I'm starting a campaign with a new group of people and this will by my first time playing with most of them. We were sharing our expectations, wants, needs leading up to session zero when and we'll actually be creating characters and one person mentioned they like playing skill monkeys. The term is new to me as I've only been playing a few years, and after doing some research I gotta say, the concept makes me a little apprehensive for 2 big reasons:
1. Will it take away from other players' enjoyment if there is one person that is good at most skills? I know that a trade-off is they're supposedly pretty weak in combat, but I don't want my character to only be useful in combat because someone else can handle all the out of combat skill checks. It's a role-playing game and I think everyone should be able to experience every part of it.
2. Failure should be an option. I feel like skill monkeys lower the possibility of failing which removes tension and eliminates the need for creative problem-solving. A player that can pick all the locks and detect all the traps and persuade all the NPCs seems a little overpowered in my book.
I know this comes down to having an in depth conversation with the other players' and the DM to see how and if this would fit into this particular party and we still have to learn each other's play styles and habits, but I just wanted to put it out there because I haven't really seen any criticism of skill monkeys (but plenty of build suggestions) so I wanted see if I'm making a big deal out of nothing.
I often see complaints about player characters being too powerful in combat, why not out of combat? What's been your experience with a skill monkey as a DM or as another player? Am I being paranoid?
You don't have to worry about issue 1 for a few reasons. There are a number of skills that are fine (helpful even) for multiple characters to be good at. There are a number of skills that each person has to be good at for themself. It is hard for skill monkeys to be proficient in every skill. And skill monkeys are still limited by their abilities, so you will likely still have higher bonuses in skills that correspond to your primary ability.
As for your second concern, skill monkeys don't significantly decrease the overall challenge. What ever problems it seems they always solve, the party probably would have gotten through just as easily if they had split up the skills amongst themselves. Like I pointed out in paragraph 1, skill monkeys are easily out performed by characters more focused around single stats (just only in those narrower fields). The skill monkey will likely have several skills that are only second or third highest in the party.
It can come down a bit to DM play style whether everything can be solved by a roll or if the players will have to be creative before being allowed to roll.
So what you're saying is you're biased against Warlocks? After all we are good at everything, just not great at one thing (except looking cool in black (or in my case a really dark blue) and brooding that's kind of our thing!)
I thought this community was above this kind of thing! This blatant Warlockism has to stop and stop now!
I jest (hopefully obviously lol), but the thing about skill monkeys is it is hard for them to be great at something when they are focusing at being good at everything, each class tends to have one thing they are great at (Barbarian smash, etc etc) which brings the party balance. A skill monkey is good for the pure basis that they can step into any role as a support to backup where needed, but because of that multi focus they do not outshine anyone else.
Also if I can say, a skill monkey can be really helpful in smaller parties where a few skills might be really lacking and they can help pick up the slack in the missing areas
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Marvarax andSora (Dragonborn) The retired fighter and WIP scholar - Glory
Brythel(Dwarf), The dwarf with a gun - survival at sea
Jaylin(Human), Paladin of Lathander's Ancient ways - The Seven Saints (Azura Claw)
Urselles(Goblin), Cleric of Eldath- The Wizard's challenge
Viclas Tyrin(Half Elf), Student of the Elven arts- Indrafatmoko's Defiance in Phlan
Yeah I guess this all makes sense. Having never seen it before, the concept read as OP to me. I just wanted some clarity before I brought it up in group as to not cause any unnecessary issues
So what you're saying is you're biased against Warlocks? After all we are good at everything, just not great at one thing (except looking cool in black (or in my case a really dark blue) and brooding that's kind of our thing!)
I thought this community was above this kind of thing! This blatant Warlockism has to stop and stop now!
The funny thing is I'm considering playing a warlock for the first time for this 🙄
Personally, this is why I am fond of the Help action for out of combat scenarios. Here's how we made it work at my table;
Character must be Proficient in the ability/skill they are Helping with
Roll 1d20 + Modifier
A 10 or over is considered successfully helping
This will give Advantage to the check being assisted with
RAW stipulates that you don't need to roll to Help on your turn, but because I allow my players to use it out of combat, I wanted it to be less easy to abuse. So far it's worked very well for us, as we have several Wisdom-based characters in the party that all have similar skill sets - this way they can aid each-other on those checks rather than compete to make them or feel left out.
