D&D 5E Lets Rank the 5e Skills!

[Oldtimer]

Listed specifically in athletics as, "you attempt to jump an unusually long distance or pull off a stunt midjump"

Quote from the same skill, "force open a stuck, locked, or barred door".

Again, it's a quote directly from the skill, "break free of bonds".

And again, it was a quote from the skill, "keep a boulder from rolling".

Of course these are strength checks, as that's what you use if you are not trained in the skill. Like all skills, being trained in them gives you your proficiency bonus to your check. But I was 100% correct in all those things I listed.

I'm afraid not. These things are listed under the subheading "Other Strength Checks", not under the subheading "Athletics". Not all ability checks are related to a skill in 5E.

 

[Manbearcat]

I know 4e's skills, and they infrastructure within which they are used, don't map extremely well to 5e but I figured I'd include some data from my PBP on here. Interesting to look at if nothing else.

There are some things of note that will skew the results considerably in favor of some skills over others. Those are:

1) This is a single player game (but with a companion bear for some of it and now a companion assault team - swarm). All of the below checks are solely for player controlled characters. If this included NPCs, Athletics and Acrobatics would jump up a bit due to their combat use (my combats, and 4e combats generally, involve a decent bit of physical checks).

2) The single character is a Fighter with Nature Rituals, a History reroll utility, an Athletics utility (combat and noncombat application), and a broad swath of competency across all skills but the Charisma skills.

3) Play is heavily on exploration challenges/adversity and has only included 1 full parlay SC and 1 interrogation that was part of a greater challenge.

I should note, this data is not representative of my home games. In my home games, I would soundly rank Arcana, Athletics, Insight, Nature, and Perception as, by a far margin, the most potent and most broadly used/applicable skills - so I guess A. Acrobatics (stunting, grapple checks, and all of its typical stuff), Dip/Intim are about split, Endurance (due to required exposure checks/hazard contermeasures, Disease Track checks, and Group Checks), Stealth, Streetwise, and Thievery are a tier below those - so I guess B. Everything else is probably C or situationally B. The only skill that doesn't get a ton of play in my home game is Heal. It is basically used for forensic investigation, kissing NPC boo-boos (figuratively), and subbing in for Endurance checks on the Disease Track (when the caretakers Heal is better).

Without further ado, the aforementioned PBP data:

SKILL	PASSIVE	TASK/RITUAL/COMBAT	GROUP	SC
Acrobatics		2		3
Arcana				2
Athletics		7		6
Bluff				1
Diplomacy				1
Dungeoneering				2
Endurance		3	1	1
Heal				3
History				2
Insight	1			2
Intimidate				4
Nature		5		4
Perception	5	2		2
Religion				1
Stealth		1		3
Streetwise				1
Thievery		1		1

EDIT - Didn't include Nature as top tier in my home game.

 

[Crothian]

From the sound of it there are no worthless skills just DMs that make some skills worthless. The DM has a lot of power in the game and can make anything worthless if they want to or use house rules and play styles that marginalize parts of the game in ways they might not fully comprehend.

 

[evilbob]

Pretty late to this show, but personally, I think many of the skills can be combined with no ill effect. Animal Handling, Nature, Medicine, and Survival can all be rolled into one skill EASILY. Sleight of Hand can be rolled into Deception. Perception and Investigation can be one skill. Even Athletics and Acrobatics can be one skill; you just need to use different abilities when you use it.

The skill list seems so strange to me because several skills are basically the same thing, but with different abilities behind them. Like Deception and Sleight of Hand; why not just have Deception (Dex)? There was no other reason to separate these skills, other than the idea that they wanted you to usually use one ability with one skill. On the other hand, you have Religion - Int, vs. Nature - Int and Survival - Wis. Following that pattern, there should have been some kind of Religion - Wis, but they didn't split that one.

I really dislike the idea that all skills have only one ability tied to them - Intimidation can be Str, dang it! Stealth can be Cha, dang it! - but I'm glad they called that out in the rules as being completely cool. And honestly, after seeing character creation, I understand that they wanted to make them SIMPLE to use; it's much easier to just write "Stealth - X" instead of "Stealth, if Dex, X, if Cha, Y." Too many things to keep up with.

Anyway, as for ranking, sadly like all other versions of D&D, the ranking is:
Perception - A+
all other skills - whatever

You can make a case for Stealth but seriously, Perception is insanely useful.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm afraid not. These things are listed under the subheading "Other Strength Checks", not under the subheading "Athletics". Not all ability checks are related to a skill in 5E.

Ah, you are correct, I misread that. My bad, and I apologize. Should have read it more carefully.

 

[Greg K]

Performance, Persuasion, Deception, Intimidation
So many ways to convince people to do what you want! For them all to have a place, the DM should create NPCs which are more or less susceptible to specific skills. Persuasion is the best skill in many situations, but not when the PCs must deal with a fanatic. Performance is very useful for distracting a crowd. I expect that the full NPC interaction rules will help give these skills greater definition.

