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

[Parmandur]

1- any skill one of my PC has
1- any skill one of my PC has
1- any skill one of my PC has
1- any skill one of my PC has
...

If they have it, I make sure they will find it useful.

But then another question is... after 10 years, how many players still haven't understood that "having a skill" is just a bonus on something you can probably do anyway?

Well, Skill-gating checks is also a tool available to th2 DM in 5E: only the Paladij o has Religion Proficiency can even try to roll for a certain check when delving into the Forgott Temple of Tharizdun, say. Rewards people for taking Proficiencies an give t character a spotlight based on who they are.

 

[Clint_L]

Arguably, but the point of the Skills system is as much to establish shades of difference between characters, and the nuance allows for situations like the 10 Intelligence Paladin knowing stuff the Wizard and Bard might not due to Religion proficiency.

That's a good point. Sadly, the system doesn't support such scenarios very well. The paladin probably took intelligence as a dump stat, so even without proficiency the wizard is likely as good or better at religious lore.

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

I really don't think there's any "self-fulfilling" about it.

Performance checks have never been common in any game I've played. Ever. Doesn't matter what system. I've literally never even heard of a GM calling for lots of performance checks prior to @MostlyHarmless42 saying so just now in this thread.

Likewise, as noted, Intimidate is avoided like the plague for a very, very good reason: huge swathes of GMs view it as the social skill which makes people hate you forever and instantly try to fight against you the moment they aren't under your direct supervision. Like I've personally seen that several times, enough times that I learned, "Oh. Don't take Intimidate. Doesn't matter if I have good Cha and a racial bonus. Never take Intimidate. It'll essentially always screw you over." That has nothing whatsoever to do with its charop potential. In 4e, Intimidate was an extremely highly-rated skill because it had combat applications--and I still saw people avoid it like the plague, very specifically (as in, they told me explicitly) because of their knowledge that GMs actively punish the use of Intimidate as a skill.

This is, in part, why I very much preferred both the skill list, and the explicit rules about how skills were used, from 4e. 4e skills are CHONKY. Getting only four skills in 4e doesn't feel like a huge loss, because every single one actually has lots of uses, even the academic ones like History--and they encourage the GM to be as open-minded as possible. (Ironically, the text for 5e actually isn't super far from 4e on this; it's less strident, but the same idea is there. The vast majority of 5e GMs just.....don't do that, and instead run the skills as though they were carbon-copied from 3e, even when this directly contradicts the text.)

I definitely agree with some of the folks here that there are certain contextual elements that can boost or weaken skills. But we can take an overview across a broad swathe of games, considering how the rules themselves present these things--and some skills, like Perception and Investigation, simply come up far more often than things like Performance or Animal Handling.

As I said before. What skills are "best" changes wildly on the game your are playing. I don't generally like the concept of saying someone is "a bad DM" or "playing the game wrong", but in the cases listed for DMs ruling Intimidation checks that way? Yes. They are playing the game wrong and (unless they are new and just do not yet know the rules of the game) those are bad DMS. You should not be playing at their tables because odds are strong that (again unless they are new), being unyielding and draconian about the uses for specific skills is not their only issue as a DM.

Just as Persuasion is not mind control, Intimidate is not the "I want to start combat and make enemies" skill. And honestly? That's a skill that BG3 handles quite well. I'm not saying there can't be consequences to Intimidate (just as their should be to Persuasion), but there are often times where using either skill should be applicable, or even better than the other. I.e. in a situation where you are trying to convince someone who heavily values strength over words, there is a solid argument that Intimidation should be perfectly applicable to avoid escalating to a fight. There's even an argument to be made that even if you do succeed with a Persuasion check to avoid a fight with that same person, they might still come away from the situation thinking your character is a weakling and lose respect for your character. Skills are not iron clad in their application. That is literally the point of the dungeonmaster, to interpret skill difficulties and uses on the fly mid session alongside describing the world and relaying the consequences of the players' choices and actions.

