When it comes to knowing what berries are edible, Nature would be through reading a book on the subject, while Survival would be knowledge accumulated in the field.
When Kelly and Monty disagree, I almost always agree with Kelly, and this is no exception. You can intimidate someone without threatening them. You can be intimidated by someone who has not even looked at you or spoken to you, and it can be for reasons other than fear of harm. You can be intimidating because you are very beautiful or very intelligent or many other things.
Here's a good example of an intimidation check that has nothing to do with threats: "Welcome to the Salty Spittoon; how tough are you?" "How tough am I? I ate a bowl of nails for breakfast this morning!" "Yeah? So?" "Without any milk." "(Terrified) Oh; uh, go on ahead."
Bruce Lee in Enter the Dragon, used intimidation A LOT and never threatened, never even spoke much of the time, just a look or a movement and people were like "Whoa... I think I am just going to go away."
I think you guys miss something really important with Intimidation: that long-term effect can be a boon. A skill like Deception might need to be reused on the same person every time you wanna sneak a lie past them. But if you make an NPC comply out of fear for their life, then come back a week later and ask for the same thing? That first Intimidation check probably still applies. And, of course, as others said, there are many more ways to be intimidating than "do this or I'll kill you". One of my favorite from a player of mine recently was telling an NPC, "Yeah, we're the ones who killed your mom for being evil. Now please stop upsetting us."
I think Monty forgot to consider that intimidation could also be using one's social status to coerce one into doing something. It isn't all physical harm with the intimidation skill
It doesn't even have to be direct threats, or even threats at all. Intimidation just has to be anything that scares or overawes a person into doing something
im thinking about someone like Silco from Arcane, he is neither big, not really charismatic and is small and not beefy, But he has power and a sharp intellect. To me someone that really seems indifferent and cold with a threats is more scary then a big hotheaded person. A really sharp intellect can be really scary especially if that person does not have anything really to hold em' back and act on violence.
I think you are thinking about persuasion. Persuading someone isn't just done through rhetoric and charm. Sometimes persuasion occurs through fear and anger.
@@brendanmcnassar4565With persuasion though, you’re making an argument to convince someone of something. You pretty much have to use your words. With intimidation, you don’t necessarily need to say anything, you can just give off an aura. Just by the way you hold yourself when you walk into a tavern, the waiter might give you the best seat in the house. It’s like good cop, bad cop. Good cop uses persuasion and bad cop uses intimidation, even though both have the same resources and power at their disposal, and the inability to make physical threats. Good cop will make an argument, appealing to your sense of self interest, guilt, etc. try to persuade you that it’s in your best interest to plead guilty. Bad cop will try to intimidate you and have fear (e.g. how badly you’ll do in prison, scary aura making you unconsciously likely to cave) be the reasoning to drive you to cave.
It's only because Kelly brought up intimidation in the context of someone being able to use the Strength score as intimidation rather than Charisma. The same rules still apply. You still have to believe the threat will be honored. If the Nobility says "Do this or else I will bar you from the court of XYZ, you still have to believe they won't bar you anyways."
On the topic of cross score skills, people tend to forget that they're completely official and can be used. Knot tying is specifically called out as: Intelligence-sleight of hand
In my games the performance skill is actually quite useful. I don't limit it to playing an instrument, but include "acting" as well. So if you want pass as someone else, performance check, if you want to pretend to be sick/injured/poisoned, pretend to fall, etc. It does step on the toes of decpetion, but I try to think of the difference between "acting" and "lying". I feel it balances out nicely.
I mean performance is the best skill obviously! There's nothing like creating the most legendary show people talk about centuries later. I once played a bard that rolled a 50 (yes 50!) on a performance check and it was talked about even in the follow up campaign a century later, now that is what I call epic! Few other skills can do that kind of stuff. But on a more serious note: Yes! this is actually in the rules as well. The actor feat specifically boosts the Performance skill: "You have advantage on Charisma (Deception) and Charisma (Performance) checks when trying to pass yourself off as a different person." So it is clearly implied that performance absolutely can be used for acting purposes.
@@pedrobrito4461 Yeah like lvl 18 or something, and my lute was literally blessed by a bard turned god I was a main follower off, so I my lute added a d12 on every Performance check + expertise at high level and the lore bards ability to add inspiration (also d12 at that level) on themselves gave me a theoretical maximum of something like 62, but that meant that I would have rolled maximum on like 4 dice at the same time or something. Rather unlikely. But the 50 I did manage to roll. High level characters are insane if you built them for it.
