The last few years I have been making it a point to pick my character class and race last. I wait until every other player in the group has chosen theirs, going as far as to ask players specifics about what they plan to do with their character, before finally making my decision based on what other players have chosen. Seems a bit peculiar you might think, surely I should make my selections as fast as possible in order to stake out the class and race I want to play? There is a reason for it though, and that reason is to avoid ability score and skill redundancy which I think hurts the group and lessens the chances of a successful campaign. Before I get into what I mean by "Redundancy" lets first look at how we can define characters based on their ability scores and skills, what job that character serves in the group, and how you should be roleplaying that character to help your group the most.
Strength Characters: The top ability score of this character is strength. This character is going to have the best athletics skill check, that is the primary thing he/she brings to the table. Although it may seem a bit limited, athletics covers a surprisingly broad range of scenarios and it is very helpful having a player performing this role well. Whenever a boulder needs to be rolled aside, a stuck door needs to be kicked, or a swift river needs to be rowed across, this player steps up to the plate and gets it done. Usually this kind of character is a barbarian, paladin, or strength based fighter.
Dexterity Characters: This character is going to have the best stealth check, and will be acting as the scout and spy of the party, which is very helpful when done well and he/she is able to initiate combat on the party's terms or avoid it altogether, while collecting information about the area and potential enemies too. This character also snaps into action when the situation calls for a bit of finesse, such as helping people across a narrow ledge with acrobatics or nabbing the guard's keys with sleight of hand. Speaking of sleight of hand it is also helpful to do some thieving on the party's behalf when it isn't too risky. Usually this kind of character is a rogue, ranger, or dex based fighter.
Wisdom Characters: Perhaps the most important thing this character does for the party is they have the best passive perception and the best perception roll. Naturally they make great watchmen and keep the party safe from surprise, while also noticing traps and secret doors, which they are always on the lookout for. Also they should be scrutinizing every NPC for the party, because they have the best insight roll. They are also the best trackers and outdoorsmen through sporting the best survival roll. Also skilled at situations involving animals or medicine. Played primarily by clerics and druids.
Intelligence Characters: Often overlooked, a well played intelligence character can be a huge help to the party. You want to try and squeeze as much lore about the world you are playing in as you can from your DM through checks on religion, history, and nature while sharing that knowledge with the group and using it to further your goals. Also, if there is something mysterious or magical going on, the intelligence character has the best chance of getting to the bottom of it with strong investigation and arcana checks. Traditionally played by the wizard, we also now have artificer which is exciting.
Charisma Characters: Commonly known as the party's "face" this character is the primary negotiator who attempts to persuade, intimidate, or deceive NPCs in order to further the goals of the party. Usually played by bards, sorcerers, or warlocks.
So those are the 5 major character roles from an ability score and skill perspective. Back to the point of this thread, what is redundancy and why should we avoid it? Redundancy is when you have more than one player playing a character of the same role, assuming the party doesn't have all roles covered already. It is undesirable because it narrows the party's skillset as a whole and makes it less versatile as a result. Assuming your party has 5 or less players, (which most parties are) there is always room for everyone to play a unique role, and with 6+ players there is no excuse not to have at least one player playing each role.
As you can probably guess by now, I pick my character last so I can pick an ability score and skill group that we don't have covered already. For instance, in a 4 person party lets say there is a Rogue, Wizard, and Barbarian. Here I would pick either a cleric to cover the wisdom skills or a bard to cover the charisma skills.
For every situation where “aw man, I wish we had someone with knowledge skills!” you also have one where you say “ah jeez, I wish we had two strong guys!” or “I wish more of us were good at stealth!”.
It isn’t a CRPG where the “right” character in the party always gets pushed forward to make a check, so don’t get too twisted trying to optimize the party, just build a character you’ll enjoy.
Going out of your way to avoid that kind of redundancy is crossing into min-max territory. Individuals that like that kind of play are welcome to it, but if they push their views on other players, it can just as easily ruin a campaign as having a redundancy.
The DM should have ways to advance the story, even if bad rolls make it harder (or more entertaining). I can't imagine playing with a DM that throws up his hands and declares, "You failed too many checks, you lose."
You've listed 5 skills that use Wisdom and Intelligence as their ability modifier. Most characters only get access to 4 skill proficiencies and they don't get access to every skill, so one character likely won't be the primary roller for all of those skills. For example, clerics do not naturally get perception, survival, or animal handling and will only get up to 2 of those from their background. It's entirely possible for a character who doesn't have Wisdom as a primary ability score to have a higher skill modifier in say Perception than the Wisdom-based Cleric if the other character has taken Perception as a proficiency but the cleric has not.
I would also like to point out. Dexterity characters will NOT always have the best stealth. Nor should they ALWAYS be the spy or scout.
invisible trumps sneaky.
and there are magic spells that can spy and scout from further away and more effectively, than a character sneaking somewhere, and then having to “perceive” what’s going on with wisdom as well.
wisdom chars. Don’t always have the best passive perception. You can have a lower wisdom, but be proficient in perception/expertise/ have the observant feat. And be more Perceptive passively than wisdom chars. (Also raven queen warlocks are pretty passively perceptive
For every situation where “aw man, I wish we had someone with knowledge skills!” you also have one where you say “ah jeez, I wish we had two strong guys!” or “I wish more of us were good at stealth!”.
