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

[KarinsDad]

Acrobatics - C
Animal Handling - F
Arcana - C
Athletics - C
Deception - C
History - C
Insight - A
Intimidation - C
Investigation - D
Medicine - C
Nature - D
Perception - A+
Performance - F
Persuasion - B
Religion - C
Sleight of Hand - C
Stealth - B
Survival - C

So how about your list?

My rankings are similar to yours.

I'll base my off of how many players in my group of 6 would take each skill (your original ranking first here, followed by mine).

4 - A
3 - B
2 - C
1 - D
0 - F

Acrobatics - C, C, 2
Animal Handling - F, F, 0
Arcana - C, D, 1 (one high int PC will take this, just cause they think they need it)
Athletics - C, B, 3
Deception - C, D, 1 (charisma is a dump stat, there will probably be one or two PC faces with a 12 unless class related, possibly a Rogue might try for this)
History - C, D, 1 (this might bump to 2 if the players think it will give them good advantage in game)
Insight - A, B, 3
Intimidation - C, D, 1 (charisma is a dump stat)
Investigation - D, C, 2 (if I let the players know that they cannot use perception for this)
Medicine - C, C, 2 (only after I houserule it to become useful, like restoring a few hit points)
Nature - D, D, 1 (possibly, possibly not)
Perception - A+, A, 4 (not everyone will take this, but many will)
Performance - F, FF, 0 (probably never see this in my game, but I like the inclusion of the skill for those games that will see it)
Persuasion - B, C, 2 (charisma is a dump stat)
Religion - C, C, 2 (one of the few knowledge skills that has a chance)
Sleight of Hand - C, 2 (only after I houserule it to include picking locks and disarming traps, it's now called Thievery)
Stealth - B, B, 3 (armor might lower this)
Survival - C, C, 2 (we'll probably have two outdoor type PCs out of six, so this has good odds, especially if PCs cannot use perception to track)

The knowledge skills and influence skills would be the big losers in our game. If the knowledge skills have concrete rules about learning creature abilities like in 4E, then these might gain some traction in our game. I think that intimidate can easily be handled without the skill. Kill goblin one in front of goblin two. Goblin two talks (course that little thing like alignment could get into the way). Persuasion can be done with good roleplaying. I only use the skill if the NPC is on the fence and I think the proficiency bonus is not sufficient to warrant players taking it much.

I also think that survival and investigation increase significantly if DMs stick to their guns and do not allow perception rolls for those.

 

[Drudenfusz]

Point, but there's a difference between arguing that some skills could stand to be clumped together and stating that skills as written have overlap. As someone who misses skill points, I'm always going to be on Team More Skills. With a proficiency system you have much fewer resources so it makes sense to lump things together. Persuasion, Athletics, Acrobatics, and Thieves Tools all make sense to me. They key off the same stats. I like having Sleight of Hand separate, it implies to me a separate skill set from applying tools to static devices. And calming and handling domesticated animals is the farthest thing from hunting untamed creatures and otherwise surviving in the wild.

Especially since we have skills in 5th Edition (or had already since 4th Edition) like Athletics that do what many different skills did in 3.5 is my reasoning to put a few old knowledge skill together as Culture. History existed as skill beside Knowledge (Nobility and Royality) and Knowledge (Local) in 3.5 and besides Streetwise in 4th Edition (were cultural aspects could be agured could be found under the nature knowledge checks, since nature seemed to handle that kind of lore here). Now, in 5th Edition we lose Streetwise (yeah, sure it was not a knowledge skill, but I often enogh saw it used as one) and Nature is no longer responsible for that knowledge. So, I want a knowledge skill for that sort of things, and with the rather broad approach of skills (even though they have no conflict reslution inherent, or maybe because of that?) I think Culture would be a nice addition.

On the idea to replace History with Culture I have to say that I think they both are probably still distinct enough to justify having both. Since there are historical aspects which are not culture related and there are cultural things that have a precise historical origin (like customs of which nobody remembers why they exist in the first place). Also, I would like to be capable to have a sage with historical knowledge but not much knowledge in to actuall cultural things (like current politics) or a diplomat who knows plenty of differnt cultures but has no clue about any historical events. And I certainly don't want to have that knowledge tied to just one Background.