Honestly, the skill system of 5e really rises or falls on the DM's ability to determine how skills should be used and in what contexts. I've used history as a memory check, and in that sense, it's actually pretty useful. Kelly's idea of intimidation is unnecessarily limited. You can be intimidated by someone's very presence when they walk into a room, without them ever threatening physical violence towards you. Intimidation can involve blackmail and other forms of social intrigue. Animal handling can be used to train animals to obey non-verbal commands (think wild-shaped Moon druid using 3 consecutive bear grunts to instruct his wolf companion to attack). Pretty much every skill in 5e has its place and niche areas of usefulness.
Why do we need a memory check in DnD? A whole week goes by between sessions where in game two seconds pass. Either it's public information or it isn't.
@@apjapki That's a bit exaggerated (at least, in my games)... And I've found it useful for recalling certain facts about enemies or factions, details about people's lives, etc. Saying "it's either public information or it's not" is oversimplifying. Example - a rogue disguises herself to look like a certain noblewoman. I have her roll a History check to recall specific details about her appearance. She gets a high number and recalls that the lady has a birthmark on her chin and a small scar above her left eyebrow. The rogue now gets to roll her Deception with advantage.
I think you mean Monty's view of intimidation. Kelly was advocating for alternate uses beyond straight physical threats, at least before aquiescing to Monty's strange "only actual physical threats" view, which is more of a table limitation than anything.
I've always treated History checks as memory. If a player asks if their character would know something, I think about it and make a judgement on how difficult the check might be, and then ask them to roll History. Usually it's folklore, history, legends, or current events. Then again I value the Intelligence skills in my games a little more than others would.
Same, but not. I have them roll an Intelligence check. If the character is proficient in a skill that could help, they get to add their PB to the roll. "Skill checks" don't really exist in 5E, rules as written. But same, I treat Intelligence more like memory, as well as an "Ask a hint or guidance from the GM" ability.
@@20storiesunder It sure does. 5E did it dirty. It's so poorly devised. It shouldn't track the _intelligence_ of the character, since that is actually determined by the player. A complete donkey of a player could have capped INT and do the dumbest things imaginable, and the barbarian with INT 3 could be an absolute tactical genius, as long as the player has the chops for it. Nobody would want their DM to go like "that's a very smart plan. Roll an Intelligence check to see if you can come up with it."
@gaminreasons8941 And everything goes down the drain when a player takes the keen Mind feat and basically passes those knowledge base rolls because of that.
Intimidation works great if you think about it from a charisma POV. Imagine "oh dear, the guards would not be happy to know about you trying to mislead us. Don't worry about it though, friend. Just take us where we want, and we'll forget all about this."
This is a great example for charisma based intimidation. On the other hand staring at the bandits with your hand on your axe saying "YOU want to rob ME? How lucky are you feeling today?" would be strength based imo...
@@dodobarthel2249 I keep thinking about Andre the Giant's characters intimidating someone by just picking them up effortlessly or crushing a rock or whatever without saying anything, and it makes me more upset at Monte and other DMs not letting the barbarian use STR for intimidation if its appropriate contextually
@@AvangionQpersonally I would draw a line between "divine" and "arcane" magic. I would have it so that if you're trying to identify something made by a wizard that's arcana but if you're trying to identify something cast by a cleric that's religion. Might not be quite as accurate but it gives more use to religion.
Intimidation for me doesn’t just encapsulate threat but also just the application of a commanding presence. Most good parents know you don’t need to hit your kid get them to toe the line. And a veiled threat is still a threat, if the mob implies that you shouldn’t do something they aren’t trying to persuade you not to do it, it’s a command with less culpability, a wielding of presence instead of words for intimidation. When the teacher gives the student the death stare and they shut up, no words spoken between the two, no threat of iss, nothing… that’s still a successful intimidation check imo
I think shoving is too situational, or at least it has been in my current campaign playing a Battlemaster. A lot of the enemies I've wanted to knock down are high strength monsters, which means it's less reliable. It also has negative synergy with ranged attacks, which could range from not all that relevant all the way up to a complete deal breaker depending on your party. You still take it, but to me that level of being dependent on the types of enemies you face as well as your party's composition makes it feel about as B-tier as it gets.
And it can be used to escape grapples, making it strictly superior to Acrobatics in every regard except its associated ability score and balance checks.