In relation to the Performance skill in general, our group uses it quite frequently. We've a bard or some other sort of entertainer or character that has proficiency in musical instruments in pretty much every game we've ran. We use Performance primarily as a means of allowing those characters to made side money, or as a form of distraction away from other party shenanigans. Getting into admittedly potentally house-rules territory here, but most of our tables also often use Performance in situations where a Deception, Persuasion, Sleight of Hand, or Stealth might not quite fit right. Examples off the top of my head include such things as making a rousing speech to a group of people (i.e. the pep talk before a battle); running a prolonged magical show that isn't just one simple card trick or flick of the wrist; a check to keep your character's social mask/facade together if they are experiencing a strong emotion in a place where it isn't appropriate or they do not wish to show it; to dance either alone or with a partner; or to attempt to blend into the scenery unnoticed by acting as if they belong there rather pretend to be a specific person.

I realize some of these could also be rationalized as Deception, Persausion, Slight of Hand, or Stealth checks, but this also brings up another point. I am frequently allowing the players either the choice of two skill checks to pick from if I feel more than one is applicable, or having them use alternative ability scores with different skills (or allowing them the choice between two), such as using either Charisma OR Dexterity for Performance to dance.

Semi-related...

I'm not going to let someone strongly Stealth. If you want to jump, get the jump skill and don't dump the jump stat. Acrobats would have both skills.

Re perform, are you letting them roll this to basically deceive someone? "I pretend to be the tapestry inspector?" I cant possibly see many other situations where it would come up often otherwise. I don't make people roll to impress the barmaid with their singing.

I completely agree on Strength not being applicable for most characters in most situations. I could, however, see an argument that in a single instance they might be able to use strength to convincingly move or hide behind a large object, or possibly attempt to convey that they are hiding by posing as some sort of strength based worker (like a mason or laborer). Stealth is not always about being unseen, and is often more about not standing out. I will, however, say that I'd be just as likely to allow a Charisma Stealth or Charisma Performance to allow one to do the latter 'posing as a worker' option. Hell, I can also see the argument that one could use Intelligence for stealth checks in some situations in the form of possibly being able to better analyze more efficient routes/suitable places to hide and follow someone.

Now if we are referring to the 2024 barbarian using Strength for Stealth using the Primal Knowledge feature? I think you're missing the entire point of the purpose of that feature. It's not that Grog is hiding better by flexing his muscles and angrily shouting "You no see Grog!", it's that Grog is so infused with primal magical energy his raw strength allows him to channel it into being better at hiding or stalking prey like a predator. Like it or not the DnD ruleset assumes that magic is VERY prevalent in the world. It is infused into everyone, martial, spellcaster, or not. If you do not like this? Play a different game system. There are quite a few less magical alternatives.

Going down the "It's not realistic" rabbithole is largely not a good idea anyway. It's also not normal for someone to have skin thick enough to stop a sword blow (Unarmored Defense), to be able to be supernaturally good at dodging things via spider sense (Danger Sense), to be so angry you do not die (Relentless Rage), to gain animal abilities by wearing trinkets/totems or adopting a fursonna (Wildheart Barbarian), or to summon vines to grab and teleport people (World Tree Barbarian) with either, but we all view those things as "acceptable" enough be a part of the fantasy of playing a shirtless person wrestling dragons and splitting peoples' heads in with a greataxe.

 

[Parmandur]

That's a good point. Sadly, the system doesn't support such scenarios very well. The paladin probably took intelligence as a dump stat, so even without proficiency the wizard is likely as good or better at religious lore.

Hence Prfoiciency gating: only allow a character with Prificiency to make certain checks. It's built into the system already.

 

[BenjaminPey]

In relation to the Performance skill in general, our group uses it quite frequently. We've a bard or some other sort of entertainer or character that has proficiency in musical instruments in pretty much every game we've ran. We use Performance primarily as a means of allowing those characters to made side money, or as a form of distraction away from other party shenanigans. Getting into admittedly house-rules territory here, but most of our tables also often use Performance in situations where a Deception, Persuasion, Sleight of Hand, or Stealth might not quite fit right. Examples off the top of my head include such things as making a rousing speech to a group of people (i.e. the pep talk before a battle); running a prolonged magical show that isn't just one simple card trick or flick of the wrist; a check to keep your character's social mask/facade together if they are experiencing a strong emotion in a place where it isn't appropriate or they do not wish to show it; to dance either alone or with a partner; or to attempt to blend into the scenery unnoticed by acting as if they belong there rather pretend to be a specific person.