Remember also that Skill Monkeys are not specialized and don't get the benefits of more specialized skill sets, such as having a higher modifier and therefore a greater chance at success. It is true someone who is proficient can't "fail", but that doesn't mean they always get to succeed without a consequence.
To me "skill monkey" just means "I'm playing a bard or rogue that - just due to the way the class is built - gets a crap-ton of skill proficiencies and some expertise."
In my experience having a skill monkey in a party is awesome! It’s very nice having someone who, while less useful in combat, is incredible out of combat.
Skills in 5e D&D are very broad and everybody gets a good mix of them. It's not like you're going to be building an RPG character whose sole purpose in life is Triple Grand Mastery in Craft (Scrimshaw) and Merchantile (Scrimshaw) or anything like that.
Personally, this is why I am fond of the Help action for out of combat scenarios. Here's how we made it work at my table;
Character must be Proficient in the ability/skill they are Helping with
Roll 1d20 + Modifier
A 10 or over is considered successfully helping
This will give Advantage to the check being assisted with
RAW stipulates that you don't need to roll to Help on your turn, but because I allow my players to use it out of combat, I wanted it to be less easy to abuse. So far it's worked very well for us, as we have several Wisdom-based characters in the party that all have similar skill sets - this way they can aid each-other on those checks rather than compete to make them or feel left out.
Remember also that Skill Monkeys are not specialized and don't get the benefits of more specialized skill sets, such as having a higher modifier and therefore a greater chance at success. It is true someone who is proficient can't "fail", but that doesn't mean they always get to succeed without a consequence.
To me "skill monkey" just means "I'm playing a bard or rogue that - just due to the way the class is built - gets a crap-ton of skill proficiencies and some expertise."
They're just part of the game.
Does that mean an artificer is a tool monkey instead of a skill monkey? ;)
I'm starting a campaign with a new group of people and this will by my first time playing with most of them. We were sharing our expectations, wants, needs leading up to session zero when and we'll actually be creating characters and one person mentioned they like playing skill monkeys. The term is new to me as I've only been playing a few years, and after doing some research I gotta say, the concept makes me a little apprehensive for 2 big reasons:
1. Will it take away from other players' enjoyment if there is one person that is good at most skills? I know that a trade-off is they're supposedly pretty weak in combat, but I don't want my character to only be useful in combat because someone else can handle all the out of combat skill checks. It's a role-playing game and I think everyone should be able to experience every part of it.
2. Failure should be an option. I feel like skill monkeys lower the possibility of failing which removes tension and eliminates the need for creative problem-solving. A player that can pick all the locks and detect all the traps and persuade all the NPCs seems a little overpowered in my book.
I know this comes down to having an in depth conversation with the other players' and the DM to see how and if this would fit into this particular party and we still have to learn each other's play styles and habits, but I just wanted to put it out there because I haven't really seen any criticism of skill monkeys (but plenty of build suggestions) so I wanted see if I'm making a big deal out of nothing.
I often see complaints about player characters being too powerful in combat, why not out of combat? What's been your experience with a skill monkey as a DM or as another player? Am I being paranoid?
5e's system for skills tends to make "skill monkey" a minor point. I wouldn't sweat it, but if you do want to make the most of it, reliable talent with a lot of proficiencies is the way to go. The low roll protection is more useful than the bonuses to get higher potential totals. That opens up things like a rogue auto-hitting 20 DC's for asking favors at higher levels by taking expertise in persuasion, which is one of my favorite applications.
I wouldn't worry about it. The usual skill monkeys are classes that get a butt-load of skill proficiencies (bard, rogue). They can still be pretty vicious in combat but not as much as it will be a problem. Besides, there's usually someone that will be better at some of the things they do, letting everyone shine every once in a while.
As for the failure part, I like the playstyle of "failing forwards". Sure, it's great fun when everything goes as planned and the dice are with you. But that just makes it even more fun when you are the skill monkey actually fail. "I got this!" *rolls* "No I don't!" B)
I wouldn't worry about it. The usual skill monkeys are classes that get a butt-load of skill proficiencies (bard, rogue). They can still be pretty vicious in combat but not as much as it will be a problem. Besides, there's usually someone that will be better at some of the things they do, letting everyone shine every once in a while.
As for the failure part, I like the playstyle of "failing forwards". Sure, it's great fun when everything goes as planned and the dice are with you. But that just makes it even more fun when you are the skill monkey actually fail. "I got this!" *rolls* "No I don't!" B)
Seem to be over-stating what "skill monkey" classes get.
The baseline is 4 skill proficiencies. 2 come from the class and 2 come from the background. Bards and rangers get 3 instead of 2 proficiencies from the class. Rogues get 4 proficiencies instead of 2 from the class. That gives us:
Rogue: 6
Bard & Ranger: 5
Everyone Else: 4
Artificers are noteworthy because they gain a lot of tool proficiencies instead of skill proficiencies.
The vast majority of skills and checks (those without proficiency at all) are left behind by every class. Wanting to increase the number of skills is possible through races, feats, and subclasses. I could play a half-elf knowledge cleric with prodigy and skilled feats, for example. That gives a lot of proficiencies. The 1 extras skill proficiency on a bard or ranger, or 2 on a rogue, from the class tends to be a small amount relative to what's available. Those classes tend to have that couple more if they also focus on skills but the class itself for the number of skills is not that much more.
So what you're saying is you're biased against Warlocks? After all we are good at everything, just not great at one thing (except looking cool in black (or in my case a really dark blue) and brooding that's kind of our thing!)
I thought this community was above this kind of thing! This blatant Warlockism has to stop and stop now!
The funny thing is I'm considering playing a warlock for the first time for this 🙄
Warlock can be a pain in the ass for the first couple of levels until you accept what they can't do. Most people tend to complain because of the lack of spells or Warlocks can't do this or that so they don't play them. Don't let it put you off, personally I find it more fun to work out what I can do with the limitations on the class, you tend to get more creative with the random bits of shit you have lying in your bag lol. Enjoy it
Seem to be over-stating what "skill monkey" classes get.
Not really. Rogue gain twice the amount of proficiences that other classes get and lore bard (probably the truest skillmonkey of them all) get three times as many. Add to that the fact that both bards and rogue tend to have abilities that overlap well with many skills and you can easily have a character that isn't really bad at any skill.
That said, the fact that the so-called skill monkey classes don't have proficiency in every single skill or that they don't have that many more proficiencies than other classes doesn't change anything I said. Yes, skillmonkeys are gonna skillmonk. Yes, they can still be good in combat. No, it's seldom a problem for the group as whole. :)
Embrace the monkey! I have a lore bard (2 levels of warlock too) that is a half elf with the 2 extra profs and he is skill monkey heaven. When I play him, our party gets in so many more interesting situations than a normal hack and slash party. There are checks and balances for the game so don't worry too much about it. If you are going to shine on skills then you are giving up something else to do so that another party member will have to do. I've had more DM complaints about an optimized barbarian that just tears through combat than any skill related issues with my bard.
Seem to be over-stating what "skill monkey" classes get.
Not really. Rogue gain twice the amount of proficiences that other classes get and lore bard (probably the truest skillmonkey of them all) get three times as many. Add to that the fact that both bards and rogue tend to have abilities that overlap well with many skills and you can easily have a character that isn't really bad at any skill.
That said, the fact that the so-called skill monkey classes don't have proficiency in every single skill or that they don't have that many more proficiencies than other classes doesn't change anything I said. Yes, skillmonkeys are gonna skillmonk. Yes, they can still be good in combat. No, it's seldom a problem for the group as whole. :)
Higher level Lore Bards are nuts. I've got a Lore Bard with the Lucky feat, so between that, Jack of All Trades, and Peerless Skill letting me inspire myself, I can very nearly guarantee success on just about any skill check I want to make. I don't normally, since the group I'm in is fairly Roleplay heavy, so often whoever attempts a check is usually the person who happens to be the one who has a logical curiosity or confidence, rather than just saying, "this looks tough, let the Bard take care of it". But there have been a few clutch moments where I've had to spend all my skills to guarantee an important check went through.
Seem to be over-stating what "skill monkey" classes get.