 

[Gradine]

My rankings are similar to yours.

I'll base my off of how many players in my group of 6 would take each skill (your original ranking first here, followed by mine).

I gotta say I don't understand that rationale at all. A skill is a bad skill because a party can get away with only character having it? That's preposterous; you're always going to have skills that require only one person to pull it off. Anything thievery or social related is going to suffer needlessly under such a rubric. This doesn't make them poor skills. On the contrary, it shows that the skill is well designed in a system that encourages specialized roles. Heck, a party doesn't even need more than one or two people with Perception. All it takes is one person to notice the ambush and shout "Ambush!" and the ambush is ruined.

A poor skill is a skill a DM would struggle making important enough to justify taking. And even then if a PC finds great or fun uses for the skill, it has its place. These are the more "flavorful" skills; things like Sleight of Hand, Animal Handling, Intimidation, and the various Knowledge skills. Skills that are handy but hardly ever necessary. These are great skills for establishing and portraying characters.

A skill is poorly designed when it's something that everybody wants.

With that idea in mind, here's my rankings:

Athletics - B+ It has a lot of applications but I think few PCs will clamor for this other than burly warrior types.

Acrobatics - B+ See above, replace burly with nimble
Sleight of Hand - A- Fun, flavorful skill. Easy for the DM to throw tempting uses of it, hardly necessary though
Stealth - A We'll have to see how it works in practice, but a simple stealth system is always appreciated

Arcana, History, Nature, Religion - B Cuts out the middleman in finding a sage. History might see too few uses but I can think of some handy applications in dealing with ancient riddles and puzzles. Probably won't be taken unless it comes with a Background though.
Investigation - B Would be an A+ except the designers couldn't stop themselves from giving all of its strongest uses to Perception. Still a good flavorful skill, esp. in Eberron. I really dig how it's the save v illusions

Animal Handling - D There's no reason why this isn't Charisma based. At my table it will be. Otherwise it's most useful property (Ride) seems to be covered by Vehicles proficiency. I get why it exists, but probably the most superfluous skill
Insight - A- Will come in very handy for the one person who thinks to take it.
Medicine - C Really doesn't strike me as all that necessary
Perception - F Terribly designed. Everyone will take it if they can. Unnecessarily overlaps with Investigation. Needs to be toned down so that it's great for the scout not really needed for anyone else.
Survival - B- I'm sure this will come in very handy in some campaigns, but other than tracking I don't see situations requiring this skill to be particularly fun.

Deception, Intimidation, Persuasion - B As always these varied social skills work best when players describe their actions and DMs decide which skill is being used. That these are separate skills will always be a consternation for players who consult their skill list before deciding what to do. Intimidation always seems to be the odd one out but I think it's because DMs and designers fear making it a necessary tool for dealing with NPCs, because party faces prefer being diplomatic. Make Intimidation necessary and allow clever uses to key off of other stats and you'll find it to be an excellent role-playing tool.
Performance - C I want to defend this but I'm really not sure. Between Disguise, Deception and Instruments I only see a use for singing/speechifying. Could have its uses but even I'm skeptical

 

[KarinsDad]

I gotta say I don't understand that rationale at all. A skill is a bad skill because a party can get away with only character having it? That's preposterous; you're always going to have skills that require only one person to pull it off. Anything thievery or social related is going to suffer needlessly under such a rubric. This doesn't make them poor skills. On the contrary, it shows that the skill is well designed in a system that encourages specialized roles. Heck, a party doesn't even need more than one or two people with Perception. All it takes is one person to notice the ambush and shout "Ambush!" and the ambush is ruined.

Not in 5E.

The ambush happens and the four PCs with high perception are not surprised and get to act in the surprise round. The two PCs with lower perception are surprised.

Since we are talking 5E skills here, I am including in my thought processes 5E rules.

And perception does not overlap with investigation. People who think that will allow players attempting to investigate to use their perception skill. Investigation is Sherlock Holmes or Batman. The ability to take what you see in front of you and piece together information intellectually. Perception is Tarzan. He sees, smells, and hears better than normal people.

