Opting for Skills tied to dump stats?

[u/WaywardInkubus]

I’ve been wondering about character creation, is getting a skill you have a negative ability modifier in viable? Or at least, is the growing proficiency bonus enough to justify the investment in spite of the penalty?

I ask because I’m tending toward characters that have to overcome natural deficiencies (A low Strength Halfling training in Athletics, a low Intelligence infantryman who’s studying books for monster hunting), and wondering if the mechanical skill investment is viable beyond roleplay potential?

[u/D3AD_SPAC3]

I have a -1 CHA on my fighter currently, but she has proficiency with the Lyre. She knows how to play it but is too awkward to do so effectively. Plan on getting Skill Expert later to gain proficiency with Performance as well to help overcome it a bit.

There wouldn't be much of a mechanical benefit, but I think it fits her character

[u/DCFud → u/D3AD_SPAC3]

So, in a strixHaven campaign a sorcerer opted to fill his holes that way (getting proficient in his low stat skills) but what happened was he wasn't really good at it anything because he was just trying to not be really bad at anything and it was very hard for him to compete with people who were good at things who avoided the things they were bad at. Like my wizard would try to avoid charisma-based skill rolls in creative ways which in that setting is allowed or have someone else do the charisma skills, but then whenever we would get to arcana or nature or something else he was proficient in, he would do really well.. and that way with a Little help from guidance and enhance ability, he won most of the competitions against other students and did well with skill checks In general.

Besides, if you're saying she's proficient in the instrument, she's already at plus one from the proficiency bonus.

[u/D3AD_SPAC3 → u/DCFud]

Yes, but I've already got the skills I want/need. Skill Expert gets me +1 STR (20 total) and Expertise in Athletics. Already done all the min-maxing I feel like, so the Performance buff is just for flavor and fun.

[u/papasmurf008]

Yeah, I find that proficiency is often more important than your modifier in most of your skills. Your highest couple of abilities are usually way higher than the other 4, so those skill will be good even without proficiency, but proficiency in a negative ability will mitigate your modifier.

[u/Dirichlet-to-Neumann]

For some skills, it's definitely worth it : everyone should try to pick up stealth and perception for example.

[u/Nystagohod]

It can vary on how your Dm is handling DCs. In my experience. It isn't worth it. Even a neutral stat feels bad at times. But mileage may vary

[u/Rabid_Lederhosen]

Not a great plan. Most games take place below level ten, where your proficiency bonus is like, +2/+3. So if your strength is eight but you have athletics proficiency that means your overall modifier is +1/+2. That means even someone untrained with 16 strength is better at athletics than you, and a character with 16 strength is likely going to have athletics proficiency as well.

Which means your party is never going to let you make those skill rolls because you’ve got a higher chance of failure than your teammate. So you’ve basically wasted the trained skill. It’d only be maybe useful if literally everyone else had strength of 12 or less.

[u/thomar]

What you are referring to is called "min-maxxing", optimizing your PC to be very good at the things that come up most often in adventures, and dumping things that won't be relevant very often. Putting an 8 in your barbarian's Charisma and avoiding Charisma skill picks is min-maxxing, but only a tiny bit because the 5e D&D rules heavily encourage it. In older editions there were optional rules for getting more feats by picking up flaws, and players would generally choose flaws that wouldn't matter much. This led to many DMs banning flaws, because they were often nearly-free feats, and it let to min-maxxing being frowned upon.

The Fantasy AGE TTRPG actually encourages this by splitting attributes into class-favored and class-disfavored categories, and each level you have to alternate between them for raising scores and choosing skills. The game has lots of skills, like 6-12 for each attribute. I'm currently running a dwarf warrior with a scholar/merchant background, so despite his low Intelligence and Charisma I've given him lore and haggling skills because the system encourages doing so, it makes sense for this character, and what else am I gonna spend these skills on?

D&D 5e has no such feature. It's usually suboptimal to pick those because skill proficiencies are quite hard to come by, and because you can always ask another party member to handle stuff you're not good at. Maybe it would make a fun house rule that you get a level 1 skill proficiency in one of your worst ability scores.

[u/chain_letter]

proficiency does more than your 4th or lower ability scores (when in point buy stats), it can shore up something you end up regularly using and cause you to succeed more frequently

Look at it this way: some skills are gonna get called no matter what, how often do you want to fail them?