It isn’t a CRPG where the “right” character in the party always gets pushed forward to make a check, so don’t get too twisted trying to optimize the party, just build a character you’ll enjoy.
I disagree that it is a 1:1 ratio, but I can see your point. I consider this my personal roleplaying guide, am I playing as the "Brawny knight" (strength) or maybe the "Bookish Scholar" (intelligence) or perhaps.... You get the idea. Immediately that gives me a strong basis for how I'm going to roleplay the character. Additionally I know I'm going to be dumping most of my ability score increases into the ability score in question, and by picking up proficiency in the skills governed by it, you can bring a character with a unique and helpful skillset to the party and roleplay as such. The idea is no to be pushed forward, but to rise and take charge when appropriate on your own volition. It gives a player their natural (and most helpful, to the party) moment in the spotlight. Add in a goofy accent and distinct personality and you have yourself a character.
This is how I do things, at least. I would never shove it on another player and if people do things differently I'm perfectly fine with that.
For every situation where “aw man, I wish we had someone with knowledge skills!” you also have one where you say “ah jeez, I wish we had two strong guys!” or “I wish more of us were good at stealth!”.
It isn’t a CRPG where the “right” character in the party always gets pushed forward to make a check, so don’t get too twisted trying to optimize the party, just build a character you’ll enjoy.
I disagree that it is a 1:1 ratio, but I can see your point. I consider this my personal roleplaying guide, am I playing as the "Brawny knight" (strength) or maybe the "Bookish Scholar" (intelligence) or perhaps.... You get the idea. Immediately that gives me a strong basis for how I'm going to roleplay the character. Additionally I know I'm going to be dumping most of my ability score increases into the ability score in question, and by picking up proficiency in the skills governed by it, you can bring a character with a unique and helpful skillset to the party and roleplay as such. The idea is no to be pushed forward, but to rise and take charge when appropriate on your own volition. It gives a player their natural (and most helpful, to the party) moment in the spotlight. Add in a goofy accent and distinct personality and you have yourself a character.
This is how I do things, at least. I would never shove it on another player and if people do things differently I'm perfectly fine with that.
what if another player you’re with has the personality where they try to do things even if they aren’t good at it....
and you are constantly pushing them aside from things they aren’t good at just because you are?
min your scenario everything is too black and white. And that’s just not how D&D operates.
the str guy doesn’t always get to do str stuff. INT guy doesn’t always get to do int stuff. Etc.
not every character is “optimized helpful to the party”
some people, don’t even do anything of THAT sort, as they feel it’s Meta’ing to build your char off what other chars are. Some people don’t feel it’s meta.
To go back to your original topic of avoiding ability overlap and skill redundancy.
why? To me personally, that’s a little too meta-y, also, I feel if everything was like that, the game itself would grow repetitive and stagnant to me, as it’s the same people doing the exact same things the same way every single time.
edit: and that doesn’t bode well for growing and developing my character. My character is no longer reacting to the world. He’s just slaving away in it.
For every situation where “aw man, I wish we had someone with knowledge skills!” you also have one where you say “ah jeez, I wish we had two strong guys!” or “I wish more of us were good at stealth!”.
It isn’t a CRPG where the “right” character in the party always gets pushed forward to make a check, so don’t get too twisted trying to optimize the party, just build a character you’ll enjoy.
I disagree that it is a 1:1 ratio, but I can see your point. I consider this my personal roleplaying guide, am I playing as the "Brawny knight" (strength) or maybe the "Bookish Scholar" (intelligence) or perhaps.... You get the idea. Immediately that gives me a strong basis for how I'm going to roleplay the character. Additionally I know I'm going to be dumping most of my ability score increases into the ability score in question, and by picking up proficiency in the skills governed by it, you can bring a character with a unique and helpful skillset to the party and roleplay as such. The idea is no to be pushed forward, but to rise and take charge when appropriate on your own volition. It gives a player their natural (and most helpful, to the party) moment in the spotlight. Add in a goofy accent and distinct personality and you have yourself a character.
This is how I do things, at least. I would never shove it on another player and if people do things differently I'm perfectly fine with that.
what if another player you’re with has the personality where they try to do things even if they aren’t good at it....
and you are constantly pushing them aside from things they aren’t good at just because you are?
min your scenario everything is too black and white. And that’s just not how D&D operates.
the str guy doesn’t always get to do str stuff. INT guy doesn’t always get to do int stuff. Etc.
not every character is “optimized helpful to the party”
some people, don’t even do anything of THAT sort, as they feel it’s Meta’ing to build your char off what other chars are. Some people don’t feel it’s meta.
To go back to your original topic of avoiding ability overlap and skill redundancy.
why? To me personally, that’s a little too meta-y, also, I feel if everything was like that, the game itself would grow repetitive and stagnant to me, as it’s the same people doing the exact same things the same way every single time.
edit: and that doesn’t bode well for growing and developing my character. My character is no longer reacting to the world. He’s just slaving away in it.
