Support the GITP forums on Patreon
Help support GITP's forums (and ongoing server maintenance) via Patreon
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 38
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    BarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2020

    Default Reliable talent too strong?

    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?

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    GMT-5
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Reliable talent too strong?

    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.
    Last edited by CheddarChampion; 2020-02-25 at 10:56 AM.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    Jul 2019

    Default Re: Reliable talent too strong?

    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?

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    iTreeby's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008

    Default Re: Reliable talent too strong?

    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.
    avatar by Elrond

    "You should just homebrew the world's tiniest violin for your bard."

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Zombie

    Join Date
    Jun 2015

    Default Re: Reliable talent too strong?

    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.
    I am the flush of excitement. The blush on the cheek. I am the Rouge!

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    DCMA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Reliable talent too strong?

    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.
    Check out a bunch of stuff I wrote for my campaign world of Oz.

    Spoiler
    Show
    I am the Burley, formerly known as Burley Warlock. I got my name changed. Please remember me...

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Amechra's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Where I live.

    Default Re: Reliable talent too strong?

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by segtrfyhtfgj View Post
    door is a fake exterior wall
    I do Let's Plays now. Current Game: Huntress of the Hollow

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Orc in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    May 2018

    Default Re: Reliable talent too strong?

    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.

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Zombie

    Join Date
    Jun 2015

    Default Re: Reliable talent too strong?

    Quote Originally Posted by MilkmanDanimal View Post
    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.
    I am the flush of excitement. The blush on the cheek. I am the Rouge!

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Land of Cleves
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Reliable talent too strong?

    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.
    Time travels in divers paces with divers persons.
    As You Like It, III:ii:328

    Chronos's Unalliterative Skillmonkey Guide
    Current Homebrew: 5th edition psionics

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    ProsecutorGodot's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Reliable talent too strong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
    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
    Last edited by ProsecutorGodot; 2020-02-25 at 06:22 PM.

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Huarahi

    Default Re: Reliable talent too strong?

    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
    "There are truly only 2 sources of conflict: Miscommunication, and Intolerance. Of the two, only one is acceptable."

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    SD
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Reliable talent too strong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nagog View Post
    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?
    what is the point of living if you can't deadlift?

    All credit to the amazing avatar goes to thoroughlyS

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Purgatory
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Reliable talent too strong?

    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.
    Last edited by Misterwhisper; 2020-02-25 at 08:08 PM.

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    JNAProductions's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Avatar By Linklele!

    Default Re: Reliable talent too strong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nagog View Post
    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.
    I have a LOT of Homebrew!

    Spoiler: Former Avatars
    Show
    Spoiler: Avatar (Not In Use) By Professor Gnoll!
    Show


    Spoiler: Avatar (Not In Use) By Cdr. Fallout!
    Show

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Orc in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    New Zealand
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Reliable talent too strong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncleterri View Post
    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…

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Reliable talent too strong?

    Should also remove level 6+ spells as they're really good.
    If you are trying to abuse the game; Don't. And you're probably wrong anyway.

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    NinjaGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Canada
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Reliable talent too strong?

    Quote Originally Posted by JNAProductions View Post
    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.
    "No mind to think.
    No will to break.
    No voice to cry suffering."

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Huarahi

    Default Re: Reliable talent too strong?

    Quote Originally Posted by stoutstien View Post
    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?
    Last edited by Nagog; 2020-02-26 at 11:38 AM.
    "There are truly only 2 sources of conflict: Miscommunication, and Intolerance. Of the two, only one is acceptable."

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Yakmala's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    CA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Reliable talent too strong?

    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.

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    Dec 2015

    Default Re: Reliable talent too strong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncleterri View Post
    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).

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    SD
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Reliable talent too strong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nagog View Post
    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.
    what is the point of living if you can't deadlift?

    All credit to the amazing avatar goes to thoroughlyS

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Reliable talent too strong?

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by OgresAreCute View Post
    "Welcome to Dungeons and Dragons fifth edition, where the DCs are made up and the rules don't matter."

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    iTreeby's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008

    Default Re: Reliable talent too strong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Willie the Duck View Post

    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.
    avatar by Elrond

    "You should just homebrew the world's tiniest violin for your bard."

  25. - Top - End - #25
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2017

    Default Re: Reliable talent too strong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Willie the Duck View Post
    ...
    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.

  26. - Top - End - #26
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    Dec 2015

    Default Re: Reliable talent too strong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post
    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!
    Quote Originally Posted by iTreeby View Post
    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).

    Quote Originally Posted by Keravath View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Willie the Duck; 2020-02-26 at 02:24 PM.

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2017

    Default Re: Reliable talent too strong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post
    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.

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Colossus in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Reliable talent too strong?

    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).
    Campaign Journal: Uncovering the Lost World - A Player's Diary in Low-Magic D&D (Latest Update: 8.3.2014)
    Being Bane: A Guide to Barbarians Cracking Small Men - Ever Been Angry?! Then this is for you!
    SRD Averages - An aggregation of all the key stats of all the monster entries on SRD arranged by CR.

  29. - Top - End - #29
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Reliable talent too strong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncleterri View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Uncleterri View Post
    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.
    Last edited by KorvinStarmast; 2020-02-26 at 03:13 PM.
    Avatar by linklele
    Quote Originally Posted by Malifice View Post
    (paraphrased) Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    Quote Originally Posted by greenstone View Post
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also quite handsome) ... 2D8HP told me so
    Quote Originally Posted by HappyDaze
    Self-deception tends to have a low target number

  30. - Top - End - #30
    Orc in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2018

    Default Re: Reliable talent too strong?

    Quote Originally Posted by greenstone View Post
    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.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •