D&D 5E (2024) Rank 5e skills from most useful (1) to least useful (18)

[Hussar]

But often the DM just doesn't want you to succeed at that check.

I find that this is pretty much the standard line. There's not much point in even making the attempt because, again IME, it's just not going to work.

 

[Hussar]

In practice, no, I'm not going to let you frighten Orcus into giving up and begging for his (un)life because one person made a high roll and now my climactic fight is scuttled.

This isn't a problem 4e really dodged, btw. Though it limited the valid targets to being creatures you've already bloodied, I still don't think many DMs would, in practice, let you force the bloodied ancient dragon to surrender just because you made a good skill check. Talk about an anticlimax. Intimidate was arguably better in 4e (I'd argue that!), but it did have problems.

And this plays pretty much straight into @Benjamin Olson's point. Because, as a player, you never really know if THIS encounter is DM proof or not. It might be, it might not be. But, why waste the action on pointless attempts. The fact that the DM is invested in making this encounter a climactic fight means that the players are pretty much forced to play it out the way the DM wants to play it out.

You've bloodied the ancient dragon. Ancient dragons become ancient dragons specifically because they know they don't have to fight to the death. The player made the attempt and manages to win one for the team. Great. Because there's one thing about it, I've never, EVER seen a DM decide that a monster was magic proof in the middle of an encounter. You end the encounter with a spell? Great. High fives all around. Beat the enemy because of a skill check? Oh, that's anti-climactic.

The game is a lot better if DM's stop thinking in terms of "this encounter must be climactic". I have infinite encounters. If they beat this one a bit easier than they would have otherwise? Great! I'll get them next time because there is always a next time.

 

[Parmandur]

Sorry, hunting for it, but, can you point me to a page number?

P. 47-48 in the DMG, ending fights before lethality is one of the suggestions for keeping the game moving quickly, amd roleplaying NPCs who want to live. It gives some DCs and triggers for initiating flight or negotiation.

In the PHB, the Influence A action is on p. 379.

 

[Hussar]

P. 47-48 in the DMG, ending fights before lethality is one of the suggestions for keeping the game moving quickly, amd roleplaying NPCs who want to live. It gives some DCs and triggers for initiating flight or negotiation.

In the PHB, the Influence A action is on p. 379.

Sorry, but, P 379 in the PHB is the index. Not sure what you're pointing to.

 

[Parmandur]

Sorry, but, P 379 in the PHB is the index. Not sure what you're pointing to.

Sorry, page 369.

 

[I'm A Banana]

And this plays pretty much straight into @Benjamin Olson's point. Because, as a player, you never really know if THIS encounter is DM proof or not. It might be, it might not be. But, why waste the action on pointless attempts. The fact that the DM is invested in making this encounter a climactic fight means that the players are pretty much forced to play it out the way the DM wants to play it out.

In an ideal system, trying to intimidate to surrender, like casting a save-or-die spell, would still do something to these encounters. Make the enemy frightened, cause some damage, etc. It might be something handled more on a monster-by-monster basis than something handled in the system though. Meaning, like, the player doesn't know if Intimidate will end the encounter or not, but they can be confident in it not being a waste of a turn if it doesn't.

You've bloodied the ancient dragon. Ancient dragons become ancient dragons specifically because they know they don't have to fight to the death. The player made the attempt and manages to win one for the team. Great. Because there's one thing about it, I've never, EVER seen a DM decide that a monster was magic proof in the middle of an encounter. You end the encounter with a spell? Great. High fives all around. Beat the enemy because of a skill check? Oh, that's anti-climactic.

It's anti-climactic with spells, too. Which is why we have legendary resistances and such. Not exactly a perfect solution, and something that could use some diversification, but we don't let spells end "intended-to-be-climactic" encounters anymore, either.

The game is a lot better if DM's stop thinking in terms of "this encounter must be climactic". I have infinite encounters. If they beat this one a bit easier than they would have otherwise? Great! I'll get them next time because there is always a next time.