Not really. Rogue gain twice the amount of proficiences that other classes get and lore bard (probably the truest skillmonkey of them all) get three times as many. Add to that the fact that both bards and rogue tend to have abilities that overlap well with many skills and you can easily have a character that isn't really bad at any skill.
That said, the fact that the so-called skill monkey classes don't have proficiency in every single skill or that they don't have that many more proficiencies than other classes doesn't change anything I said. Yes, skillmonkeys are gonna skillmonk. Yes, they can still be good in combat. No, it's seldom a problem for the group as whole. :)
Two times a small number is still a small number. That's like saying 20 km/h is fast because it's twice the speed limit posted in a trailer park. Or needing an 19 on a d20 is twice as good as needing a 20 when the difference is a 5% successes rate. It's also not an accurate representation because it's ignoring the background skills all characters have, which means the baseline for a rogue character is 50% more than the baseline for most characters. This calling it twice as much is statistical gymnastics trying to make it look better. ;)
Like the d20 example above, the way to make a more accurate representation is portion of the total. Number of skills in a class is only a tiny portion of the 18 listed skills available. It's basically 4/18, 5/18, or 6/18 although some of those 18 are obviously less relevant than others. 22% vs 28% vs 33% on the surface; 33%, 42%, 50% is more reasonable after removing a lot of unpopular options.
The rogue class is worth 2 skills. That's the same as the half-elf race or warlock invocation, and less than the skilled feat. That's still not examining 5e's system in the bigger picture. 5e deliberately increased the value of the ability score modifiers to be similar to the bonuses for the ability checks so that the ability scores would be more relevant. For example, proficiency in 4 WIS skills is similar to +5 bonus for a 20 CHA. The bounded accuracy DC's are based on that premise.
DC 10 = no bonus
DC 15 = high ability score or proficiency, or a smaller combination of both
DC 20 = both a high ability score and proficiency
That's why those are the three most common DC's and the reason the DMG points to them being the only three needed to run the game.
What that means for the character is that having one or two more skill proficiencies isn't any better than having a primary ability score in a proficiency group that uses a lot of checks. What makes a rogue good for skills is not the two extra proficiencies the class gives. It's the low roll protection that reliable talent gives and using expertise with a proficiency in which the rogue does not have a good ability score modifier so that the DC 20 checks are reliable. Consistently hitting common DC's is the way to go in 5e.
Which leads to another point people commonly miss when it comes to checks: only roll if the outcome is in doubt. Combat and risk create the need to roll. Opposed check created the need for a roll. Outside of combat also leaves the rule from the DMG that additions rolls are allowed so it saves time by simply taking extra time and not rolling in that case either. The character will automatically succeed if it's possible for the character to make the check and has time to do so.
For example, anyone with a 16 DEX and proficiency with thieves' tools at first level can open any lock with a DC 25 or less without the need to roll if they have the time.
When 20 is the standard DC for hard and typically the upper limit that anyone can make in those checks with a 0 bonus to the roll. It's only those checks with inherent danger, during combat, or opposed checks that usually matter.
That's just 5e's design to be inclusive for all characters regardless of skill proficiencies in the check system. "Skill monkey" just isn't what it was. That way to make use of skills is to leverage class abilities, and the number of proficiencies is minor.
Seem to be over-stating what "skill monkey" classes get.
Not really. Rogue gain twice the amount of proficiences that other classes get and lore bard (probably the truest skillmonkey of them all) get three times as many. Add to that the fact that both bards and rogue tend to have abilities that overlap well with many skills and you can easily have a character that isn't really bad at any skill.
That said, the fact that the so-called skill monkey classes don't have proficiency in every single skill or that they don't have that many more proficiencies than other classes doesn't change anything I said. Yes, skillmonkeys are gonna skillmonk. Yes, they can still be good in combat. No, it's seldom a problem for the group as whole. :)
Higher level Lore Bards are nuts. I've got a Lore Bard with the Lucky feat, so between that, Jack of All Trades, and Peerless Skill letting me inspire myself, I can very nearly guarantee success on just about any skill check I want to make. I don't normally, since the group I'm in is fairly Roleplay heavy, so often whoever attempts a check is usually the person who happens to be the one who has a logical curiosity or confidence, rather than just saying, "this looks tough, let the Bard take care of it". But there have been a few clutch moments where I've had to spend all my skills to guarantee an important check went through.
