D&D 5E Thoughts on a skills PC.

[FrogReaver]

Maybe try reminding your DM that 5e is "rulings, not rules?" Or more to your dilemma, " rulings, not rolls. " Also, skill checks haven't been in the game since 4e (although I wouldn't be surprised if some rebellious #WotCstaff refuse to let them go).

Isn't a skill check just an ability check that the GM asks for using a specific skill?

 

[GMMichael]

Isn't a skill check just an ability check that the GM asks for using a specific skill?

Skills checks were the foundation of skill challenges, the math that slowed down many a combat, and a major contributor to the subjugation of ability scores (except for Constitution). The usage of the term itself is a good reason for a player to think, "I don't have that skill, so I must not be able to do the task." Not to mention a crutch for DMs who have trouble designing interesting encounters.

So, yes. But no: skills checks are so much more than that. And if I had the...pleasure...of DMing 5e, I would make every effort to not "ask for (an ability check) using a specific skill." It should be on the player to add relevant skill points to an ability check.

 

[Stoutstien]

BARBARIAN??? How the heck did you make a skill monkey from a Barbarian???

Lol that was supposed to say have not but let's give it a shot.

The base class gets 2 skills with an additional one at 3 and 10, and advantage on str checks with rage. Not much here. So let's add in a subclass. Wild magic gets you some utility magic radar at first and some random stuff to fill your bonus action. Then at lv 6 you have something. 10 minutes of bless or recovery of a spell slot between 1-3 lv Prof times a day. That's actually solid if you have anyone in the party that uses spells and spells are great at bypassing checks all together. Even without that the 20 minute 1d3 is good.

That leaves background, race and feats to do the rest of the legwork.
Mark of finding half orc to the rescue. 2 once a day utility spells, 1d4 added to perception and survival checks and a decent array. Basically the only thing you lose out here is the str boost. Assuming you still want at least a 18 str with the standard array you need 1.5 ASI for that leaving 3.5 for check boosting.

nothing amazing here but for a class you wouldn't think of it handles itself ok. Toss on a 3-4 psi rogue dip and it's actually not bad at all.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Lol that was supposed to say have not but let's give it a shot.

Ah... that makes a LOT more sense...

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Going Halfling will get you less skills, but give you a better chance of succeeding on the rolls.

Is what you're after a skills character, or a utility character for the group? If a utility character then sticking with Bard or another caster may be preferable.

A two-level Warlock dip can be used to grant two skills, plus an effective attack that will scale with your character level rather than level in any specific class.

 

[Baldurs_Underdark]

Sounds like the OP did not have a Session Zero to make sure that the PCs fit the campaign.

In fact, it's quite the opposite of working together. This is a sign of Players vs. DM, where players try to beat the game by optimizing. In my games, if you optimize the PCs to something really effective in combat, that achieves exactly nothing because I just increase the difficulty. But it will make the game miserable for the person who didn't optimize the PC for combat. Likewise, it's really boring if your character is ineffective (or even a liability) outside of combat.

As a DM, I would have stopped the PCs as described in the OP, and I would have done that in the invitation message (email / app) prior to Session Zero.

 

[Krachek]

i play once a skill character, it was pretty boring.
having a lot of skill tend to make a mild identity, and you are often in competition with the niche of the others characters.

 

[Stoutstien]

i play once a skill character, it was pretty boring.
having a lot of skill tend to make a mild identity, and you are often in competition with the niche of the others characters.

Eh. Being skilled to not have little to do with the overall identity of a PC. Most adventurer are generally adept at a lot of stuff so it's just an expansion of that. It's not a niche in the same way damage isn't. Everyone should have the ability to chip in to increase the chances of success.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Eh. Being skilled to not have little to do with the overall identity of a PC. Most adventurer are generally adept at a lot of stuff so it's just an expansion of that. It's not a niche in the same way damage isn't. Everyone should have the ability to chip in to increase the chances of success.

Sorry but I have to disagree with this. IME most PCs have 2-3 skills they are good at and no more. Many PCs have only 4-5 skills period.

Being a true skill monkey covers a lot more skills with often much better modifiers. In the best scenarios, the skill monkey can offer help to the other PCs when the do excel, and other others can offer help to the skill monkey in every thing else (if they even can, of course).

Skill monkey PCs are actually my favorite type to play, so most of my characters have either some rogue or bard in them. In fact, the two PCs I am playing right now: a Barbarian/ROGUE and a Sorcerer/Warlock/BARD.

 

[Stoutstien]

Sorry but I have to disagree with this. IME most PCs have 2-3 skills they are good at and no more. Many PCs have only 4-5 skills period.

Being a true skill monkey covers a lot more skills with often much better modifiers. In the best scenarios, the skill monkey can offer help to the other PCs when the do excel, and other others can offer help to the skill monkey in every thing else (if they even can, of course).

Skill monkey PCs are actually my favorite type to play, so most of my characters have either some rogue or bard in them. In fact, the two PCs I am playing right now: a Barbarian/ROGUE and a Sorcerer/Warlock/BARD.

Skill monkey isn't something that actually exists outside the meta. Same with all the other party roles that people force into a game that doesn't support them. Trying to define a true*anything* is pointless. This goes double for a game that doesn't even have a skill system in place. It's just an option to add some additional values to an ability check. They don't even have a fixed relationship depending on your table so it gets real funky to try to nail down something like this. The only reason the concept of dumping all the skills onto one guy is a thing is because players think it's somehow less important than chasing down minor increases in damage. That's why 90% of the stuff talking about optimization isn't really optimal thanks to demising returns and lack of flexibility.

Let's say there are 20 skills and we have a 5 man party. If each PC is good at 2 skills from a supporting background that means they have half the field covered. If half of them also picked a race that give a skill that's ~2 more.
So if a 5 man party can pick up 8 skills between them with class/subclass/spells/summons/items options they can have the entire field. It's not even a reach to have some of the high impact ones to have 2-3 PC deep redundancy in place. Now expertise is dirt cheap could also plan for 4-5 to be covered that way as well.