Agreed. I have two female friends that only date musicians (for one it is specifically, drummers) and artists. I have known a few others that have said the ability to sing, play an instrument, or create a drawing or painting was a plus if the guy had a good personality to go along with it. I don't see why this could not carry over to a fantasy world where being proficient in a skill or tool and successful check might not give advantage on persuasion or deception to get closer to an NPC. Similarly, lacking proficiency in the skill or tool, might lead to disadvantage in trying to get closer.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I would argue that the awesomeness of Perception depends on how an individual DM interprets this bit about surprise, and whether the campaign style involves lots of sneaking monsters. Certainly a dungeon crawl might, but there are many modes of "standard D&D" that would not involve sneaking monsters. IOW it's also a circumstantial skill.

Perhaps. I just think there's so MANY sneaky monsters in D&D (monsters that lurk in darkness, monsters that look like other things, monsters that blend into stone, monsters that sneak just like a thief -- check out how many monsters from the 1e MM modify surprise rolls or otherwise surprise characters!) that there's a high probability of encountering one in "normal play" (whatever that is). Even games of intrigue with humans involve assassins and poisons and traps and ambushes. And the consequences of failing a Perception check, especially at low levels, might be "Death." That's a lot of variables you're taking into your hands when you don't choose Perception proficiency.

I could see games that don't use it very often, but I don't know that those games are very common.

What would be interesting is to log each d20 roll made during a D&D game, what kind of roll it is, what its agency is, and the ultimate narrative effect of each roll. So you'd have, like, Perception Roll/Reactive/Success/Was not surprised; Wisdom Save/Reactive/Failure/Got Charmed for 1 rd; Acrobatics Check/Active/Success/Caught a Thief; etc.

Insight:Your Wisdom (Insight) check determines whether you can determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone's next move. Doing so involves gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms.

Many players I've gamed with have used Insight as a lie detector, both when I DM and when I'm just another player (so I know I'm not wholly to blame for a cocked up DMing style ). Personally, I hate it when players do that because there's no pathos, nothing of interest, just this binary view of motivation and some kind of "D&D NPC questioning protocol" that seems severely pathological. Not that I have strong feelings about this...

What do you think?

I think that's true -- players use it to confirm or deny their suspicions that an NPC is lying. Lying NPC's also often come across in NPC dialogue or DM body language as she's performing the role, and the effect of a lying NPC is often just "it's a different kind of challenge," so its vitality isn't what it could be. But it's got a use that's pretty unique.

As far as it being unsatisfying...there's probably a few ways to modify it that'll make it a little more satisfying.

First is the idea that Insight isn't a line-item check. You can't tell which statements are true and which are false, all you know is that the NPC is being deceptive and evasive and you probably shouldn't take her at her word. It's a reason not to trust, not a disproof of what she's saying.

Another idea would be to put it behind a DM Gate to link it to the world a little better. In most cases, you can't make a Perception(ed: INSIGHT! Derp) check UNLESS your characters notice something "off" (such as an inconsistency or a nervous demeanor). Players must pay attention to your RP to note this, so a DM should be confident in their ability to RP some dishonesty. There essentially has to be some REASON you're making the Insight check, some bit of the character's demeanor you're trying to parse. You can't just make one on every character you're talking to.

 

[Starfox]

In most cases, you can't make a Perception check UNLESS your characters notice something "off" (such as an inconsistency or a nervous demeanor).

Investigations, sense motive, whatever you call it, is exactly that ability to notice something off. Asking for a check against every NPC is no more strange than using Perception at every cross-section. Its a matter of where the character's area of expertise ends and the player's begins. In old-school gaming, there is no Investigation skill; It is up to the players to believe or disbelieve. In later version and play-styles, the character's capability is just as important as the player's.

That said, I feel that if my players ask for a check, that means their characters are suspicious. If I did my acting right as GM, nobody will ask for a check, and they generally won't get one either.

Edit: A problem in these situations is that there is no "detect truth" DC. If an NPC is NOT lying, it makes no sense to roll against that NPC's Bluff skill. Or perhaps it does - a "cry wolf" NPC with a high bluf might be less able to tell the truth in a transparent manner...

 

[sidonunspa]

Investigation - D
Why is this a separate skill?

BBC Sherlock Homes

Smartest cat on the block with the wisdom of a base jumper....

Able to notice things with his intellect, pick apart a room, see that the man killed was left handed though, apparently, he killed him self with a hand cross bow using his right hand. Able to look at a room and see that the criminal HAD to come though the windows because the locks where picked from the inside.

Perception sees things that are hidden, while Investigation sees things in plane sight that may have significance.

the quality of this skill falls 100% in the hands of how good your GM is

 

[sidonunspa]

I really dislike the idea that all skills have only one ability tied to them - Intimidation can be Str, dang it! Stealth can be Cha, dang it! - but I'm glad they called that out in the rules as being completely cool. And honestly, after seeing character creation, I understand that they wanted to make them SIMPLE to use; it's much easier to just write "Stealth - X" instead of "Stealth, if Dex, X, if Cha, Y." Too many things to keep up with.

You would be shocked to see how hard it is to get players to think outside the box with Skill/Attribute combinations...

heck it's hard to get writers to keep that in mind.

when I wrote the skill system for Arcanis I specifically used this concept (I called it dynamic skills) and even gave examples within each skill using different attributes (Such as Athletics (Cha) to "fake a guard out" as you attempt to run past them)