The investigation PC might know that the blood on one side of the knife might mean that the blood was put on the knife after the murder happened. The perceptive PC might be the one to point out that there is blood on only one side of the knife, but he doesn't know why.


The OP asked for best skills. To me, that are the skills that will be used, not the skills that some player will once in a blue moon want to incorporate into their PC, just to be different or kooky.

My numbers were not because a party can get away with only character having it, my numbers were the number of players who would probably want to take it on average out of my group.

Most of my players will create their PCs in a bit of a bubble without knowing too much about the other PCs. They will take what they want to play, not what fits the party best. They understand that there might be overlap, but so what?

Also, most of the social skills in our game are rarely used as dice rolls. The players roleplay, I roleplay the NPCs back in response. The rolls are only made in cases where the NPC is on the fence.


That brings up a minor pet peeve of mine about skills. The player who tries to shoehorn social skills into a dice roll instead of roleplaying.

Player: "I want to convince the shopkeeper to lower the price by 10%. I roll Diplomacy, a 22."
DM: "Did I ask for a roll?"

I rather have the interaction be:

Player: "Good sir, surely you could lower the price by 10%. After all, we did just save the town from those bandits,"
DM: "Bah, those bandits helped out my trade by interfering with my competitors. Tell you what, I'll give you 5% off."

If the player wants to still get 10% off and continues the conversation in that direction, then maybe I'll ask for a die roll at some point after a little more roleplaying.


I also have the same problem with the player that says that he wants to use any other skill and reaches for the dice to roll, but not to the same extent as with social skills. I'll ask for roles when I think it is necessarily. Page 2 of the Basic Rules has a fine example of this. Investigation is rolled when the DM asks in that example, the player does not just reach for his dice.

Now, some skills I ask for a dice roll practically right away. If someone wants to track, I'll ask them where they are trying to do so and ask for a Survival roll. But, social skills should be roleplayed.

And before anyone says the obvious "but I am not as socially adept as my PC", yup. You aren't. The purpose of the roll is to lean the direction of the conversation into what the PC could manage but the player can not. And a player can ask for a die roll if he explains a reasonable rationale for why he wants it ("I'm trying to convince the shopkeeper to lower the price more"). But, the words still have to come out of the player's mouth. I don't use dice rolls for roleplaying.

 

[Juriel]

They did start putting just about everything Investigation should do under Perception examples, didn't they?

Search for a hidden object? Sure sounds like searching with intent and deducing to me!
What do you mean that's the exact example used for a Wisdom (Perception) check? But...

 

[Starfox]

Not in 5E.

The ambush happens and the four PCs with high perception are not surprised and get to act in the surprise round. The two PCs with lower perception are surprised.

THis makes Perception an absolute must to have. A very bad way to do things.

That brings up a minor pet peeve of mine about skills. The player who tries to shoehorn social skills into a dice roll instead of roleplaying.

Player: "I want to convince the shopkeeper to lower the price by 10%. I roll Diplomacy, a 22."
DM: "Did I ask for a roll?

This is very old-school and all, but it restricts spcial skills to players who themselves have some social skills. This is different from how other in-game abilities work: you don't need to be perceptive to play a character with high Perception. Not aying you are doing it wrong - some degree of in-character acting by the player makes these kinds of things much more interesting. But it has to be applied by degree.

 

[Starfox]

I think History could be argued to cover the present situations, not just stuff that happened 100 years ago that no-one cares about. Perhaps it should be renamed Culture, or something, but history is the focus because of dungeon-delving, I guess.

Very much agree.

I don't know that there's ever been a skill that's accomplished all of that. Remember that in 3.x Knowledge Local was supposed to be a separate skill for each "locality".

Maybe in 3.0, but not in 3.5 and Pathfinder. Knowledge (local) was the most misnamed skill in those editions, and covered all humanoids - it kind of made Knowledge (nobility) obsolete.

 

[KarinsDad]

THis makes Perception an absolute must to have. A very bad way to do things.

