Is it wrong to go overboard on skills?

[Yakmala]

So, after getting frustrated with my Barbarian and their inability to contribute much to skills/social in one of my weekly games, I was kicking around an idea for what some call a "skill monkey" character, who can step in and contribute in almost any skill check or social situation. The basics of the build would be:

Half Elf (2 skills)
Rogue to L1 (4 skills, 2 expertise + tools proficiency)
Background (2 skills)
Knowledge Cleric to L1 (2 Int skills with expertise)
Bard to L1 (1 Skill)
Lore Bard L3 (3 Skills, 2 expertise)
Scout Rogue to L3 (Nature and Survival with expertise)

So, at Level 7, that's proficiency in 16 of 18 skills with expertise in 8 of those 16, with another two expert skills at level 10 if I stick with Rogue (with the eventual goal of getting Reliable Talent). And you have the Guidance cantrip.

My question is, would you consider such a build to be a detrimental play style for the table? With few exceptions, this character would be able to cover any skill required, and quite possibly at a higher level of skill than most of the other characters.

As a player, you could choose not to make certain rolls if others at the table have the same specialty and they see it as their character's special talent, but I could still see it becoming irritating when one character is the answer to almost every non-combat situation that requires a skill roll.

[nickl_2000]

I wouldn't like it at my table, but my table is very stable and we work together with character building before the campaign starts to try and cover all the necessary roles. Also that character is going to be a pretty big drag on combat, you will be easy behind everyone else.

I would prefer to see someone be good with less skills and less expertise, but can also contribute better in combat

[2D8HP]

...would you consider such a build to be a detrimental play style for the table?....


Neither as a (former) DM, nor as a player would that build bother me, seems good to me!

You could also go V. Human with the Prodigy or Skilled Feat.

A player of that build may feel a little bit combat slight from not reaching a single class 5th level sooner, but skills are fun!, so that should mitigate.

[Man_Over_Game]

"Wrong" is subjective. I don't think there's inherently anything wrong with specialization, as long as it's rewarded.

However, most DMs have a hard time implementing skills in a way that's rewarding for the player, and I'm of the impression that 5e does a terrible job with its skill system without a very good DM.

So if you trust your DM and he's aware of your build and has thoughts on how to make you feel rewarded, go for it. Otherwise, be aware that half of your investments may never see fruition. It's not a problem if you're a noncombatant in a party of 5, as long as the DM balances fights for a party of 4.

[Rukelnikov]

It's perfectly viable, and take into account you won't be able to max every stat, so at lvl 7, even with expertise, you total roll may not be much better, or at all than someone with a skill matching his/her main stat.

And regarding combat you 1 lvl of cleric already allows you to cast "bless", so don't worry about "being useless in combat"

[Misterwhisper]

So, after getting frustrated with my Barbarian and their inability to contribute much to skills/social in one of my weekly games, I was kicking around an idea for what some call a "skill monkey" character, who can step in and contribute in almost any skill check or social situation. The basics of the build would be:

Half Elf (2 skills)
Rogue to L1 (4 skills, 2 expertise + tools proficiency)
Background (2 skills)
Knowledge Cleric to L1 (2 Int skills with expertise)
Bard to L1 (1 Skill)
Lore Bard L3 (3 Skills, 2 expertise)
Scout Rogue to L3 (Nature and Survival with expertise)

So, at Level 7, that's proficiency in 16 of 18 skills with expertise in 8 of those 16, with another two expert skills at level 10 if I stick with Rogue (with the eventual goal of getting Reliable Talent). And you have the Guidance cantrip.

My question is, would you consider such a build to be a detrimental play style for the table? With few exceptions, this character would be able to cover any skill required, and quite possibly at a higher level of skill than most of the other characters.

As a player, you could choose not to make certain rolls if others at the table have the same specialty and they see it as their character's special talent, but I could still see it becoming irritating when one character is the answer to almost every non-combat situation that requires a skill roll.

While being the skill guy can be kind of cool, not all skills are with it.

I have yet to see handle animal mean a single thing ever in 5e.
Performance really does almost nothing, not even really performing.
Intimidate might as well say, I will trade getting what I want right now to get a permanent enemy maybe more than one.

You could just go:

Half elf rogue scout:
Take the feats skilled and prodigy, although prodigy is not needed.
Background of whatever.

Race 2
Class 4 skills and 4 expertise eventually
Subclass 2 and 2 expertise
Feats: 4 skills and 1 expertise and a tool.

That is good enough for every skill you really need.

[Errata]

I wouldn't go that far with it. Non-combat tends to flow better if everyone has some utility skills or spells that nobody else has. Everyone has some proficiencies and most people have at least one stat that they want to get really high. Even having lots of proficiencies, you can't have every attribute, so your costly expertise bonuses are just offsetting a lack of abillity bonus in some areas. It would be better even for a skill monkey type to go half in and focus on expertise in the skills using the attributes that make sense for your build, with an eye toward filling in the gaps that other party members probably won't be able to, whenever possible. The only skill that you'd want expertise in even if it's redundant with other party members is probably perception. Other skills are used infrequently enough as it is, so you don't want to outshine everyone. Think how boring the non-combat parts will be for everyone else if you're trying to single handedly take care of every possible skill check.

[Max_Killjoy]

And I thought the Half-elf Sage Thief 3 / War Mage 2 / RevRanger 1 that I built had a lot of skills and proficiencies...

[Wildarm]

I recommend focusing your efforts on expertise is skills you have your primary and secondary stat in. If the whole party takes this approach and you've got a diverse team, you should have all the important bases covered. Having someone with guidance and a few people with luck or inspiration and the help action and there are few skill challenges that can't be done. Even DC25 stuff can be done if you've specialized a bit.