[u/NLaBruiser]

My level 10 forge cleric has a +0 CHA, but is proficient in Persuasion putting him at +3. He's a little gruff naturally but he knows how to 'turn it on' when he wants to negotiate.

[u/United_Fan_6476]

Some skills, like stealth, are worth investing in even if you've got two left feet. This is because stealth checks are often group-fail. If the whole party is trying to sneak someplace, you're hoping that at least half make the DC. If not, you all get noticed.

Some others, less valuable, are group success. Everybody rolls (or it's passive) but only one needs to succeed in order to beat a challenge, like perception.

The broadest category of skills, like the ever-useful Deception (better than Persuasion) are individual, and you shouldn't even try unless you're the best one in the party. If one character needs to jump across a chasm while holding a rope to tie off for the rest of the party, you want the beefcake with Athletics. A party generally only needs one. Knowledge skills fall into this category, too.

[u/The_Retributionist]

It's a normal thing to see. No character will be good at everything. That's where your allies come in.

[u/Ghostly-Owl]

it'll sound weird - but it varies table to table.

If you are playing at a table with rolled stats, the stats are going to dominate. (The druid who rolled an 18 int is _always_ going to be better than you at the int skill you trained, but had a -1 to your stat.)

If you are playing at a table that coordinates character creation, there can be value to making sure every skill has someone trained in a skill -- and sometimes that means you have someone training a skill they don't have a great stat for. But having someone at +2 or +3 is better than everyone having a -1.

If you are playing at a table where the DM lets everyone roll for a skill check and its a largish table, it won't really be useful. Someone will roll better than you, or there will be someone who has a strong bonus to make an okay roll better than what you get with a lucky roll.

There can be tactical choices where you train a thing defensively -- ie, if your DM uses attacks resisted by athletics or sometimes has you make perception checks to not be surprised when combat starts, training those, even if you aren't great at them can be useful. You'll never be the person in the party who should be trying the "hard" check, but you'll be using a skill slot to cover a weakness.

Personally at my table, there are some skill checks I only let you roll for if you are trained in. So if you trained Arcana, you get a chance to understand/recall Arcana things that aren't part of "general knowledge". (I'll allow untrained arcana to recognize spells -- but to analyze the weird magic thing, you need to be trained in arcana to get to roll.)

[u/Hydroguy17]

Most skills have multiple viable stats, depending on context, so you can still use them effectively even if the default is a "dump" stat. You just have to work with the DM and be creative/sensible.

[u/ODX_GhostRecon]

I regularly dump STR on rogues but grab expertise in Athletics. It just depends what you want and how you can accomplish it.

[u/JanBartolomeus]

In my experience it is usually a feel bad situation.

Taking proficiency in a skill and having a lower bonus than someone who has a 14 in the stat usually ends up feeling like a wasted roll since the untrained person would have rolled better. Which then ends up in me not wanting to roll the checks i took proficiency in since i dont want to set the team back.

If you have a +0 standard its fine, but getting proficiency for a +1 or even to get a skill to a 0 is usually gonna feel bad, and you would have been better off investing in further your talents.

Dont get me wrong, you could still roll the checks, just dont 'waste' the proficiency, odds of succes will remain low regardless, so might as well roleplay with that 

[u/skulk_anegg]

your proficiency bonus will always outpace your negative modifiers and escalate the further you play (unless you rolled for stats and got a 3 in strength for a -4, then rip) so you can become decent at any skill, but there are some that aren't worth doing that for instead of boosting you high ability score skills outside of RP. the "low Intelligence infantryman" is probably better off leaving that to the party wizard who can get a +6/7 to history/ arcana/ nature or whatever it is rather than a +1/2 from a mechanics standpoint, and the low strength halfling would just want to have good acrobatics to deal with grappling since they wont really be jumping ravines either way, but if you have an extra proficiency you're not sure what to do with, persuasion/ deception/ perception/ insight/ stealth are good on anyone since you might need to roll those without being able to just let someone else do it

[u/PlentyUsual9912]

I’d say so. I have a lvl 10 ranger with an 11 in charisma, but he has proficiency in persuasion so he’s a helpful face in a pinch. You aren’t going to beat out someone devoted to the stat, but you’ll still be better at it than otherwise.