No no no my friend not at all! I would hardly "push them aside" quite the contrary their help is most appreciated. There are actual rules for this in the PHB on pg. 175 under "Working Together" stating that when more than 1 players are working together the one leading the effort, or having the highest modifier, (me in this case) makes the check with ADVANTAGE. So not only do we get to roleplay the check together but there is a tangible benefit. I would in turn gladly help them with their next check, or anyone else to give them advantage on their next check in turn. That is good inter-party roleplay.
You could argue that this is meta-y, and you may be surprised to know I AGREE. However, meta-y-ness is not a sin of the player, but rather a failing of the developers. Players want to optimize their character and party to maximize chances of success. It is in their nature. Is it meta-y to avoid playing a Teifling Cleric because you know stat wise Teiflings make particularly awful clerics? Yes, but no one would criticize you for it. The developers failed in providing a system that ensures every race is more or less viable for every class. We could argue here they failed to give us a game that skill redundancy is equally viable compared to skill diversity.
For every situation where “aw man, I wish we had someone with knowledge skills!” you also have one where you say “ah jeez, I wish we had two strong guys!” or “I wish more of us were good at stealth!”.
It isn’t a CRPG where the “right” character in the party always gets pushed forward to make a check, so don’t get too twisted trying to optimize the party, just build a character you’ll enjoy.
I disagree that it is a 1:1 ratio, but I can see your point. I consider this my personal roleplaying guide, am I playing as the "Brawny knight" (strength) or maybe the "Bookish Scholar" (intelligence) or perhaps.... You get the idea. Immediately that gives me a strong basis for how I'm going to roleplay the character. Additionally I know I'm going to be dumping most of my ability score increases into the ability score in question, and by picking up proficiency in the skills governed by it, you can bring a character with a unique and helpful skillset to the party and roleplay as such. The idea is no to be pushed forward, but to rise and take charge when appropriate on your own volition. It gives a player their natural (and most helpful, to the party) moment in the spotlight. Add in a goofy accent and distinct personality and you have yourself a character.
This is how I do things, at least. I would never shove it on another player and if people do things differently I'm perfectly fine with that.
what if another player you’re with has the personality where they try to do things even if they aren’t good at it....
and you are constantly pushing them aside from things they aren’t good at just because you are?
min your scenario everything is too black and white. And that’s just not how D&D operates.
the str guy doesn’t always get to do str stuff. INT guy doesn’t always get to do int stuff. Etc.
not every character is “optimized helpful to the party”
some people, don’t even do anything of THAT sort, as they feel it’s Meta’ing to build your char off what other chars are. Some people don’t feel it’s meta.
To go back to your original topic of avoiding ability overlap and skill redundancy.
why? To me personally, that’s a little too meta-y, also, I feel if everything was like that, the game itself would grow repetitive and stagnant to me, as it’s the same people doing the exact same things the same way every single time.
edit: and that doesn’t bode well for growing and developing my character. My character is no longer reacting to the world. He’s just slaving away in it.
No no no my friend not at all! I would hardly "push them aside" quite the contrary their help is most appreciated. There are actual rules for this in the PHB on pg. 175 under "Working Together" stating that when more than 1 players are working together the one leading the effort, or having the highest modifier, (me in this case) makes the check with ADVANTAGE. So not only do we get to roleplay the check together but there is a tangible benefit. I would in turn gladly help them with their next check, or anyone else to give them advantage on their next check in turn. That is good inter-party roleplay.
You could argue that this is meta-y, and you may be surprised to know I AGREE. However, meta-y-ness is not a sin of the player, but rather a failing of the developers. Players want to optimize their character and party to maximize chances of success. It is in their nature. Is it meta-y to avoid playing a Teifling Cleric because you know stat wise Teiflings make particularly awful clerics? Yes, but no one would criticize you for it. The developers failed in providing a system that ensures every race is more or less viable for every class. We could argue here they failed to give us a game that skill redundancy is equally viable compared to skill diversity.
Why do you ASSUME they “work together”?
Edit: every race IS “viable” for every class.
is every race “OPTIMAL” for every class? No. But that’s different than Viable.
edit2: to my working together point...trust and working together isn’t something I role play as doing right off the bat unless my char is the more naive trust everyone let’s all be friends kinda tropes.
trust and working together is something that I “grow and develop” into if it wasn’t an abject starting personality trait.
But, I’ll point out. I’m a weird guy. I roll for my Class and background rather than pick it, then roll for all my traits flaws etc, and let that determine my alignment and how I RP the person and what proficiencies I pick.
The only thing I’ll actually pick is a race. I just try to have fun with my chars, and don’t really care much for min/maxing or optimization.
theres never not atleast 1 power gamer at the tables ever. And it’s not like 5e battles are so hard where everyone needs to power game.
The last few years I have been making it a point to pick my character class and race last. I wait until every other player in the group has chosen theirs, going as far as to ask players specifics about what they plan to do with their character, before finally making my decision based on what other players have chosen. Seems a bit peculiar you might think, surely I should make my selections as fast as possible in order to stake out the class and race I want to play? There is a reason for it though, and that reason is to avoid ability score and skill redundancy which I think hurts the group and lessens the chances of a successful campaign. Before I get into what I mean by "Redundancy" lets first look at how we can define characters based on their ability scores and skills, what job that character serves in the group, and how you should be roleplaying that character to help your group the most.