Now, I have built a Knowledge Cleric/Rogue/Ranger who was quite good at a lot skills. I also had a DM who rewarded players for good skill use, we bypassed many encounters from a good skill check or two. The cost of course was lagging a level or two behind other players for spell slot progression/extra attack. Level 5 was the worst but even that was fine. I don't think anyone in my team noticed it though. They were happy as long as I kept up bless to be honest.

So, a skill monkey is doable and can be fun. Just be prepared to be the full support role for certain points in your career. Make sure you don't spend your ASIs on skills though. It's just not worth it.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

I guess the only issue would be that now you're the go to skill guy for all the skills and terrible at combat, which is the Barbarian issue in reverse. Usually my groups have a two to three skill people, like social guy and a traps guy and a survival/tracking guy so the skill rolls get spread around.


Half elf rogue scout:
Take the feats skilled and prodigy, although prodigy is not needed.
Isn't prodigy a human only feat?

[Rukelnikov]

Isn't prodigy a human only feat?

Half humans can get it too

[Keravath]

You don't give up much in terms of skills by just going rogue 1/knowledge cleric 1/lore bard 18 (maybe rogue 2 for cunning action at some point instead) ... and you remain very effective in the bard/support role. It is a bit MAD since you need the 13 wisdom but 1 level of cleric is pretty common in many bard builds. The only thing you lose is expertise in nature and survival (and those skills if you don't have them already).

[Lunali]

Personally I like half-elf scout rogue 11/lore bard 3 with skilled and prodigy, all 18 skills, half with expertise (or 8 if you want thieves' tools) and most importantly, never roll below 10 on anything you get a proficiency bonus on.

[sophontteks]

While he has lots of skills, there are more simple classes that will be better at skill checks.

Pure rogues at the same level have expertise in 4 skills, and can "take 10" on those rolls. When you know the lowest roll you can make is a 10, skills are no longer a gamble.

Glamour bard / Sorcerer 3 gets to subtle cast magic right in front of people to make their social expertise extra spicy style. The glamour bard charm nuke is practically an "own every non-combat encounter button"

Bard / rogue 1 gets extra expertise enhanced with magic. Enhance ability for advantage is often stronger then expertise. Bard spells are crazy strong skill enhancers.

[Sigreid]

Just to make sure you understand that Bard 2 will get you half proficiency in all skills, meaning you can be pretty danged good at all of them without costing you higher level class abilities.

[Nhorianscum]

So, after getting frustrated with my Barbarian and their inability to contribute much to skills/social in one of my weekly games, I was kicking around an idea for what some call a "skill monkey" character, who can step in and contribute in almost any skill check or social situation. The basics of the build would be:

Half Elf (2 skills)
Rogue to L1 (4 skills, 2 expertise + tools proficiency)
Background (2 skills)
Knowledge Cleric to L1 (2 Int skills with expertise)
Bard to L1 (1 Skill)
Lore Bard L3 (3 Skills, 2 expertise)
Scout Rogue to L3 (Nature and Survival with expertise)

So, at Level 7, that's proficiency in 16 of 18 skills with expertise in 8 of those 16, with another two expert skills at level 10 if I stick with Rogue (with the eventual goal of getting Reliable Talent). And you have the Guidance cantrip.

My question is, would you consider such a build to be a detrimental play style for the table? With few exceptions, this character would be able to cover any skill required, and quite possibly at a higher level of skill than most of the other characters.

As a player, you could choose not to make certain rolls if others at the table have the same specialty and they see it as their character's special talent, but I could still see it becoming irritating when one character is the answer to almost every non-combat situation that requires a skill roll.

When I join a table of folks I highly suspect of munkinism Rouge/Cleric or other utility caster is my go to

Just wait for session 0 to pick skills and if another player is speced into a skill guidance and help them. With this you can have a more streamlined character and the other players can have their fun.

Also with something like AT3/Knowledge 6 or Swash3/lore 6 you're not awful at combat.

[Bubzors]

I personally wouldn't go for knowledge cleric, but having access to bless is pretty great.

I'm playing a lvl 3 swashbuckler rogue that I plan on dipping 3 levels into lore bard immediately after. The CHA to initiative is a nice synergy, and you will end up with a bunch of skills and 4 expertise. His background is a noble and I play him as the intrigue diplomat (party face).

People saying you will fall behind in combat are only thinking in straight damage numbers. For example, with a 3/3 split rogue/bard you are only missing out on an extra d6 for sneak attack, but you get access to bardic inspiration, cutting words, spells like bane, faerie fire, tasha's hideous laughter, heat metal and inivisibility.

So yes you lose out on damage but get a whole lot of versatility and party beneficial abilities/spells. And if you feel slightly behind you can always delay one level of bard for level 4 rogue to get that ability score increase. Either way you still hit both increases at level 8 if you do a 4/4 split

[Nhorianscum]

I personally wouldn't go for knowledge cleric, but having access to bless is pretty great.

I'm playing a lvl 3 swashbuckler rogue that I plan on dipping 3 levels into lore bard immediately after. The CHA to initiative is a nice synergy, and you will end up with a bunch of skills and 4 expertise. His background is a noble and I play him as the intrigue diplomat (party face).

People saying you will fall behind in combat are only thinking in straight damage numbers. For example, with a 3/3 split rogue/bard you are only missing out on an extra d6 for sneak attack, but you get access to bardic inspiration, cutting words, spells like bane, faerie fire, tasha's hideous laughter, heat metal and inivisibility.

So yes you lose out on damage but get a whole lot of versatility and party beneficial abilities/spells. And if you feel slightly behind you can always delay one level of bard for level 4 rogue to get that ability score increase. Either way you still hit both increases at level 8 if you do a 4/4 split

You're overselling pretty hard there. That's just flat out worse in every way compared to a stock standard AT at the given level and split.