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

[Gradine]

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

That's fair. However...

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."

...I feel like this is very much overstating the problem. Anecdotal evidence is all that any of us really have but I'd like to believe that this degree of adversarial DMing is becoming much more rare as the hobby has opened up and kind of exploded in the past decade.

My solution to a GM who is going to punish me for using a skill the game gives me every opportunity to take for my character is not to stop taking or using that skill, it's to stop showing up at that table.

 

[Zardnaar]

That's fair. However...

...I feel like this is very much overstating the problem. Anecdotal evidence is all that any of us really have but I'd like to believe that this degree of adversarial DMing is becoming much more rare as the hobby has opened up and kind of exploded in the past decade.

My solution to a GM who is going to punish me for using a skill the game gives me every opportunity to take for my character is not to stop taking or using that skill, it's to stop showing up at that table.

Intimidation is best used on thugs trying to shake you down imho than part of your day to day affairs.

IRL its usually a very bad way of doing things. I'll use it in extreme situations vs a ranting boomer, telling someone to sit down, or a silent look. Implication being they can do it or face you if they keep doing what theyre doing.

99% of the time its a terrible approach.

 

[Clint_L]

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.

This is exactly why I would like to see the DDB data on how often each skill is actually rolled. Every campaign is its own context, but I would love to see the broad trends. Based on this thread, it seems pretty obvious that Perception is king of the skills, but I would love to see, for example, how often survival is being rolled in comparison to nature checks, or whatever.

It should be very possible to repackage skills such that they are more balanced in terms of their actual usefullness in an "average" campaign.

 

[Scott Christian]

Acrobatics
Animal Handling
Arcana
Athletics
Deception
History
Insight
Intimidation
Investigation
Medicine
Nature
Perception
Performance
Persuasion
Religion
Sleight of Hand
Stealth
Survival

It is pretty difficult to assess their usefulness, since many of them are class specific, or campaign specific, or table specific. I mean, stealth for a rogue is always used. Sleight of hand, depending on the style of the rogue, might get used a lot too. In a campaign with a lot of political intrigue, deception, persuasion, and intimidation might be the heavy hitters. And table sometimes have a way of blending and not adhering to the actual skill. For example, I have had DMs constantly say: Use athletics or acrobatics, your call. The same can be said of history and religion.

But if you had to twist my arm and say that over a normal campaign that lasts six months or a year, it has to be:
1. perception
2. arcana/history/religion
3. persuasion
4. stealth
5. insight

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That's fair. However...

...I feel like this is very much overstating the problem. Anecdotal evidence is all that any of us really have but I'd like to believe that this degree of adversarial DMing is becoming much more rare as the hobby has opened up and kind of exploded in the past decade.

My solution to a GM who is going to punish me for using a skill the game gives me every opportunity to take for my character is not to stop taking or using that skill, it's to stop showing up at that table.

Perhaps, for your experience, it is overstating things. You can ask other folks around here--I've been pretty open about how terrible my experience has been with 5e GMs (my current GM being a notable, and refreshing, exception), and the only thing I've seen worse results with than skill-adjudication is combat design and balancing, where essentially every 5e GM (my current GM excluded) being really, REALLY BAD at it, to the point of legit throwing combats they expected to be a cakewalk at us, which then near-or-actually TPK the party and, as a consequence, kill the campaign 'cause we're TPKing before we even reach level 4 (usually before we reach level 3). Or maybe it would be #3 after combat-design/balance and XP-distribution, where I've had game after game after game where it takes multiple sessions just to reach level 2, and more than four more sessions to reach level 3--and every such game has died before we even got the ghost of a chance of reaching level 4. It's only been in Hussar's group that I've even gotten to see higher-level play, which I find vastly more enjoyable than being trapped at level 1-2 for a month and a half.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Intimidation is best used on thugs trying to shake you down imho than part of your day to day affairs.

It has plenty of other uses. It shouldn't be over-used by any means, but it has plenty of uses.

IRL its usually a very bad way of doing things. I'll use it in extreme situations vs a ranting boomer, telling someone to sit down, or a silent look. Implication being they can do it or face you if they keep doing what theyre doing.

99% of the time its a terrible approach.

Nah. It's not nearly that terrible. You're just doing as many, many, many GMs out there do, and only noticing it when it's been done in the terrible "instantly make consequences you'll regret" form.

Consider: A police officer letting you off with a warning is using Intimidate on you. They're saying, "I'll give you this favor, but if you cross me, you'll regret it." They're being nice to you, in the here and now, but the looming threat remains. Likewise, escalating punishment metrics in, say, MOBA games like League of Legends, or any large-size MMO of your choosing (WoW, FFXIV, GW2, ESO, etc.) You get one infraction, it's usually a warning. Two, short-term ban. Three, long-term ban. Beyond that, either a major ban, or outright losing your account entirely. Each of those steps is both a punishment and a threat of greater punishment.

Speed limit signs and other traffic instructions are a form of intimidation--just a generally nonviolent kind. And, unfortunately, a kind that rich people often ignore because the threat is irrelevant to them. (One of the reasons why I favor income-/asset-scaled ticketing, because rich people shouldn't view handicapped parking spaces as simply expensive exclusive parking spots.)

Further, most of the best villain characters are really quite good at using intimidation in a genteel, even dignified way. It doesn't have to be a direct threat of violence; it can even be jovial.

 

[Zardnaar]

It has plenty of other uses. It shouldn't be over-used by any means, but it has plenty of uses.


Nah. It's not nearly that terrible. You're just doing as many, many, many GMs out there do, and only noticing it when it's been done in the terrible "instantly make consequences you'll regret" form.

Consider: A police officer letting you off with a warning is using Intimidate on you. They're saying, "I'll give you this favor, but if you cross me, you'll regret it." They're being nice to you, in the here and now, but the looming threat remains. Likewise, escalating punishment metrics in, say, MOBA games like League of Legends, or any large-size MMO of your choosing (WoW, FFXIV, GW2, ESO, etc.) You get one infraction, it's usually a warning. Two, short-term ban. Three, long-term ban. Beyond that, either a major ban, or outright losing your account entirely. Each of those steps is both a punishment and a threat of greater punishment.

Speed limit signs and other traffic instructions are a form of intimidation--just a generally nonviolent kind. And, unfortunately, a kind that rich people often ignore because the threat is irrelevant to them. (One of the reasons why I favor income-/asset-scaled ticketing, because rich people shouldn't view handicapped parking spaces as simply expensive exclusive parking spots.)

Further, most of the best villain characters are really quite good at using intimidation in a genteel, even dignified way. It doesn't have to be a direct threat of violence; it can even be jovial.

Yeah but im not a big fan of police either. And ours are fluffy kittens comparatively.

Sure a cop can do that. But I dont nark either. At least I'll weigh up what theyre looking for outweighs my dislike of them.

 

[Hussar]

One of the best innovations in 4e was allowing characters to use Intimidate to force morale checks on opponents. You could literally end a fight with an intimidate check. I was very disappointed to see that go away in 5e.

 

[BenjaminPey]

But you totally can intimidate (or persuade) an hostile opponent to give up the fight. Otherwise, there would be no "hostile" disadvantage to checks (there would be no check at all). "Intimidate a monster" is clearly listed in the Influence action, for instance.

 

[Parmandur]

One of the best innovations in 4e was allowing characters to use Intimidate to force morale checks on opponents. You could literally end a fight with an intimidate check. I was very disappointed to see that go away in 5e.

IIRC, the new DMG has a fresh take in using some morale stuff, briefly.