Peerless skill allows for self-inspiration but it's on such a limited resource that it's usually not worth it over heavier competition like cutting words or bardic inspiration. Bards do get bonuses to everything and anything. That's my point about class features meaning more than number of proficiencies, however. Bards get bonuses to more checks than rogues, but rogues guarantee a the minimum roll that causes them to succeed more often than the bard's bonuses.
My main point, and relevant to the OP, is that the way 5e is designed leads to skill focus being marginalized. I play to those checks, personally. I do everything I can to apply the proficiencies I've chosen to gameplay. I can do that on a DEX fighter effectively enough in the 5e system the way it's designed, even if the fighter class isn't as skilled as the rogue, bard, or ranger classes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm starting a campaign with a new group of people and this will by my first time playing with most of them. We were sharing our expectations, wants, needs leading up to session zero when and we'll actually be creating characters and one person mentioned they like playing skill monkeys. The term is new to me as I've only been playing a few years, and after doing some research I gotta say, the concept makes me a little apprehensive for 2 big reasons:
1. Will it take away from other players' enjoyment if there is one person that is good at most skills? I know that a trade-off is they're supposedly pretty weak in combat, but I don't want my character to only be useful in combat because someone else can handle all the out of combat skill checks. It's a role-playing game and I think everyone should be able to experience every part of it.
2. Failure should be an option. I feel like skill monkeys lower the possibility of failing which removes tension and eliminates the need for creative problem-solving. A player that can pick all the locks and detect all the traps and persuade all the NPCs seems a little overpowered in my book.
I know this comes down to having an in depth conversation with the other players' and the DM to see how and if this would fit into this particular party and we still have to learn each other's play styles and habits, but I just wanted to put it out there because I haven't really seen any criticism of skill monkeys (but plenty of build suggestions) so I wanted see if I'm making a big deal out of nothing.
I often see complaints about player characters being too powerful in combat, why not out of combat? What's been your experience with a skill monkey as a DM or as another player? Am I being paranoid?
You don't have to worry about issue 1 for a few reasons. There are a number of skills that are fine (helpful even) for multiple characters to be good at. There are a number of skills that each person has to be good at for themself. It is hard for skill monkeys to be proficient in every skill. And skill monkeys are still limited by their abilities, so you will likely still have higher bonuses in skills that correspond to your primary ability.
As for your second concern, skill monkeys don't significantly decrease the overall challenge. What ever problems it seems they always solve, the party probably would have gotten through just as easily if they had split up the skills amongst themselves. Like I pointed out in paragraph 1, skill monkeys are easily out performed by characters more focused around single stats (just only in those narrower fields). The skill monkey will likely have several skills that are only second or third highest in the party.
It can come down a bit to DM play style whether everything can be solved by a roll or if the players will have to be creative before being allowed to roll.
So what you're saying is you're biased against Warlocks? After all we are good at everything, just not great at one thing (except looking cool in black (or in my case a really dark blue) and brooding that's kind of our thing!)
I thought this community was above this kind of thing! This blatant Warlockism has to stop and stop now!
I jest (hopefully obviously lol), but the thing about skill monkeys is it is hard for them to be great at something when they are focusing at being good at everything, each class tends to have one thing they are great at (Barbarian smash, etc etc) which brings the party balance. A skill monkey is good for the pure basis that they can step into any role as a support to backup where needed, but because of that multi focus they do not outshine anyone else.
From Within Chaos Comes Order!
Also if I can say, a skill monkey can be really helpful in smaller parties where a few skills might be really lacking and they can help pick up the slack in the missing areas
Marvarax and Sora (Dragonborn) The retired fighter and WIP scholar - Glory
Brythel(Dwarf), The dwarf with a gun - survival at sea
Jaylin(Human), Paladin of Lathander's Ancient ways - The Seven Saints (Azura Claw)
Urselles(Goblin), Cleric of Eldath- The Wizard's challenge
Viclas Tyrin(Half Elf), Student of the Elven arts- Indrafatmoko's Defiance in Phlan
Yeah I guess this all makes sense. Having never seen it before, the concept read as OP to me. I just wanted some clarity before I brought it up in group as to not cause any unnecessary issues
The funny thing is I'm considering playing a warlock for the first time for this 🙄
Personally, this is why I am fond of the Help action for out of combat scenarios. Here's how we made it work at my table;
RAW stipulates that you don't need to roll to Help on your turn, but because I allow my players to use it out of combat, I wanted it to be less easy to abuse. So far it's worked very well for us, as we have several Wisdom-based characters in the party that all have similar skill sets - this way they can aid each-other on those checks rather than compete to make them or feel left out.
