How fun is playing a/playing in a group with a skill monkey?

[Belthien]

Hey all,

I'm currently playing in a game at 6th level, and I'm considering asking the gm if I can switch characters to a skill monkey as I think it might be a cool character.

I can find plenty of threads of how to build a skill monkey, but no-one talking about actually playing one or being grouped with one.

Does the rest of the group find they get annoyed at the skill monkey stealing their thunder by beating them on checks that they have specialised in? Initially, my group has 3 other players, but potentially in the near future, a bard/rogue will join (would want to check with them that they didnt have a similar concept).

How about playing one? With the build I am planning, I will be offensively fairly weak in combat, but can be useful with spells like bless, heat metal, silence, and healing word. Also, my current character has very high damage in combat, but not a huge number of options (i shoot them with my bow etc), so I don't think I'd mind the change. Out of combat I'd have useful utility spells and cantrips (trying to avoid all spells with a hit roll or saving throw due my stats being spread out)

The build I am planning will be Scout Rogue 3, Knowledge Cleric 1, Lore Bard 2 (going 3 next level). And, by level 8, will have 16 skill profs, and 10 expertise, capping at 18 skills, 12 expertise at level 11.

Cheers for the input!

[90sMusic]

Your mileage may vary, but i'll share my opinion on the subject.

It is useful to have bards or rogues with lots of proficiencies to cover gaps that the group may lack. Bard especially since their jack of all trades gives them at least a tiny bump to anything they try.

But I think building an entire character around trying to have all skills and/or all expertise would be boring. Not just for you, but for the whole party. I've played D&D a long time and a lot of the most memorable moments are the direct or indirect result of failures. Sure, having that one high roll to try something crazy is a nice payoff, but if it happens constantly and you're used to succeeding then you become desensitized to the feel of the success. You don't feel accomplished anymore. Or alternatively, your DM may up all the DCs to make it more challenging for you, which would not only negate your character concept but also make anyone who isn't so intensely specialized in skill use feel completely useless.

That's just my 2 cents.

Failures are fun. It leads to unpredictable things and sometimes you have to think quick on the fly. There is an old episode of the twilight zone where a guy gets everything he wants, always wins, always succeeds and he finds out he is in hell because it is a terrible way to exist.

[Sigreid]

I often play the skills guy, but I've never multiclassed to try to get all of the skills. I would suggest that single class bard would be better for your concept. With Jack of All Trades you become nearly proficient in all skills and tools. If you really want to cover all the bases, a 2 level dip in knowledge cleric upgrades your armor, gives you 2 more skills, and a couple times a day of getting full proficiency on whatever you need at the moment for 10 minutes.

If you spread your levels out too much, you'll find you become less and less effective as time goes on and I think you will eventually get frustrated that you can't really keep up.

[mephnick]

The build I am planning will be Scout Rogue 3, Knowledge Cleric 1, Lore Bard 2 (going 3 next level). And, by level 8, will have 16 skill profs, and 10 expertise, capping at 18 skills, 12 expertise at level 11.

It's honestly way overkill outside of theory-crafting. There aren't that many really useful skills in 5e and they're really easy to cover with your general party. Sure there's critical skills that everyone should bump up, like Perception or Athletics (God I can't believe how many characters/DMs ignore this), but overshadowing everyone on skills the party can already cover isn't going to make the game better for anyone. I find that "skill monkey" isn't a character concept, it's a build puzzle. Like sure, you can do all the skills, but in my experience it makes your character very bland because it's probably a complete mess otherwise.

[bid]

It's honestly way overkill outside of theory-crafting. There aren't that many really useful skills in 5e and they're really easy to cover with your general party. Sure there's critical skills that everyone should bump up, like Perception or Athletics (God I can't believe how many characters/DMs ignore this), but overshadowing everyone on skills the party can already cover isn't going to make the game better for anyone. I find that "skill monkey" isn't a character concept, it's a build puzzle. Like sure, you can do all the skills, but in my experience it makes your character very bland because it's probably a complete mess otherwise.
+1 on that. Half-elf rogue gets 8 skills, and that's the most you'd need.

Moreover, compare a level 5 wizard with Int18 (+7 to skills) to a knowledge cleric with Int 10 (+6 to skills). You need expertise to steal some thunder.

You have 3 stats in the 14-16 range, 1 of them will improve with ASI. Getting proficiencies outside those is only useful to shore up your weakenesses. Or making a wiry wrestler.

