D&D 5E Wizards Do Suck;)

[tetrasodium]

Sure. I'm not saying that mechanically that's the best way to represent it. I'm saying that the wizard is an educated class and that's just one more, very blatant piece of the wizard class that shows it.

Also, if there is a rogue taking arcana, and there's a wizard it's stupid for the rogue to take expertise in arcana if the wizard is going to. Better to spread out the skills in the group that have expertise attached to them than to step on toes. Just like it's not that smart for a wizard to waste a spell pick, memorization slot, and active spell slots on knock when you have a rogue that can just open virtually any door anyway given a few minutes.

Classes can step on toes, but it's counterproductive to do so.

The skill system in 5e is one that favors "oh I'm profuicient.. me too.. yea ,e as well can I roll too?" over the kind of narrower specialization where the party needed to individually use their strengths to cover each other's weaknesses. Multiple players take a & S tier skills simply because it's trivial to do so even if basketweaving & some B grade skills are a better fit for their class

 

[Maxperson]

The skill system in 5e is one that favors "oh I'm profuicient.. me too.. yea ,e as well can I roll too?" over the kind of narrower specialization where the party needed to individually use their strengths to cover each other's weaknesses. Multiple players take a & S tier skills simply because it's trivial to do so even if basketweaving & some B grade skills are a better fit for their class

There are too many useful skills for a group of 4 to overlap much of anything other than perception or one of the other very, VERY commonly used skills. If they overlap too many, they lose a lot of ability to function well.

 

[ECMO3]

There are too many useful skills for a group of 4 to overlap much of anything other than perception or one of the other very, VERY commonly used skills. If they overlap too many, they lose a lot of ability to function well.

It depends how you build your characters. You can build a character that is proficient in every single skill by level 8 (or maybe earlier).

Also if you play RAW there are no proficiency requirements to make a check, so for example having a high Wisdom means you will make a lot of Perception Checks and having a high Intelligence means you will make a lot of history checks even without proficiency.

I find the deficiency in skills comes in part because players overprioritize Constitution, which is uselss in most skill checks and is generally the least useful ability in the game. In point buy or standard array, pushing Constitution to 14 or higher, while dumping two of Wisdom, Intelligence, Charisma and Strength to 10 or below is what leads to skill deficiencies.

When I play point buy or standard array I usually run a 10 constitution and never higher than a 12 unless there is a class or subclass feature that requires Con. This leads to much, much better characters in all 3 pillars.

 

[Maxperson]

It depends how you build your characters. You can build a character that is proficient in every single skill by level 8 (or maybe earlier).

Also if you play RAW there are no proficiency requirements to make a check, so for example having a high Wisdom means you will make a lot of Perception Checks and having a high Intelligence means you will make a lot of history checks even without proficiency.

I find the deficiency in skills comes in part because players overprioritize Constitution, which is uselss in most skill checks and is generally the least useful ability in the game. In point buy or standard array, pushing Constitution to 14 or higher, while dumping two of Wisdom, Intelligence, Charisma and Strength to 10 or below is what leads to skill deficiencies.

When I play point buy or standard array I usually run a 10 constitution and never higher than a 12 unless there is a class or subclass feature that requires Con. This leads to much, much better characters in all 3 pillars.

I mean, sure. If you want to gimp yourself by starting as a variant human rogue and using all three feats on getting more skills, just to unnecessarily overlap with the rest of the party, you can do that. Nobody in their right mind would do all of that, though.

Rogue = 4 skills
Background = 2 skills
Variant Human = 4 skills(human bonus plus the skilled feat)
Using both ASIs = 6 more skills.

There are far better feats to take and the group is going to have those other skills covered most likely anyway. And that only gives you 16 out of 18 skills. You'd also need to multiclass two times into ranger and bard and be 10th level.