Remember also that Skill Monkeys are not specialized and don't get the benefits of more specialized skill sets, such as having a higher modifier and therefore a greater chance at success. It is true someone who is proficient can't "fail", but that doesn't mean they always get to succeed without a consequence.
To me "skill monkey" just means "I'm playing a bard or rogue that - just due to the way the class is built - gets a crap-ton of skill proficiencies and some expertise."
They're just part of the game.
In my experience having a skill monkey in a party is awesome! It’s very nice having someone who, while less useful in combat, is incredible out of combat.
Professional computer geek
Skills in 5e D&D are very broad and everybody gets a good mix of them. It's not like you're going to be building an RPG character whose sole purpose in life is Triple Grand Mastery in Craft (Scrimshaw) and Merchantile (Scrimshaw) or anything like that.
There are already rules for ability checks that include being out of battle: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/using-ability-scores#WorkingTogether
Does that mean an artificer is a tool monkey instead of a skill monkey? ;)
5e's system for skills tends to make "skill monkey" a minor point. I wouldn't sweat it, but if you do want to make the most of it, reliable talent with a lot of proficiencies is the way to go. The low roll protection is more useful than the bonuses to get higher potential totals. That opens up things like a rogue auto-hitting 20 DC's for asking favors at higher levels by taking expertise in persuasion, which is one of my favorite applications.
I wouldn't worry about it. The usual skill monkeys are classes that get a butt-load of skill proficiencies (bard, rogue). They can still be pretty vicious in combat but not as much as it will be a problem. Besides, there's usually someone that will be better at some of the things they do, letting everyone shine every once in a while.
As for the failure part, I like the playstyle of "failing forwards". Sure, it's great fun when everything goes as planned and the dice are with you. But that just makes it even more fun when you are the skill monkey actually fail. "I got this!" *rolls* "No I don't!" B)
Seem to be over-stating what "skill monkey" classes get.
The baseline is 4 skill proficiencies. 2 come from the class and 2 come from the background. Bards and rangers get 3 instead of 2 proficiencies from the class. Rogues get 4 proficiencies instead of 2 from the class. That gives us:
Artificers are noteworthy because they gain a lot of tool proficiencies instead of skill proficiencies.
The vast majority of skills and checks (those without proficiency at all) are left behind by every class. Wanting to increase the number of skills is possible through races, feats, and subclasses. I could play a half-elf knowledge cleric with prodigy and skilled feats, for example. That gives a lot of proficiencies. The 1 extras skill proficiency on a bard or ranger, or 2 on a rogue, from the class tends to be a small amount relative to what's available. Those classes tend to have that couple more if they also focus on skills but the class itself for the number of skills is not that much more.
Other abilities make the difference.
Warlock can be a pain in the ass for the first couple of levels until you accept what they can't do. Most people tend to complain because of the lack of spells or Warlocks can't do this or that so they don't play them. Don't let it put you off, personally I find it more fun to work out what I can do with the limitations on the class, you tend to get more creative with the random bits of shit you have lying in your bag lol. Enjoy it
From Within Chaos Comes Order!
Not really. Rogue gain twice the amount of proficiences that other classes get and lore bard (probably the truest skillmonkey of them all) get three times as many. Add to that the fact that both bards and rogue tend to have abilities that overlap well with many skills and you can easily have a character that isn't really bad at any skill.
