be a challenge for other party members if they have to deal with the skill check.

2) The rogue is not "immune" to being snuck up on and they can't sneak up on creatures automatically. Why? A rogue needs to be able to HIDE in order to sneak up on someone. Hiding requires being unseen and unheard. If there is nothing to hide behind then the rogue can have a stealth of 200 and they are still noticed. A rogue can not walk down a dimly lit corridor and successfully hide from the guard at the other end. The guard sees them coming. Even if the corridor is dark, if the guard has darkvision, they STILL see the rogue coming. Stealth does not provide a superhuman ability to hide in plain sight. If a creature can SEE you then you can't hide. If the DM sets a scene with things to hide behind then the DM decided that the rogue would have the opportunity to hide. Similarly, a really high perception will usually allow the rogue to detect a creature sneaking up on them. However, if it is very noisy and the creature is invisible or otherwise unseen. It can easily be impossible for the rogue to notice the invisible creature. It doesn't matter how good their perception is if it just isn't possible for them to notice the hidden creature given the environmental conditions. DMs and players who think of characters with really high skills as being capable of superhuman or impossible feats miss the point. The character is really good at the particular skill but there is no supernatural ability to do things beyond the application of the mundane skill.

- A character with a persuasion of +16 can't convince the king to abdicate in their favor
- A character with a stealth of +16 can't hide standing in plain view of the other creature
- A character with a deception of +16 still can't convince someone they are an elf when they clearly look like a dwarf

High skills or high skill rolls don't bring the impossible within reach. It is a DM call on what is truly impossible though.

[Willie the Duck]

My feeling is the DM can't stand the idea a PC being so good at something he can't fail. ... How dare a player.
Good to see you again, Pex. Don't ever change!:smallbiggrin:

This is my thinking as well, many monsters don't have skill proficiencies and can't actually succeed by default but that doesn't really take into account exotic senses or even actually using lighting correctly. I feel like the DM may be too inexperienced to understand how limited stealth rolls can be in the first place. I know we've all seen the hidden vrs unseen can if worms but I don't think needing reliable talent really even addresses the issue, especially since pass without trace exists anyway.

It's definitely my assumed scenario. a Rogue with a nearly irresistible Athletics (Grapple) check might be a combat application, but seems to just be a fairly decent combat effect (with lots of constraints). Maaaaybe some player has convinced the DM that a high persuasion check is effectively mind control and that's the issue instead, but in that case it's roughly the same basic problem: it is understanding what an effectively automatic success implies rather than that the success is effectively automatic. If the DM allows stealth to let the rogue wander around the playfield while the opposition is powerless to find them, stop them, or hurt them, then that is the problem, not that the rogue can always succeed at stealth (above the passive perception of their opponents).


Making the minimum 10+expertise is essentially the same as reducing reliable talent to a minimum of 5 rather than 10. Honestly, what is the point? It makes the player feel bad for an unnecessary nerf while not actually fixing whatever the DM seems to think was a problem since the character will still succeed on most skill checks.
Well, yes, that's why I suggested just changing it to auto-success and see if anything changes. Exactly how much the bonus is is frankly beside the point (the idea that being really good at things which involve a skill check will somehow break the game is the actual issue).


DMs and players who think of characters with really high skills as being capable of superhuman or impossible feats miss the point. The character is really good at the particular skill but there is no supernatural ability to do things beyond the application of the mundane skill.
We cross-posted, but I think we are making the same point.

[Keravath]

My feeling is the DM can't stand the idea a PC being so good at something he can't fail. There always must be a chance of failure for everything or else there's no challenge. Doesn't matter how powerful a spell is. A monster can make the saving throw. Doesn't matter how much damage a character does in an attack. He can roll low and miss. Never fail to pick a lock? How dare a player.

Since the DM sets the DC for every skill challenge the idea that a PC can't fail at a task is simply wrong. Yes a PC can't fail at a DC 20 challenge but they can fail a DC 25 or DC 30 or DC 35 etc challenge and since the DM designs the world and sets the DCs, there can always be tasks at which a character can fail if the DM wishes.

Trying to penalize the game design and player for the choices they make after the fact just because the DM isn't flexible enough to adjust the occasional DC as required if they want the rogue to have a chance of failure (and honestly these should be very rare adjustments since it is fun to be able to succeed) just seems to me like the wrong approach and will only tend to make folks unhappy.

[Eldariel]

Reliable Talent is basically just "it's okay to be good at your main shtick" for Rogues. They are already mediocre damage dealers (they have one shot to make it count and even on a hit, they fall behind dedicated casters and warriors alike), they have few or no spells and little to no other redeeming qualities (Thief gets like one whole ability, Assassin not even that). Spellcasters have taken the cake with regards to utility long ago. Skills just can't compete with 6 levels of spellcasting in any realm.