 

[tetrasodium]

There are too many useful skills for a group of 4 to overlap much of anything other than perception or one of the other very, VERY commonly used skills. If they overlap too many, they lose a lot of ability to function well

There are 18 skills. Some notable fraction of them are sub par on their best days. With 2 skills from race & 2-4 from baseclass at level 1 before addinng any at later class or subtype levels. Once you add the skills gained in the first few levels after character creation It's trivial for a group that size to cover the full spread with plenty of overlap on the higher ranked skills without any real sacrifices being made & a group of 5 can do it with room to spare while still having someone who took the underwater basket weaving tier gems.

Even going beyond that the gm can point at holes in the group skill set if the gm wants to... but they are going to very quickly reminded about all of the ways 5e bends over backwards to ensure that it can't matter withothout invoking fiat if the players don't care.

Don't believe me on that? Come up with 5 consequences for l failed skill checks that will matter longer than the next long rest or maybe even a revivify that doesn't lead to the gm running their own game into the group if they try to force it.

 

[ECMO3]

I mean, sure. If you want to gimp yourself by starting as a variant human rogue and using all three feats on getting more skills, just to unnecessarily overlap with the rest of the party, you can do that. Nobody in their right mind would do all of that, though.
Rogue = 4 skills
Background = 2 skills
Variant Human = 4 skills(human bonus plus the skilled feat)
Using both ASIs = 6 more skills.

And that only gives you 16 out of 18 skills. You'd also need to multiclass two times into ranger and bard and be 10th level.

That is not what I was thinking.

Hexblood - 2 skills (you could also do Dampir, Reborn or Half-Elf, but Hexblood is probably the best race for this build due to the racial spells)
Background - 2 skills
4 levels in Scout Rogue - 6 skills (expertise in 4)
4 levels in Lore Bard - 4 skills (expertise in 2)
Skilled Feat - 3 skills
Skill Expert Feat - 1 skill (expertise in 1)

On point buy at level 8 S8 D16 C10 I12 W13 Ch 18

Sample skill scores at level 9:
Athletics +7
Acrobatics +7
Slight of Hand +7
Stealth +7
Arcana +5
History +5
Investigation +9
Nature +9
Religion +5
Animal Handling +5
Insight +5
Medicine +5
Perception +9
Survival + 9
Deception +12
Intimidation +8
Performance +8
Persuasion +12

You absolutely could do it quicker with a crazy multiclass, but the character above is going to be pretty awesome with spells, cantrips and Rogue levels.

This is a very viable character, and while I have not done exactly that, I have played a half-Elf Scout Rogue with a 2 level Trickery Cleric dip and similar ability scores. That character took the skill expert feat (boosting Dex to 18) and had 11 of 18 skills at level 6 (5 with expertise) and was totally viable as a character.

There are far better feats to take and the group is going to have those other skills covered most likely anyway.

Your whole point was the party of 4 did not have all the skills covered. I covered all of them with 1 character.

The other three members in the party have AT LEAST 12 skills between them, so even if the example character above used no feats at all on skills he would still have 14 of 18 skills covered, 6 with expertise and with the party members covering the rest with quite a bit of overlap.

 

[Maxperson]

There are 18 skills. Some notable fraction of them are sub par on their best days. With 2 skills from race & 2-4 from baseclass at level 1 before addinng any at later class or subtype levels. Once you add the skills gained in the first few levels after character creation It's trivial for a group that size to cover the full spread with plenty of overlap on the higher ranked skills without any real sacrifices being made & a group of 5 can do it with room to spare while still having someone who took the underwater basket weaving tier gems.

The overlap will tend to be on things like Athletics, Investigation and Perception, which are the most highly used skills, and don't really step on class identity.

Even going beyond that the gm can point at holes in the group skill set if the gm wants to... but they are going to very quickly reminded about all of the ways 5e bends over backwards to ensure that it can't matter withothout invoking fiat if the players don't care.

Don't believe me on that? Come up with 5 consequences for l failed skill checks that will matter longer than the next long rest or maybe even a revivify that doesn't lead to the gm running their own game into the group if they try to force it.