That said, the fact that the so-called skill monkey classes don't have proficiency in every single skill or that they don't have that many more proficiencies than other classes doesn't change anything I said. Yes, skillmonkeys are gonna skillmonk. Yes, they can still be good in combat. No, it's seldom a problem for the group as whole. :)
Embrace the monkey! I have a lore bard (2 levels of warlock too) that is a half elf with the 2 extra profs and he is skill monkey heaven. When I play him, our party gets in so many more interesting situations than a normal hack and slash party. There are checks and balances for the game so don't worry too much about it. If you are going to shine on skills then you are giving up something else to do so that another party member will have to do. I've had more DM complaints about an optimized barbarian that just tears through combat than any skill related issues with my bard.
Higher level Lore Bards are nuts. I've got a Lore Bard with the Lucky feat, so between that, Jack of All Trades, and Peerless Skill letting me inspire myself, I can very nearly guarantee success on just about any skill check I want to make. I don't normally, since the group I'm in is fairly Roleplay heavy, so often whoever attempts a check is usually the person who happens to be the one who has a logical curiosity or confidence, rather than just saying, "this looks tough, let the Bard take care of it". But there have been a few clutch moments where I've had to spend all my skills to guarantee an important check went through.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Two times a small number is still a small number. That's like saying 20 km/h is fast because it's twice the speed limit posted in a trailer park. Or needing an 19 on a d20 is twice as good as needing a 20 when the difference is a 5% successes rate. It's also not an accurate representation because it's ignoring the background skills all characters have, which means the baseline for a rogue character is 50% more than the baseline for most characters. This calling it twice as much is statistical gymnastics trying to make it look better. ;)
Like the d20 example above, the way to make a more accurate representation is portion of the total. Number of skills in a class is only a tiny portion of the 18 listed skills available. It's basically 4/18, 5/18, or 6/18 although some of those 18 are obviously less relevant than others. 22% vs 28% vs 33% on the surface; 33%, 42%, 50% is more reasonable after removing a lot of unpopular options.
The rogue class is worth 2 skills. That's the same as the half-elf race or warlock invocation, and less than the skilled feat. That's still not examining 5e's system in the bigger picture. 5e deliberately increased the value of the ability score modifiers to be similar to the bonuses for the ability checks so that the ability scores would be more relevant. For example, proficiency in 4 WIS skills is similar to +5 bonus for a 20 CHA. The bounded accuracy DC's are based on that premise.
That's why those are the three most common DC's and the reason the DMG points to them being the only three needed to run the game.
What that means for the character is that having one or two more skill proficiencies isn't any better than having a primary ability score in a proficiency group that uses a lot of checks. What makes a rogue good for skills is not the two extra proficiencies the class gives. It's the low roll protection that reliable talent gives and using expertise with a proficiency in which the rogue does not have a good ability score modifier so that the DC 20 checks are reliable. Consistently hitting common DC's is the way to go in 5e.
Which leads to another point people commonly miss when it comes to checks: only roll if the outcome is in doubt. Combat and risk create the need to roll. Opposed check created the need for a roll. Outside of combat also leaves the rule from the DMG that additions rolls are allowed so it saves time by simply taking extra time and not rolling in that case either. The character will automatically succeed if it's possible for the character to make the check and has time to do so.
For example, anyone with a 16 DEX and proficiency with thieves' tools at first level can open any lock with a DC 25 or less without the need to roll if they have the time.
When 20 is the standard DC for hard and typically the upper limit that anyone can make in those checks with a 0 bonus to the roll. It's only those checks with inherent danger, during combat, or opposed checks that usually matter.
That's just 5e's design to be inclusive for all characters regardless of skill proficiencies in the check system. "Skill monkey" just isn't what it was. That way to make use of skills is to leverage class abilities, and the number of proficiencies is minor.
Peerless skill allows for self-inspiration but it's on such a limited resource that it's usually not worth it over heavier competition like cutting words or bardic inspiration. Bards do get bonuses to everything and anything. That's my point about class features meaning more than number of proficiencies, however. Bards get bonuses to more checks than rogues, but rogues guarantee a the minimum roll that causes them to succeed more often than the bard's bonuses.
My main point, and relevant to the OP, is that the way 5e is designed leads to skill focus being marginalized. I play to those checks, personally. I do everything I can to apply the proficiencies I've chosen to gameplay. I can do that on a DEX fighter effectively enough in the 5e system the way it's designed, even if the fighter class isn't as skilled as the rogue, bard, or ranger classes.