Reliable Talent and Expertise are what they have to compete with and they definitely need those; your Bards have 6 levels of spellcasting off all lists to enhance their skill checks (or to obviate them altogether) alongside Cutting Words and what have you by this point. This is literally the sole thing even keeping Rogues in the running for being a good skill class, let alone a good class in general (without this, any character with 1 level in Rogue can do what any Rogue can do, and often better if they happen to be a spellcaster, god forbid a Knowledge Cleric or something).

[KorvinStarmast]

Was he right that the ability is too strong?
In my opinion, as both player and DM for 5 and 4 years respectively in this edition? No.

Would you change anything about it?
No, Reliable talent is a great feature that a rogue gets while other classes are getting other cool features.
Note for your DM: Rogue is supposed to be Skill Monkey Extraordinare! It's part of the package by design intent.

[Hail Tempus]

In my last game, out GM expressed unhappiness often with the bard's +16 Charisma (Deception).

On the other hand, the GM did give a luckstone to a bard… Yeah, I don't get this mentality. The bard invested in a high charisma, a skill, and (presumably) expertise to make himself good in certain social situations. He can bluff his way past some people, but a high Deception score isn't magic- plenty of enemies couldn't care less what you have to say, they just want to stab you in the liver.

I can't understand DMs who get annoyed when a character is good at something he's supposed to be good at.

[Keravath]

I just noticed that you also started the "Bear barbarian is overpowered thread" in addition to this one on the rogue. Is it the same DM in both cases? I have the impression that perhaps they just aren't that experienced with 5e and haven't run it enough to see all the pieces fit together. The first time you encounter some of these features they feel a bit unbalanced but in my experience they are mostly just cool. Paladin smiting on a crit is one example. Using a third level spell slot and rolling 10d8 damage on the one target can feel very impressive especially when it blows away a particularly nasty monster. Similar thing with rogue sneak attack damage on a crit and that doesn't even cost a spell slot. However, in the long run all of these things are surprisingly well balanced in my experience.

I'd usually suggest playing/running the game for at least 6 months over tiers 1-3 to get a feel for how it plays at different levels and with the interaction of different classes before deciding that something is overpowered.

Some of the favorite targets are
- smites
- reliable talent
- moon druid wild shapes (but really only a concern for 2 levels)
- barbarian damage resistance (particularly bear but all of them have resistance to ALL bludgeoning/slashing/piercing - both normal and magical)
- rogue sneak attack (especially when they crit)

Any others?

[Teaguethebean]

If this DM is scared of a high level rogue he would reel at the sight of a high level spellcaster, Mass suggestion, Guards and Wards, Word of recall, Contingency. All of these just ignore problems and any high level caster will have at least one of these on their list.

[Darc_Vader]

If this DM is scared of a high level rogue he would reel at the sight of a high level spellcaster, Mass suggestion, Guards and Wards, Word of recall, Contingency. All of these just ignore problems and any high level caster will have at least one of these on their list.

Yeah, but those are magic, so it makes sense for them to be able to trivialize content.

[Hail Tempus]

Yeah, but those are magic, so it makes sense for them to be able to trivialize content. For a lot of DMs, the blue text wouldn't be necessary. Way too many DMs seem to be fixated on the idea that the non-magical aspects of the game need to be "realistic". If a player is able to do something cool without relying on magic, too many neckbeard DMs immediately bring out the nerf bat.

PCs are the heroes of the story. They're all supposed to have cool abilities, not just the guy with the pointy wizard hat.

Pretty much every time I see a thread like this where a DM starts nerfing abilities, the conclusion is that you've got a bad DM who doesn't understand the game.

[KorvinStarmast]

Pretty much every time I see a thread like this where a DM starts nerfing abilities, the conclusion is that you've got a bad DM who doesn't understand the game. I tried real hard not to go there with my answer, but I suspect that you are correct.

[Hail Tempus]

I tried real hard not to go there with my answer, but I suspect that you are correct. The best advice for any new DM is play through a campaign with the rules as written. The rules were written by professional game designers, and were subject to thousands of hours of playtesting. Some guy who just picked up the DMG isn't really qualified to start tweaking the rules.

[Eldariel]

For a lot of DMs, the blue text wouldn't be necessary. Way too many DMs seem to be fixated on the idea that the non-magical aspects of the game need to be "realistic". If a player is able to do something cool without relying on magic, too many neckbeard DMs immediately bring out the nerf bat.

PCs are the heroes of the story. They're all supposed to have cool abilities, not just the guy with the pointy wizard hat.

Pretty much every time I see a thread like this where a DM starts nerfing abilities, the conclusion is that you've got a bad DM who doesn't understand the game.

That's not even it though. Rogue isn't breaking any rules of physics or plausibility by not screwing up simple tasks (i.e. rolling low for their competence level) on level 11. Nerfing this is purely game mechanical as it doesn't have any strikes against verisimilitude (in fact, on the contrary, having to roll d20 for so many things and thus having such a high chance of failure for almost all characters for most of their careers is much more implausible). This is just a misconception of what high level D&D is like. It's not low level D&D. Things change a lot as spells get stronger. Non-casters kinda just try to hang on and be decent at their niche. This is literally the Rogue ability.