[Pex]

No different than for anyone else. Don't hog the spotlight, and let players use their own skills when they want to instead of the skill monkey insisting on doing it because he has the higher(est) modifier.

[Tanarii]

It's highly DM variable.

If your DM calls for:
- lots of checks for small things
- sets DCs in the 15+ range regularly
You'll be powerful.

If your DM uses lots of "one check to rule them all" checks, especially common for Lore checks and Charisma and Perceptio checks, then you'll steal 'spotlight' more often. If they do lots of group checks, determine checks by who is actually declaring / involved in the action, or otherwise spread the checks around somehow, you won't. Also if they don't warn players after declaring an action that it'll require a roll and let you take it back if it's one their bad at, you won't steal spotlight as much, because all players will be making their own checks.

This is true for most resolution systems I've read, unless they hard code frequency of checks. Or remove 'takebacks' once you know what the roll required is, like Apocalypse World does.

[Beelzebubba]

I'm playing a Land Druid right now, and it's similar - I can do damn near anything.

What happens to me is, other characters have skills that they WANT to use. It's their 'thing'. They'll always be on the lookout for those situations. And they beat me to the punch to do stuff, because I'm not especially focused on any one thing.

In a party of 5+ especially, you'll have to be on the ball - or just end up providing the Help action much of the time.

Also, when your character is broadly talented, it gets to where you forget how much you can do. I keep forgetting I have Guidance, for example. So some of the things I've spent my 'ability budget' on go unused.

[djreynolds]

For me, what I want out of a character is a block of skills the can solidly cover and maybe some overlap where the DM may judge they are good enough to help.

I want the rogue to own all those dexterity ability checks.

I want the bard to be the face of the party, not necessarily the leader, but the bard does the talking

The other aspect is often as players gain experience, spells are often simply better and safer to use.

I found playing a rogue/ranger/bard was very fun. Its not asking much to have a 13 in wisdom and you can handle lots of the scouting/exploration stuff by virtue of skills and some good spells. And you can still excel as an archer

Also I agree, land druids are very good

[JellyPooga]

It's honestly way overkill outside of theory-crafting.

Yeah, this pretty much sums it up. You'll be much happier, I think, with a more focused build. Going for the "all the skills" build is an interesting mental exercise, but in actual play you'll likely find yourself wishing you had more to actually do. Think about it; if your combat options are limited, you're relying on your GM to throw you encounters that involve the likes of Arcana, Survival, Religion and Animal Handling on a regular basis to actually feel like your build has paid off as worthwhile. If there's other players that already have those kind of skills, then you're just going to feel like second fiddle because they're rocking their speciality and "your" skills, while you're just rocking the skills.

As has been said, I think you'll be much happier going straight Bard (go College of Lore); at level 6 you'll have your pick of spells (many of which obfuscate the need for specialising in a skill, e.g. why have Stealth proficiency/Expertise when you have access to Pass Without Trace, which not only gives you badass Stealth, but your whole party?). You'll also be regenerating your Bardic Inspiration on Short Rests, allowing you to hand out skill buffs left, right and center, to your companions that have skill proficiencies that you don't. You'll also have 3rd level spells known and be on the verge of level 4 (as opposed to being stuck with level 2 spells until you're at least character level 8); that's a bigger concern than the numbers imply because there's a huge leap in power between level 2 and level 3 spells. I think that, between all this (and more), you'll both feel more useful for more of the game, but will actually feel more like a skill monkey; those short rest BI dice mean you're contributing to almost every. single. encounter. Regardless of what skills are involved. Instead of a character with excess redundancy (which is what your current build has), you have a character that can further specialise the skills and foci of both yourself and your party.

[Madfellow]

I'm considering asking the gm if I can switch characters to a skill monkey as I think it might be a cool character.


This I think is the most important consideration. If you think it's a cool and fun idea, I say give it a try and see how it goes.



Initially, my group has 3 other players, but potentially in the near future, a bard/rogue will join (would want to check with them that they didn't have a similar concept).


Well whether or not they have a similar concept in mind (and with that build they probably do), a MC of the 2 most skill-focused classes in the game is probably going to have a lot of overlap with what you're aiming for here. However, since it's not certain yet whether or not this 5th man is joining, it couldn't hurt to have this character set up if it's something you're interested in.



The build I am planning will be Scout Rogue 3, Knowledge Cleric 1, Lore Bard 2 (going 3 next level). And, by level 8, will have 16 skill profs, and 10 expertise, capping at 18 skills, 12 expertise at level 11.