I don't think it's actually desirable to give up the idea of a climactic combat entirely. In the narrative style D&D is often played in, it has a clear and entertaining function. In a more systems-driven style, it's still a nice change of pace and provides some dynamic kinds of options. Even in a very simulation-heavy game, creatures like this provide a clear role in the world as movers and shakers that are more powerful than your usual monsters. And it's not just DM's -- players are served by allowing for dramatic combats, tougher combats, and combats with creatures that are going to require a smart use of nearly all of your resources to emerge victorious from. They're desirable to have in the game.

And the same is true of one-shot kill effects (like intimidating something into surrender or casting an instant-death spell or whatever): these are valuable things to include in the game.

I think there should probably just be a clear line between "encounters you can end with a die roll" and "encounters you absolutely cannot end with a die roll" and D&D has historically struggled to draw that line, especially in a way that individual DMs can use. 4e drew it best (solos and minions, for all their flaws, absolutely helped facilitate this), and Legendaries are a fine tool in the box, but there's more we can do here. I like some of the work that Flee Mortals! did in their version of Legendaries, for instance. Intimidate ending a fight, and folks not actually wanting to do that, are just symptoms of this rocky area: it's fine to let Intimidate scare off minions (or death magic to kill them). It's not cool to let Intimidate end those desirable climactic fights. But, if we make a button you can press that ends encounters, it should still have an effect when it doesn't do that.

 

[ECMO3]

And this plays pretty much straight into @Benjamin Olson's point. Because, as a player, you never really know if THIS encounter is DM proof or not. It might be, it might not be.

Of course you don't know. If you knew a high Charisma Rogue with expertise would win every time.

This ambiguity is not a problem IMO. If you trust your DM

But, why waste the action on pointless attempts.

Because it might not be pointless. I've wasted my action on pointless attempts, I've also wasted my action on attempts that failed and effectively used my action for this.

How is this any different than casting Fear on an enemy only to find they are immune to being Frightnened?

You've bloodied the ancient dragon. Ancient dragons become ancient dragons specifically because they know they don't have to fight to the death. The player made the attempt and manages to win one for the team. Great. Because there's one thing about it, I've never, EVER seen a DM decide that a monster was magic proof in the middle of an encounter.

I've cast plenty of control spells on enemies immune to the effects of those spells, I've cast some damaging spells against enemies immune to that damage (some times assuming they were but making sure), tried to grapple or knock prone enemies immune to being grappled or prone and I have had enemies, including Dragons, use Anti-magic field which does make them immune to magic.

I don't see this as any different than those examples.

The game is a lot better if DM's stop thinking in terms of "this encounter must be climactic". I have infinite encounters. If they beat this one a bit easier than they would have otherwise? Great! I'll get them next time because there is always a next time.

I mean the game is better with a good DM if that is what you are saying.

 

[guachi]

In my current campaign where we've had about 12 sessions so far this is what they've actually used and how important it's been:

TIER 1
Athletics
Survival

TIER 2
Animal Handling
History
Insight
Investigation
Nature
Perception
Persuasion
Religion
Stealth

TIER 3
Acrobatics
Arcana
Deception
Intimidation
Medicine
Performance
Sleight of Hand

Mostly it's player choice as no one has done anything that warrants a check in Tier 3. Either because they have the skill but never use it (Arcana, Medicine, Sleight of Hand) or they don't have the skill and have awful Charisma (Deception, Intimidation, Performance).

The party is also terrible at Persuasion but I intentionally put them at a soiree in their honor just to watch them squirm while trying to talk to all sorts of important people. No real harm. Just a load of failed rolls and all of us laughing at how inept they were. Otherwise they succeed on Persuasion by just not being jerks to people and never needing to roll.

 

[guachi]

I think the number one thing that I’m guilty of when I look at this list is not having harder lines in my game between what gets an arcana roll vs religion, history, and sometimes nature.

When I don't know I like to quiz the player further on exactly what he's trying to find out and how. Even then, I had a PC want to specialize in Undead and I let him use Religion as the basis. He's a cleric. Wouldn't his religion have something about undead, at least insofar as it relates to turning them? Sure!

 

[Seramus]

Even when you try to do Intimidate right, it can still cause issues down the road. People remember your bullying and ominousness.

I also had a player do an Intimidation specialist at one point. She avoided many fights, scared off mooks, interrogated for information. But even that bit her in the ass because those monsters didnt just vanish. They were part of a tribe, and many of them were present during the big attack instead of their numbers being whittled down.