Strength Characters: The top ability score of this character is strength. This character is going to have the best athletics skill check, that is the primary thing he/she brings to the table. Although it may seem a bit limited, athletics covers a surprisingly broad range of scenarios and it is very helpful having a player performing this role well. Whenever a boulder needs to be rolled aside, a stuck door needs to be kicked, or a swift river needs to be rowed across, this player steps up to the plate and gets it done. Usually this kind of character is a barbarian, paladin, or strength based fighter.
Dexterity Characters: This character is going to have the best stealth check, and will be acting as the scout and spy of the party, which is very helpful when done well and he/she is able to initiate combat on the party's terms or avoid it altogether, while collecting information about the area and potential enemies too. This character also snaps into action when the situation calls for a bit of finesse, such as helping people across a narrow ledge with acrobatics or nabbing the guard's keys with sleight of hand. Speaking of sleight of hand it is also helpful to do some thieving on the party's behalf when it isn't too risky. Usually this kind of character is a rogue, ranger, or dex based fighter.
Wisdom Characters: Perhaps the most important thing this character does for the party is they have the best passive perception and the best perception roll. Naturally they make great watchmen and keep the party safe from surprise, while also noticing traps and secret doors, which they are always on the lookout for. Also they should be scrutinizing every NPC for the party, because they have the best insight roll. They are also the best trackers and outdoorsmen through sporting the best survival roll. Also skilled at situations involving animals or medicine. Played primarily by clerics and druids.
Intelligence Characters: Often overlooked, a well played intelligence character can be a huge help to the party. You want to try and squeeze as much lore about the world you are playing in as you can from your DM through checks on religion, history, and nature while sharing that knowledge with the group and using it to further your goals. Also, if there is something mysterious or magical going on, the intelligence character has the best chance of getting to the bottom of it with strong investigation and arcana checks. Traditionally played by the wizard, we also now have artificer which is exciting.
Charisma Characters: Commonly known as the party's "face" this character is the primary negotiator who attempts to persuade, intimidate, or deceive NPCs in order to further the goals of the party. Usually played by bards, sorcerers, or warlocks.
So those are the 5 major character roles from an ability score and skill perspective. Back to the point of this thread, what is redundancy and why should we avoid it? Redundancy is when you have more than one player playing a character of the same role, assuming the party doesn't have all roles covered already. It is undesirable because it narrows the party's skillset as a whole and makes it less versatile as a result. Assuming your party has 5 or less players, (which most parties are) there is always room for everyone to play a unique role, and with 6+ players there is no excuse not to have at least one player playing each role.
As you can probably guess by now, I pick my character last so I can pick an ability score and skill group that we don't have covered already. For instance, in a 4 person party lets say there is a Rogue, Wizard, and Barbarian. Here I would pick either a cleric to cover the wisdom skills or a bard to cover the charisma skills.
I'll make a suggestion that you may already be using. If this is how you're playing your games, maybe include in your backstory a reason why you were "the last person to join the party". It could be because the patron of the party realized a particular weakness and wished to hire someone to fill that weakness. Or some variation of that trope. It could even be an instance where you were the first person selected and the others were hand picked to help you, but that would be something I'd work out with the DM and the other players. Much easier to be the mercenary after thought from a unilateral standpoint.
I don’t see the need to make my decisions for “party balance” or “game balance” it’s not up to the players to balance the world. That’s up to the dm.
been in groups with ALL casters. Been in groups with no healers.
always found a way to have fun. So IDK. I can’t relate to the core concept of this thread, and since it’s in tips and tactics. Does seem like you condone it. And, especially for newer players my advice would just be, play the char you want.
It's very unlikely for everyone in your party to be running around with 18-20 in one stat and 12 or lower in all other stats, with proficiency in every single skill based on their top stat, and without proficiency in any other skills. It's normal for characters to have 14+ in two or three skill stats, and normally to have proficiency in some skills in each of these two or three stats.
It is nice to make sure that your party does have each of the 5 categories covered, but it's important to recognize that most characters will be covering 2-3 of these categories.
For example, Ranger and Monk are almost guaranteed to have 14+ in both Dexterity and Wisdom, and to be taking skill proficiencies in both of these areas. Bards and Rogues get expertise, which allows them to be exceptionally good at 2 or 4 skills, and they're not required to take expertise in a charisma skill or a dexterity skill. When you add in some people doing creative multi-classing, you can also find one character covering a range of skills. I'm kind of bothered that you said that the "best trackers and outdoorsmen" is primarily played by Clerics and Druids, but didn't include Rangers. Skilled at situations involving animals, and you didn't include Ranger???
I have a level 5 character that is Ranger - Gloomstalker 3, Rogue 2 multiclass and has 20 AC, +9 in Stealth and +8 in Perception. And from levels 2-4, he was the only one in the party with any healing spells (then the Warlock multi-classed into Bard and took Healing Word). So my character fills the role of tank, healer, thief, watchman, and scout, being quite good at both Dexterity and Wisdom based skills such as Stealth, Perception, Sleight of Hand, Insight, Animal Handling, and Survival (and his last skill is Nature because how can you do a Ranger without the Nature skill?).