I had a similar build idea back when 5th first came out. My build plan was half-elf rogue 1 / knowledge cleric 1 / lore bard X, snagging the Skilled feat at level 6 for a total of 17 skill proficiencies and 6 expertises. My stat array was planned out as Str 10, Dex 16, Con 12, Int 12, Wis 14, Cha 14. What's nice is that this build only loses out on one level of spellcasting progression.



I can find plenty of threads of how to build a skill monkey, but no-one talking about actually playing one or being grouped with one. Does the rest of the group find they get annoyed at the skill monkey stealing their thunder by beating them on checks that they have specialised in?


Well, my experience as a PLAYER in 5th is fairly limited, but I did play in a one-shot with a rogue/bard a while ago. I was playing a ranger, and the issue of competing or overlapping skillsets didn't really come up but once in the whole session. We encountered a cave mouth out in the wilderness, and the rogue/bard wanted to scout it out first. I piped in and offered to go instead. I didn't give a reason, but it basically boiled down to [1] I'm a ranger; this is what I'm here for, [2] I have more HP and a higher Wisdom score, and [3] you're a healer, so you're more valuable here with the rest of the party. The other player graciously agreed to let me scout ahead first, without even needing to hear an argument.

Currently I am playing as a fey warlock in a campaign with a druid and a ranger, and between the three of us there's a fair bit of overlap in skills. Whenever the GM calls for an Int (Nature) check, or really any knowledge roll, at least three players roll. This isn't a bad thing, it just means that we have some healthy redundancy. One of us is bound to roll poorly, and one is bound to roll well.

So yeah, that's my 2cp. I say go for it if it sounds fun.

[Beelzebubba]

Currently I am playing as a fey warlock in a campaign with a druid and a ranger, and between the three of us there's a fair bit of overlap in skills. Whenever the GM calls for an Int (Nature) check, or really any knowledge roll, at least three players roll. This isn't a bad thing, it just means that we have some healthy redundancy. One of us is bound to roll poorly, and one is bound to roll well.

This is why group skill checks of this point need to be run as one person checking, and at most one other providing the 'Help' action.

Otherwise, the laws of numbers mean any actual skill test will always be won. Like rolling with Advantage, but with 5 d20's.

[Tanarii]

This is why group skill checks of this point need to be run as one person checking, and at most one other providing the 'Help' action.

Otherwise, the laws of numbers mean any actual skill test will always be won. Like rolling with Advantage, but with 5 d20's.
Just to be clear, it's not a group check. It's a super version of the "One check to rule them all", where one successful check from anyone succeeds instead of one check from the highest character. So yeah, better to just allow Help to the character with the best bonus.

I actually prefer Group checks for this kind of thing. Half the group has to succeed. So long as it makes sense from the events in the game. Like a bunch of PCs debating if something is right (ie a Group Lore check). Which is almost always the case already. since the players are typically discussing what something means among themselves, the Pcs are discussing it in game as far as I'm concerned.

[Klorox]

I think it's a lot of fun.

I'd suggest a Half elf Rogue 1/Knowledge Cleric 1/Lore Bard X. You'll have expertise in 7 skills (I think, I'm AFB). Expertise is where it's at.

Being an (almost) full spellcaster means that you're still a very effective character even when you're not making skill checks.

[Aymon]

I think it's a lot of fun.

I'd suggest a Half elf Rogue 1/Knowledge Cleric 1/Lore Bard X. You'll have expertise in 7 skills (I think, I'm AFB). Expertise is where it's at.

Being an (almost) full spellcaster means that you're still a very effective character even when you're not making skill checks.
My advice is knowledge cleric 1/ lore bard x, and see how it plays.... At any point you can choose to add a level of rogue or more, but in practice I think the bard will be giving you more than enough to do all the time.

My bard4/wiz 1 has the best skills in the party, but defers a lot, and will still ask for a guidance if there is time. However I let the ranger and rogue scout...I'm too squishy for that, just send my familiar with them....

[Belthien]

Thanks for all the input guys!

I'll think I'll wait an see if the bard/rogue joins and if so, see how they've built their character.

In the meantime I'll keep in mind the issues of rarely failing a skills check being boring for both me and the group, and the impact it would have on the gm, if they felt they had to increase dc's to keep up.