If the DM does a lot of ambushes. In our current 5E campaign, the PCs went from level 1 to 5 (and just acquired 5). In those 4 levels, I ambushed them maybe 3 times. So yeah, I could see if the DM loves doing that stuff. It happens occasionally in my game.

5E also appears to be even more about group stealth and such in order to ambush the NPCs instead.

To me, ambushes should be cool things that take the party by surprise and make an encounter memorable. They shouldn't be used left and right because the DM wants to challenge his players.

This is very old-school and all, but it restricts spcial skills to players who themselves have some social skills. This is different from how other in-game abilities work: you don't need to be perceptive to play a character with high Perception. Not aying you are doing it wrong - some degree of in-character acting by the player makes these kinds of things much more interesting. But it has to be applied by degree.

Actually, it restricts players from saying "I want Kragnor to go into the bar and ask about orcs" and instead forces them to roleplay a bit more "Kragnor walks into the bar and says: Give me a pint of your best. By the way, have you heard about any orcs in the area?".

If I had a player who stuttered in my game in real life, I would still want him to roleplay the best he could. I would not penalize him for his impairment, just like I would not penalize anyone else with low social skills (and in RPGs, there are an occasional player with low social skills).

I'm not asking for Laurence Olivier, I'm only asking for people to roleplay in character instead of out of character. Dice are used when I think that the player is not achieving his goal, if the player is not asking the right questions and I feel that his skill in a social skill would help, or if the player requests to roll his skill and gives a good explanation why he thinks it will help. But, he doesn't get to roll dice to influence the conversation, just because he himself cannot ask any good questions. If he cannot think of where he wants the conversation to go, I'm not just going to have him roll dice and throw a bunch of info at him. And I am especially not going to let him roll dice first before the conversation even starts.

Even suave James Bond needs to know what he wants to talk about in order to be successful.

Edit: typo.

 

[KarinsDad]

They did start putting just about everything Investigation should do under Perception examples, didn't they?

Search for a hidden object? Sure sounds like searching with intent and deducing to me!
What do you mean that's the exact example used for a Wisdom (Perception) check? But...

If you are looking for a hidden object, then you are using perception, not investigation.

Investigation and perception go hand in hand, but they are different. Investigation is looking at the clues and deducing a pattern or seeing the non-obvious from them. That's what it is an intelligence skill.

Perception is noticing things and having the common sense (i.e. wisdom) to look in the right places.

Now, I would sometimes allow investigation to be used to find something. For example, the PC with investigation sees that the carpet on the floor is messed up a little bit. He deduces that because of that, the bookcase next to the carpet is hiding something, possibly a hidden cache or a secret door.

The PC with perception might just search around and find the secret door behind the bookcase.

 

[nerfherder]

Actually, it restricts players from saying "I want Kragnor to go into the bar and ask about orcs" and instead forces them to roleplay a bit more "Kragnor walks into the bar and says: Give me a pint of your best. By the way, have you heard about any orcs in the area?".

If I had a player who stuttered in my game in real life, I would still want him to roleplay the best he could. I would not penalize him for his impairment, just like I would not penalize anyone else with low social skills (and in RPGs, there are an occasional player with low social skills).

I'm not asking for Laurence Olivier, I'm only asking for people to roleplay in character instead of out of character. Dice are used when I think that the player is not achieving his goal, if the player is not asking the right questions and I feel that his skill in a social skill would help, or if the player requests to roll his skill and gives a good explanation why he thinks it will help. But, he doesn't get to roll dice to influence the conversation, just because he himself cannot ask any good questions. If he cannot think of where he wants the conversation to go, I'm not just going to have him roll dice and throw a bunch of info at him. And I am especially not going to let him roll dice first before the conversation even stats.

Even suave James Bond needs to know what he wants to talk about in order to be successful.

I think that there's a fine line here, and I think you're standing on the side that I'm comfortable with

Similarly, a player doesn't declare "I'm a fifth level fighter, I attack the orcs <rattle, rattle 17> Did I defeat them?" There's a mini game where he may describe trying to get advantage, which particular orc he attacks, etc. However, he doesn't go down to the level of describing exactly how he swings his sword.

As with most things in life, balance is important.