As long as you're willing to acknowledge that one character will almost always fit into 2 of your 5 categories, and sometimes 3 of your 5 categories, it's fine. If you're telling the Ranger that you should do all of the Animal Handling and Survival stuff because he's not good at it, you might piss off that player. If a Rogue decides they want to focus on deception and they put their 2nd highest stat as charisma, and then you try to be the only party face and exclude the Rogue from using their charisma abilities, you might piss off that player.
As you can probably guess by now, I pick my character last so I can pick an ability score and skill group that we don't have covered already. For instance, in a 4 person party lets say there is a Rogue, Wizard, and Barbarian. Here I would pick either a cleric to cover the wisdom skills or a bard to cover the charisma skills.
In this case, why not find out if the Rogue is planning on going the charisma route, in which case you could do Ranger and do some Dex and Wisdom skills, and the Rogue does some Dex and Charisma skills. Or maybe the Rogue is planning on going the wisdom route and trying to be a great scout/survivalist, in which case you'd be better off choosing to be a charisma class than choosing Cleric. Maybe the Wizard wants to be both intelligent and wise. Maybe he wants to supplement Investigation with Insight and be an excellent all around detective. Maybe he's a High Elf and he automatically gets proficiency in perception. Or maybe he's a Half Elf enchantment Wizard, and he's got charisma as his 2nd highest stat and he'll do just fine as the party face. As for the Barbarian, he's probably putting Dex and Con as his 2nd and 3rd highest stats because they both give him AC, so he's not too likely to be focusing on the wisdom or charisma stats and skills.
It is nice to make sure that your party does have each of the 5 categories covered, but it's important to recognize that most characters will be covering 2-3 of these categories.
I agree with you on this point in particular, Gabriel. There could be a number of reasons why a player decides to "Split" their skill proficiencies. That is to say choose proficiencies outside of those governed by the character's primary ability score, and cover others skills. I want to get into some tips and tactics about when someone might do that, and how to go about it if you do.
First of all, if planning to go for a split skill build, I highly recommend setting your 2nd highest initial ability score (upon character creation) to govern these skills. Or least 3rd, if you choose to set constitution to the second highest. You want SOME help with the rolls from your ability score modifier. It is also helpful to have a racial bonus that further supplements the ability score. NEVER pick up proficiencies governed by your dump stats. Total waste.
Now, why might someone want to go for a split skill build?
Skill Overflow: The most obvious reason is an excess of proficiencies that need to go somewhere, after every skill in the primary group is taken. Taking a look at the strength character, we see that athletics is the only skill that character is truly interested in. However, you still have 3 other skill proficencies to distribute, and therefore will want to set up a split skill build to cover another skill group. You could pick up some intelligence skills, dex skills, charisma skills, whatever you feel like really. Just remember to set your second highest ability score to govern them. Skill overflow is also common when choosing certain races, such as half elf, or classes such as bard who receive a lot of extra skills. You could also plan to choose the "skilled" feat with the specific intention of pursuing a build like this.
Lack of coverage: If there is no one in the party covering a specific skill group, you may decide to split your skills in order to get at least a little coverage in those areas. Focus on the most important skills there and drop the least important ones from your main group.
Roleplay and playstyle considerations: You may come to the conclusion that although you could pick up more skills in your main group, you deem it more important to split for a splash in another group, because you know that those skills will come up more often and be more useful overall, (even with a lower modifier) based on the way you approach the game.
It is nice to make sure that your party does have each of the 5 categories covered, but it's important to recognize that most characters will be covering 2-3 of these categories.
I agree with you on this point in particular, Gabriel. There could be a number of reasons why a player decides to "Split" their skill proficiencies. That is to say choose proficiencies outside of those governed by the character's primary ability score, and cover others skills. I want to get into some tips and tactics about when someone might do that, and how to go about it if you do.
First of all, if planning to go for a split skill build, I highly recommend setting your 2nd highest initial ability score (upon character creation) to govern these skills. Or least 3rd, if you choose to set constitution to the second highest. You want SOME help with the rolls from your ability score modifier. It is also helpful to have a racial bonus that further supplements the ability score. NEVER pick up proficiencies governed by your dump stats. Total waste.
Now, why might someone want to go for a split skill build?
Skill Overflow: The most obvious reason is an excess of proficiencies that need to go somewhere, after every skill in the primary group is taken. Taking a look at the strength character, we see that athletics is the only skill that character is truly interested in. However, you still have 3 other skill proficencies to distribute, and therefore will want to set up a split skill build to cover another skill group. You could pick up some intelligence skills, dex skills, charisma skills, whatever you feel like really. Just remember to set your second highest ability score to govern them. Skill overflow is also common when choosing certain races, such as half elf, or classes such as bard who receive a lot of extra skills. You could also plan to choose the "skilled" feat with the specific intention of pursuing a build like this.
Lack of coverage: If there is no one in the party covering a specific skill group, you may decide to split your skills in order to get at least a little coverage in those areas. Focus on the most important skills there and drop the least important ones from your main group.
Roleplay and playstyle considerations: You may come to the conclusion that although you could pick up more skills in your main group, you deem it more important to split for a splash in another group, because you know that those skills will come up more often and be more useful overall, (even with a lower modifier) based on the way you approach the game.