However, I don't anticipate the skill check bonuses being crazy outside of any expertise in my primary stat. As a half-elf with point buy, and grabbing Everybody's Friend at the first ASI (not until level 8) my stats are 10,16,12,12,14,14. So, for example, my expertise int skills at level 5-8 will be as good as a wiz with int 18, and at level 9 with the prof bump, will be as good as a wiz with int 20. It's only at level 13+ that I'll start to pull ahead in those, and at level 15 with reliable talent, the character will probably just break skills checks and have to be retired. But those levels are a long way away at the rate my group plays and levels up.

Bard X, Cleric 1 does seem like a viable alternative without as many combat drawbacks. Especially as the rogue version would be played at range with a crossbow, which is similar to my current character, so a full caster might be refreshing.

In the meantime, I will start to build up the backstory of Jackov Ultrayds (old man Jackov), scout of many talents.

Looking like the filthiest frontiersman around, with a well-lined face, thick russian accent* and ugly hat always disguising his pointed ears, he appears like a spry human of 60 rather than a half-elf of 150. Little will the party suspect his eclectic background, which will only come out in time as he displays unusual skills. (Jackov can pick this lock, Jackov** was thief. Jackov heard of this god when he was priest. Jackov will calm this animal, Jackov was lion-tamer in circus. Jackov will talk to the nobles, he was once ambassador to queen. Jackov remembers this from history degree at university, was double major with philosophy. Jackov will distract them with fan dance, Jackov was communications officer. etc) Eventually letting slip that he might still technically be mayor (or master) of a town called Nunn.

*The Russian accent is almost guaranteed to last less than half a session before being binned
** Speaking in the third person wont even last that long

[Azgeroth]

jakov sounds a lot like old man henderson.. to this, i salute you!

something that is well worth considering, do you get many skill checks?? exploration or social?

if they are few and far between, you definitely don't want your primary strength to be just skills, also, how important to the story/campaign are they? one well placed social check can make a big difference in a campaign, be it with a bandit captain, guard captain, queen, king, god, making/convincing them your (a) friend can be a massive help to the party. just like finding that secret door, correctly decoding/interpreting some ancient scrawling on the wall..

but sucking in combat, is just that, it sucks.. playying a straight bard/rogue will give you plenty of skill proficiencies, and make you very viable in combat.

so really, i would decide what roll you want in combat scenarios first, then decide your class, then pick out your skills. rogue or bard your going to get a lot skills, and be very good in them, you could even multi as people have suggested if you really want to be master of all skill checks, and there is merit to that, but again, dont try to be the hero of the hour, all the time, it will just piss the other players off, and iritate the DM.

however, being the party face if there is isn't one already, big plus there, being able to assist the arcane user of the group in checks, be it history or arcana, also good, but, the best way to be a skill monkey boon to the party, is bardic inspiration. letting you make others shine in their various escapades..

sounds like im bigging up bards, and i am, they are the best single class skill monkey, especially with inspiration... but rogues are also very competent, and fit the bill for a sneaky clever bastard perfectly.

[Saeviomage]

Just make sure your DM maintains perspective. My guess is that a lot of DMs who are faced with a single character that averages 25 on checks will subconsciously edge DCs up to make them challenging. That's going to have the effect that the rest of the group basically don't have skills any more.

Also - don't cheese stealth in combat. It's just annoying, making your turn take longer because of all the rolls, makes the DM have to keep track of more things, and in the end it just hurts your party, because you end up effectively increasing the amount of damage your party members take.

[Crazy4cheddar]

Hey, I play a character called Xanaphia (Phia for short) and she is an optimized skill monkey. Starts first level rogue, then cleric for a level knowledge domain, then 3 levels bard, ect. She is in a group who is entirely focused on fighting. So when it comes to role play, that is her role, similar with skills. Since I am new to dnd I still dont always know the right things to say, so it adds to some quirky antics of ours. I think it would be more fun if there was more rewards for role playing (but perchance that is me or my dm) but overall, during combat I feel semi useless from time to time. And if I get cornered alone I am dead. Straight good bye Phia. My group actually has a tally of how many close calls to death I have and how many times they have had to come to my rescue. But all in all, its pretty fun. It depends on the dynamic of your team's build, and how the other's play styles are. And knowing Phia can run through a room burning with mushroom spores and likely survive, its an awesome feeling. No need to worry about checks as much when you have a passive perception of 22 (I think) at level 9. Or when you have 4-12 as the ranges between most of your skills. And having the highest initiative isn't always as good as one would expect. It has burned me. Long story short, if your team is a bunch of murder hobos like mine, then its fairly chill. But I would imagine if they were role play junkies, it might not be as much fun.