I realize some of these could also be rationalized as Deception, Persausion, Slight of Hand, or Stealth checks, but this also brings up another point. I am frequently allowing the players either the choice of two skill checks to pick from if I feel more than one is applicable, or having them use alternative ability scores with different skills (or allowing them the choice between two), such as using either Charisma OR Dexterity for Performance to dance.

I too play Performance exactly like this, as a way to stage a whole, well, performance, even if the aim is not to entertain people at all, but to distract (as in Deception), to blend in (as in Stealth), to enthuse (as in Persuasion). And I, too, might leave the players the choice of the skill they want to use when there's many possibilities.

As I was saying earlier, if a player chose to put a proficiency into Performance (or Medicine, or whatever), I take that as a cue for me, as a DM, to do my best to come up with scenarios where they can try and use it, just I, as a player, if I chose such skills, will do my best to make the best uses of it and will count on the DM to hear me out on this and to get along.

 

[Gradine]

The very admission "that's ultimately a DMing problem, not a character build problem" IS saying that bad GMing results in skills that could be useful actually getting the shaft.

Yes.




To be a little less glib, I think it's a problem that cuts both ways; players can take these skills and take actions that call for these checks, but also DMs could stop ignoring certain skills, to say nothing of DMs that are punishing players for using the skills the game lets them take and use, which you yourself say is a big problem with Intimidation, and yes, I think that is bad DMing, and that confronting DMs who do this is a more useful approach than just telling players to never take this skill. Which to me amounts to saying "hey, let's fix this problem" instead of "yeah it's a problem, just ignore it" is a more useful approach. Which... Yes

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I too play Performance exactly like this, as a way to stage a whole, well, performance, even if the aim is not to entertain people at all, but to distract (as in Deception), to blend in (as in Stealth), to enthuse (as in Persuasion). And I, too, might leave the players the choice of the skill they want to use when there's many possibilities.

As I was saying earlier, if a player chose to put a proficiency into Performance (or Medicine, or whatever), I take that as a cue for me, as a DM, to do my best to come up with scenarios where they can try and use it, just I, as a player, if I chose such skills, will do my best to make the best uses of it and will count on the DM to hear me out on this and to get along.

Then the simple problem is that D&D, with the exception of 4e in my experience, has taught GMs not to run this way. My current (5e) GM ran and enjoyed 4e during its day, so he's just as much part of that despite us using 5e for the two-ish years I've been in the group.

Blame it on the "adversarial" thing, blame it on bad design, blame it on whatever you want. The only system I've ever consistently seen the behavior you describe is 4e, and very specifically because it told the GM to treat skills as potent, broad, applicable, and worthwhile, something the GM should embrace and foster, not nickel-and-dime over every tiny thing and demand forms in triplicate for any usage to be justified and permitted.

 

[Zardnaar]

Then the simple problem is that D&D, with the exception of 4e in my experience, has taught GMs not to run this way. My current (5e) GM ran and enjoyed 4e during its day, so he's just as much part of that despite us using 5e for the two-ish years I've been in the group.

Blame it on the "adversarial" thing, blame it on bad design, blame it on whatever you want. The only system I've ever consistently seen the behavior you describe is 4e, and very specifically because it told the GM to treat skills as potent, broad, applicable, and worthwhile, something the GM should embrace and foster, not nickel-and-dime over every tiny thing and demand forms in triplicate for any usage to be justified and permitted.

Notice a lot of exploration stuff is being rated low?

I talk about combat a lot as its more objective. This spell is better than tgat spell.

Social. That's a table thing.

Exploration. Usually a DM thing. More variables.

Fir example medicine. I would let PCs use it for collecting herbs or magical ones on top of clues like wounds on corpses.