Never pick up proficiencies in your dump stat.
what if your char is “the worlds greatest detective” self proclaimed. And he thinks he’s an incredible detective. Inquisitor rogue. Expertise in investigation. 6 int.
so... NEVER do that? Never build characters for more than optimization or for min max?
Now, why might someone want to go for a split skill build?
The reason someone might want to do what you call a "split skill" build is that is the normal way to play D&D. There's no need to come up with a name for the way that 90%+ of people play. Focusing one one ability score and just skills from that one ability score is the uncommon way to play D&D.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The last few years I have been making it a point to pick my character class and race last. I wait until every other player in the group has chosen theirs, going as far as to ask players specifics about what they plan to do with their character, before finally making my decision based on what other players have chosen. Seems a bit peculiar you might think, surely I should make my selections as fast as possible in order to stake out the class and race I want to play? There is a reason for it though, and that reason is to avoid ability score and skill redundancy which I think hurts the group and lessens the chances of a successful campaign. Before I get into what I mean by "Redundancy" lets first look at how we can define characters based on their ability scores and skills, what job that character serves in the group, and how you should be roleplaying that character to help your group the most.
Strength Characters: The top ability score of this character is strength. This character is going to have the best athletics skill check, that is the primary thing he/she brings to the table. Although it may seem a bit limited, athletics covers a surprisingly broad range of scenarios and it is very helpful having a player performing this role well. Whenever a boulder needs to be rolled aside, a stuck door needs to be kicked, or a swift river needs to be rowed across, this player steps up to the plate and gets it done. Usually this kind of character is a barbarian, paladin, or strength based fighter.
Dexterity Characters: This character is going to have the best stealth check, and will be acting as the scout and spy of the party, which is very helpful when done well and he/she is able to initiate combat on the party's terms or avoid it altogether, while collecting information about the area and potential enemies too. This character also snaps into action when the situation calls for a bit of finesse, such as helping people across a narrow ledge with acrobatics or nabbing the guard's keys with sleight of hand. Speaking of sleight of hand it is also helpful to do some thieving on the party's behalf when it isn't too risky. Usually this kind of character is a rogue, ranger, or dex based fighter.
Wisdom Characters: Perhaps the most important thing this character does for the party is they have the best passive perception and the best perception roll. Naturally they make great watchmen and keep the party safe from surprise, while also noticing traps and secret doors, which they are always on the lookout for. Also they should be scrutinizing every NPC for the party, because they have the best insight roll. They are also the best trackers and outdoorsmen through sporting the best survival roll. Also skilled at situations involving animals or medicine. Played primarily by clerics and druids.
Intelligence Characters: Often overlooked, a well played intelligence character can be a huge help to the party. You want to try and squeeze as much lore about the world you are playing in as you can from your DM through checks on religion, history, and nature while sharing that knowledge with the group and using it to further your goals. Also, if there is something mysterious or magical going on, the intelligence character has the best chance of getting to the bottom of it with strong investigation and arcana checks. Traditionally played by the wizard, we also now have artificer which is exciting.
Charisma Characters: Commonly known as the party's "face" this character is the primary negotiator who attempts to persuade, intimidate, or deceive NPCs in order to further the goals of the party. Usually played by bards, sorcerers, or warlocks.
So those are the 5 major character roles from an ability score and skill perspective. Back to the point of this thread, what is redundancy and why should we avoid it? Redundancy is when you have more than one player playing a character of the same role, assuming the party doesn't have all roles covered already. It is undesirable because it narrows the party's skillset as a whole and makes it less versatile as a result. Assuming your party has 5 or less players, (which most parties are) there is always room for everyone to play a unique role, and with 6+ players there is no excuse not to have at least one player playing each role.
As you can probably guess by now, I pick my character last so I can pick an ability score and skill group that we don't have covered already. For instance, in a 4 person party lets say there is a Rogue, Wizard, and Barbarian. Here I would pick either a cleric to cover the wisdom skills or a bard to cover the charisma skills.
For every situation where “aw man, I wish we had someone with knowledge skills!” you also have one where you say “ah jeez, I wish we had two strong guys!” or “I wish more of us were good at stealth!”.
It isn’t a CRPG where the “right” character in the party always gets pushed forward to make a check, so don’t get too twisted trying to optimize the party, just build a character you’ll enjoy.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Seems like having two characters with the same skill can often be a good thing if only for assisting. That advantage die goes a long way.
“bard”
now everything’s covered.
if every party has 1 bard you automatically have atleast 1 person that can do anything. So usually 2 of a lot of things.
Blank
Going out of your way to avoid that kind of redundancy is crossing into min-max territory. Individuals that like that kind of play are welcome to it, but if they push their views on other players, it can just as easily ruin a campaign as having a redundancy.
The DM should have ways to advance the story, even if bad rolls make it harder (or more entertaining). I can't imagine playing with a DM that throws up his hands and declares, "You failed too many checks, you lose."
You've listed 5 skills that use Wisdom and Intelligence as their ability modifier. Most characters only get access to 4 skill proficiencies and they don't get access to every skill, so one character likely won't be the primary roller for all of those skills. For example, clerics do not naturally get perception, survival, or animal handling and will only get up to 2 of those from their background. It's entirely possible for a character who doesn't have Wisdom as a primary ability score to have a higher skill modifier in say Perception than the Wisdom-based Cleric if the other character has taken Perception as a proficiency but the cleric has not.