This seems to talk about adversarial DMing, which I don't engage in. I'm not going to aim skills at or away from PCs. Skills are what they are and the vast majority of the skills come up often in my game. Acrobatics and Animal Handling being notable exceptions. Performance being situational. Happens a lot when there's a bard

As for the consequences of failed checks being trivial, that's just fuel for the "there's no need to overlap skills" argument. If failing doesn't matter more than for longer than a long rest or revivify, then there's no need to try and duplicate skills, even the "important" ones. It's hard for any skill to be important if failure has trivial meaning.

 

[Maxperson]

That is not what I was thinking.

Hexblood - 2 skills (you could also do Vampir, Reborn or Half-Elf, but Hexblood is probably the best race for this build due to the racial spells)
Background - 2 skills
4 levels in Scout Rogue - 6 skills (expertise in 4)
4 levels in Lore Bard - 4 skills (expertise in 2)
Skilled Feat - 3 skills
Skill Expert Feat - 1 skill (expertise in 1)

On point buy at level 8 S8 D16 C10 I12 W13 Ch 18

Sample skill scores at level 9:
Athletics +7
Acrobatics +7
Slight of Hand +7
Stealth +7
Arcana +5
History +5
Investigation +9
Nature +9
Religion +5
Animal Handling +5
Insight +5
Medicine +5
Perception +9
Survival + 9
Deception +12
Intimidation +8
Performance +8
Persuasion +12

You absolutely could do it quicker with a crazy multiclass, but the character above is going to be pretty awesome with spells, cantrips and Rogue levels.

This is a very viable character, and while I have not done exactly that, I have played a half-Elf Scout Rogue with a 2 level Trickery Cleric dip and similar ability scores. That character took the skill expert feat (boosting Dex to 18) and had 11 of 18 skills at level 6 (5 with expertise) and was totally viable as a character.





Your whole point was the party 4 did not have all the skills covered. I covered all of them with 1 character.

The other three members in the party have AT LEAST 12 skills between them, so even if the example character above used no feats at all on skills he would still have 14 of 18 skills covered, 6 with expertise and with the party members covering the rest with quite a bit of overlap.

That's a better way to do it, but I still think it's unnecessary, given how many skills are floating around a party of 4. There are better ways to go than to step on the toes of other classes when you don't have to, and which are going to be more effective.

 

[tetrasodium]

The overlap will tend to be on things like Athletics, Investigation and Perception, which are the most highly used skills, and don't really step on class identity.

Correct!... It's almost like some skills are better than others and those top shelf skills are likely to warrant a check more often than the basket weaving adjacent skills that will rarely (if ever) be needed....

This seems to talk about adversarial DMing, which I don't engage in. I'm not going to aim skills at or away from PCs. Skills are what they are and the vast majority of the skills come up often in my game. Acrobatics and Animal Handling being notable exceptions. Performance being situational. Happens a lot when there's a bard

As for the consequences of failed checks being trivial, that's just fuel for the "there's no need to overlap skills" argument. If failing doesn't matter more than for longer than a long rest or revivify, then there's no need to try and duplicate skills, even the "important" ones. It's hard for any skill to be important if failure has trivial meaning.

You just ignored the entire problem keeping skill gaps from mattering and blamed it on adversarial GM'ing without even attempting to address the problem that ensures that a party's hypothetical skill gaps you are using as support remain irrelevant. If anything you've confirmed how high the bar needs to go before a skill gap matters.

 

[Maxperson]

Correct!... It's almost like some skills are better than others and those top shelf skills are likely to warrant a check more often than the basket weaving adjacent skills that will rarely (if ever) be needed....

You just ignored the entire problem keeping skill gaps from mattering and blamed it on adversarial GM'ing without even attempting to address the problem that ensures that a party's hypothetical skill gaps you are using as support remain irrelevant. If anything you've confirmed how high the bar needs to go before a skill gap matters.

I was having a hard time understanding what you were getting at, which is why I said what it seemed like you were saying. I wasn't ignoring anything.

Skill gaps in 5e don't matter much by RAW due to bounded accuracy and low DCs, which is why I've brought back trained vs. untrained. Proficiency matters, even if the untrained PC has a higher bonus due to stats.