If DMs using crafting rules a bit more it coukd be very good. That's not typical though

 

[BenjaminPey]

Then the simple problem is that D&D, with the exception of 4e in my experience, has taught GMs not to run this way. My current (5e) GM ran and enjoyed 4e during its day, so he's just as much part of that despite us using 5e for the two-ish years I've been in the group.

Blame it on the "adversarial" thing, blame it on bad design, blame it on whatever you want. The only system I've ever consistently seen the behavior you describe is 4e, and very specifically because it told the GM to treat skills as potent, broad, applicable, and worthwhile, something the GM should embrace and foster, not nickel-and-dime over every tiny thing and demand forms in triplicate for any usage to be justified and permitted.

I don't think so, at least not in my case, as I've never touched 4E (an edition that didn't appeal to me at all), nor anyone in my groups save one or two exceptions. And I don't see how 5E would have worked against that, to the contrary. See for instance (DMG24) :

Sometimes the rules allow for any one of two or more proficiencies to apply to a check. When deciding what check a character should make, be generous in determining if the character's Proficiency Bonus comes into play.

Or (same source) :

One of the cornerstones of improvisational theater is called "Yes, and..." It's based on the idea that an actor takes whatever the other actors give and builds on that. A similar principle applies as you run sessions for your players. As often as possible, weave what the players give you into your story.

There is also numerous call to appeal to players' preferences, and an entire paragraph devoted to "respect for the players". All in all, 5E (be it 14 and 24) tries to empower players, in my view, and is a step back from the adversarial DM days. (Maybe 4E did the same, it's entirely possible.)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes.




To be a little less glib, I think it's a problem that cuts both ways; players can take these skills and take actions that call for these checks, but also DMs could stop ignoring certain skills, to say nothing of DMs that are punishing players for using the skills the game lets them take and use, which you yourself say is a big problem with Intimidation, and yes, I think that is bad DMing, and that confronting DMs who do this is a more useful approach than just telling players to never take this skill. Which to me amounts to saying "hey, let's fix this problem" instead of "yeah it's a problem, just ignore it" is a more useful approach. Which... Yes

My interest is on what I can actually achieve at a table when I'm making my characters.

When 9 out of 10 GMs is going to view Intimidate as the Screw Yourself Over Even When You Succeed With Flying Colors skill, then yes, I'm going to say "oooookay, never ever ever take that skill; the chance I might get lucky with this GM isn't worth the extreme risk that I won't." Nothing to do with "charop" (if I were optimizing, I would take it, as it's another Cha skill and thus more efficient!), everything to do with not wanting to create future problems for my fellow players.

I don't think so, at least not in my case, as I've never touched 4E (an edition that didn't appeal to me at all), nor anyone in my groups save one or two exceptions. And I don't see how 5E would have worked against that, to the contrary. See for instance (DMG24) :



Or (same source) :



There is also numerous call to appeal to players' preferences, and an entire paragraph devoted to "respect for the players". All in all, 5E (be it 14 and 24) tries to empower players, in my view, and is a step back from the adversarial DM days. (Maybe 4E did the same, it's entirely possible.)

I've already said, in this very thread, that I don't understand why 5e GMs (my current one excluded) choose to flagrantly ignore the text in order to run skills the way they were run in 3e. But it's a pattern I and others have seen. Like more than once I've talked about it on here and other posters have agreed that they see this pattern and are equally baffled by it. It's one of the extraordinarily rare cases where 5e truly does resemble 4e....and yet people actively choose to run it in a way that nearly everyone I've spoken to agrees is worse, rather than just...doing what the text explicitly says to do.

And this isn't some recent claim of mine. I've been saying this for like five years now. One of my most upvoted posts ever, where I analyzed ways 5e does and does not use 4e concepts, I specifically mentioned that skills SHOULD be like 4e, but for whatever baffling reason they're instead almost always run in the most closed-minded, restrictive, "anything not permitted is forbidden" manner and I genuinely cannot explain why, other than it's what D&D in general has taught GMs to do with skills.