Adrik Torunn: Hill Dwarf Life Cleric of Moradin
Ando Fain: Half-elf Oath of Ancients Paladin of Miliekki, Dragon of Icespire Peak campaign
DM for home campaign
I would also like to point out. Dexterity characters will NOT always have the best stealth. Nor should they ALWAYS be the spy or scout.
invisible trumps sneaky.
and there are magic spells that can spy and scout from further away and more effectively, than a character sneaking somewhere, and then having to “perceive” what’s going on with wisdom as well.
wisdom chars. Don’t always have the best passive perception. You can have a lower wisdom, but be proficient in perception/expertise/ have the observant feat. And be more Perceptive passively than wisdom chars. (Also raven queen warlocks are pretty passively perceptive
Blank
I disagree that it is a 1:1 ratio, but I can see your point. I consider this my personal roleplaying guide, am I playing as the "Brawny knight" (strength) or maybe the "Bookish Scholar" (intelligence) or perhaps.... You get the idea. Immediately that gives me a strong basis for how I'm going to roleplay the character. Additionally I know I'm going to be dumping most of my ability score increases into the ability score in question, and by picking up proficiency in the skills governed by it, you can bring a character with a unique and helpful skillset to the party and roleplay as such. The idea is no to be pushed forward, but to rise and take charge when appropriate on your own volition. It gives a player their natural (and most helpful, to the party) moment in the spotlight. Add in a goofy accent and distinct personality and you have yourself a character.
This is how I do things, at least. I would never shove it on another player and if people do things differently I'm perfectly fine with that.
what if another player you’re with has the personality where they try to do things even if they aren’t good at it....
and you are constantly pushing them aside from things they aren’t good at just because you are?
min your scenario everything is too black and white. And that’s just not how D&D operates.
the str guy doesn’t always get to do str stuff. INT guy doesn’t always get to do int stuff. Etc.
not every character is “optimized helpful to the party”
some people, don’t even do anything of THAT sort, as they feel it’s Meta’ing to build your char off what other chars are. Some people don’t feel it’s meta.
To go back to your original topic of avoiding ability overlap and skill redundancy.
why? To me personally, that’s a little too meta-y, also, I feel if everything was like that, the game itself would grow repetitive and stagnant to me, as it’s the same people doing the exact same things the same way every single time.
edit: and that doesn’t bode well for growing and developing my character. My character is no longer reacting to the world. He’s just slaving away in it.
Blank
No no no my friend not at all! I would hardly "push them aside" quite the contrary their help is most appreciated. There are actual rules for this in the PHB on pg. 175 under "Working Together" stating that when more than 1 players are working together the one leading the effort, or having the highest modifier, (me in this case) makes the check with ADVANTAGE. So not only do we get to roleplay the check together but there is a tangible benefit. I would in turn gladly help them with their next check, or anyone else to give them advantage on their next check in turn. That is good inter-party roleplay.
You could argue that this is meta-y, and you may be surprised to know I AGREE. However, meta-y-ness is not a sin of the player, but rather a failing of the developers. Players want to optimize their character and party to maximize chances of success. It is in their nature. Is it meta-y to avoid playing a Teifling Cleric because you know stat wise Teiflings make particularly awful clerics? Yes, but no one would criticize you for it. The developers failed in providing a system that ensures every race is more or less viable for every class. We could argue here they failed to give us a game that skill redundancy is equally viable compared to skill diversity.
Why do you ASSUME they “work together”?
Edit: every race IS “viable” for every class.
is every race “OPTIMAL” for every class? No. But that’s different than Viable.
edit2: to my working together point...trust and working together isn’t something I role play as doing right off the bat unless my char is the more naive trust everyone let’s all be friends kinda tropes.
trust and working together is something that I “grow and develop” into if it wasn’t an abject starting personality trait.
Blank
But, I’ll point out. I’m a weird guy. I roll for my Class and background rather than pick it, then roll for all my traits flaws etc, and let that determine my alignment and how I RP the person and what proficiencies I pick.
The only thing I’ll actually pick is a race. I just try to have fun with my chars, and don’t really care much for min/maxing or optimization.
theres never not atleast 1 power gamer at the tables ever. And it’s not like 5e battles are so hard where everyone needs to power game.
Blank
I'll make a suggestion that you may already be using. If this is how you're playing your games, maybe include in your backstory a reason why you were "the last person to join the party". It could be because the patron of the party realized a particular weakness and wished to hire someone to fill that weakness. Or some variation of that trope. It could even be an instance where you were the first person selected and the others were hand picked to help you, but that would be something I'd work out with the DM and the other players. Much easier to be the mercenary after thought from a unilateral standpoint.
I guess overall:
I don’t see the need to make my decisions for “party balance” or “game balance” it’s not up to the players to balance the world. That’s up to the dm.
been in groups with ALL casters. Been in groups with no healers.
always found a way to have fun. So IDK. I can’t relate to the core concept of this thread, and since it’s in tips and tactics. Does seem like you condone it. And, especially for newer players my advice would just be, play the char you want.
unless your DM sucks, it will turn out fine.
Blank
It's very unlikely for everyone in your party to be running around with 18-20 in one stat and 12 or lower in all other stats, with proficiency in every single skill based on their top stat, and without proficiency in any other skills. It's normal for characters to have 14+ in two or three skill stats, and normally to have proficiency in some skills in each of these two or three stats.
It is nice to make sure that your party does have each of the 5 categories covered, but it's important to recognize that most characters will be covering 2-3 of these categories.
For example, Ranger and Monk are almost guaranteed to have 14+ in both Dexterity and Wisdom, and to be taking skill proficiencies in both of these areas. Bards and Rogues get expertise, which allows them to be exceptionally good at 2 or 4 skills, and they're not required to take expertise in a charisma skill or a dexterity skill. When you add in some people doing creative multi-classing, you can also find one character covering a range of skills. I'm kind of bothered that you said that the "best trackers and outdoorsmen" is primarily played by Clerics and Druids, but didn't include Rangers. Skilled at situations involving animals, and you didn't include Ranger???
I have a level 5 character that is Ranger - Gloomstalker 3, Rogue 2 multiclass and has 20 AC, +9 in Stealth and +8 in Perception. And from levels 2-4, he was the only one in the party with any healing spells (then the Warlock multi-classed into Bard and took Healing Word). So my character fills the role of tank, healer, thief, watchman, and scout, being quite good at both Dexterity and Wisdom based skills such as Stealth, Perception, Sleight of Hand, Insight, Animal Handling, and Survival (and his last skill is Nature because how can you do a Ranger without the Nature skill?).
As long as you're willing to acknowledge that one character will almost always fit into 2 of your 5 categories, and sometimes 3 of your 5 categories, it's fine. If you're telling the Ranger that you should do all of the Animal Handling and Survival stuff because he's not good at it, you might piss off that player. If a Rogue decides they want to focus on deception and they put their 2nd highest stat as charisma, and then you try to be the only party face and exclude the Rogue from using their charisma abilities, you might piss off that player.
In this case, why not find out if the Rogue is planning on going the charisma route, in which case you could do Ranger and do some Dex and Wisdom skills, and the Rogue does some Dex and Charisma skills. Or maybe the Rogue is planning on going the wisdom route and trying to be a great scout/survivalist, in which case you'd be better off choosing to be a charisma class than choosing Cleric. Maybe the Wizard wants to be both intelligent and wise. Maybe he wants to supplement Investigation with Insight and be an excellent all around detective. Maybe he's a High Elf and he automatically gets proficiency in perception. Or maybe he's a Half Elf enchantment Wizard, and he's got charisma as his 2nd highest stat and he'll do just fine as the party face. As for the Barbarian, he's probably putting Dex and Con as his 2nd and 3rd highest stats because they both give him AC, so he's not too likely to be focusing on the wisdom or charisma stats and skills.
I agree with you on this point in particular, Gabriel. There could be a number of reasons why a player decides to "Split" their skill proficiencies. That is to say choose proficiencies outside of those governed by the character's primary ability score, and cover others skills. I want to get into some tips and tactics about when someone might do that, and how to go about it if you do.
First of all, if planning to go for a split skill build, I highly recommend setting your 2nd highest initial ability score (upon character creation) to govern these skills. Or least 3rd, if you choose to set constitution to the second highest. You want SOME help with the rolls from your ability score modifier. It is also helpful to have a racial bonus that further supplements the ability score. NEVER pick up proficiencies governed by your dump stats. Total waste.
Now, why might someone want to go for a split skill build?
Skill Overflow: The most obvious reason is an excess of proficiencies that need to go somewhere, after every skill in the primary group is taken. Taking a look at the strength character, we see that athletics is the only skill that character is truly interested in. However, you still have 3 other skill proficencies to distribute, and therefore will want to set up a split skill build to cover another skill group. You could pick up some intelligence skills, dex skills, charisma skills, whatever you feel like really. Just remember to set your second highest ability score to govern them. Skill overflow is also common when choosing certain races, such as half elf, or classes such as bard who receive a lot of extra skills. You could also plan to choose the "skilled" feat with the specific intention of pursuing a build like this.
Lack of coverage: If there is no one in the party covering a specific skill group, you may decide to split your skills in order to get at least a little coverage in those areas. Focus on the most important skills there and drop the least important ones from your main group.
Roleplay and playstyle considerations: You may come to the conclusion that although you could pick up more skills in your main group, you deem it more important to split for a splash in another group, because you know that those skills will come up more often and be more useful overall, (even with a lower modifier) based on the way you approach the game.
Never pick up proficiencies in your dump stat.
what if your char is “the worlds greatest detective” self proclaimed. And he thinks he’s an incredible detective. Inquisitor rogue. Expertise in investigation. 6 int.
so... NEVER do that? Never build characters for more than optimization or for min max?
i can’t ever agree to that message,.
Blank
The reason someone might want to do what you call a "split skill" build is that is the normal way to play D&D. There's no need to come up with a name for the way that 90%+ of people play. Focusing one one ability score and just skills from that one ability score is the uncommon way to play D&D.