If you're a Beast Barbarian it is S tier since they can add an athletics check to their jumping distance/height (if you take the jumping option at level 6). Built right you can reach low orbit in a single jump (and survive the fall) :D
I find that DMs often incorrectly use acrobatics and athletics interchangeably. Athletics is running, jumping, throwing, pretty much anything that happens during a football game. Acrobatics is body control and balance. Jumping distance and height is 100% athletics. Whether or not you make the jump is athletics. Whether not you are able to do so gracefully and avoid a trap on the other side of the gap is acrobatics. DMs often just let people use acrobatics when athletics should apply because DEX is a more common stat people put points in, and they want to throw their players a bone.
@@mathdemigod8162Not really. His point is that they need to believe you’ll not do the thing in order to be intimidated into doing what you want. That’s a logic based reaction. Intimidation is about fear. If there’s a chance to avoid the terrible thing, most will take it even if it’s a thin hope.
As a player I love using insight not as a "lie detector", but something more of a "reading body language". Like if we encounter a group of travellers, I'm asking questions like "Are they eyeing our purses?" "Do they keep their hands close to their weapons?", just less of an "do they lie" and more of a "what might be their next physical move". As a GM I describe it in a fairly similar way, let's say someone's insighting a tavern keeper and I would say "They seem to be looking at you with no outright hostility, but you notice their eyes wander off to the axe hanging on the wall about five feet away from them. If you cross the line, they seem to be ready to grab it"
Yeah. My current group uses it as "what kind of gist am I getting?" Like, my Goblin Artificer SUCKS at insight but that doesn't mean she stops being suspicious if she rolls poorly, she's just not as able to act on the suspicion. Also the Warlock has a ritual for telepathy so we can all converse like "you feeling what I'm feeling?" to try and sus things if that's set up beforehand. This can get hilarious when BOTH sides of an argument or situation are lying to us.
While it may be niche, I tend to use Intimidation as a replacement for Persuasion when dealing with savage or strong races, such as orcs, goblins, dwarves, goliaths, etc. The rationale being that such races are more easily persuaded by strong words than flowery ones. I still use Intimidation for veiled threats as Kelly mentioned, but Persuasion takes its place for these same races. In essence, someone Persuading an orc uses word games to confuse them and get the information they want, which infuriates the orc once he realizes what just happened.
I use the History skill to let players know facts about the world in general, not just past history. So if a rogue wants to check what he knows about the local crime syndicate, i let him roll History, but if the paladin wants to do the same, he will either get higher DC, Disadvantage, both, or i might even outright refuse and tell him there is no reasonable way for him to have this information. It becomes the catch-all knowledge roll, and i adjust it on the fly to make sense in-character. It really is a lot simpler to handle than people might think.
Absolutely, in my opinion, they overrated Arcana and underrated History (and maybe even Religion) based on the ways they run their game. I think Arcana is good, but it relies on having a high magic setting where the DM is going to use it for far more than the PHB lays out for the skill. If the DM plays things a lot closer to RAW, then History, Arcana, and Religion are probably all going to be somewhere around the B/C tier (campaign-dependent)
Intimidation is just a more, aggressive, form of persuasion. But like persuasion it can take many forms, it might be a threat of violence, whether that's raw muscle, a dagger against their throat, or plain old using magic to turn them inside out, but the threat could be more social, using Blackmail to coerce someone is threatening their social status and may affect their livelihood. Sometimes Intimidation can be very subtle.
Rile playing on both sides are vital. Skills are guides it's good players. The ultimate intimidating character I had was an Eladrin rogue covered in serious scars. She bled at lease her hp total in fights. Once healed up in armor or in formal attire, the elvish beauty with the scars was just scary. When the sweet pleasant voice came out while she finished cleaning off blood using a bag of holding worth of rags.
As a DM, I actually always try to make skill do something if somebody takes them and tend to really spread skill checks, utilising all of them. I write different quests where different types of skills might do the trick and can't be substituted with another skill or a spell. Also, in my games Insight is one of the most important skills. It lets you understand the emotional state of a person, or what kind of personality they have and how to approach them, and my games are usually pretty psychological so it's important to make the right decisions.
You don't need to believe someone will let you live to be intimidated. Anyone holds a pistol in my face, i'll be intimidated regardless of how much i think compliance will help & even if i thought i wasn't gonna make it, i'd still do what i was told in the hopes i'd be ok. Intimidation : frighten or overawe (someone), especially in order to make them do what one wants. You can succeed an intimidation & not get valuable information ( that's where something like insight is combo'd with it. ) but they have still been intimidated. Most common use : "I make myself look scary, to try & make the X run away/yield/panic"
11:32 I should note, that another boon to Arcana is being able to write a Spell Scroll of your own spell that you can then hand to the party wizard. This is very useful in optimized tables.
I love playing scribes wizard because of the advantage in arcana, combine it with getting expertise in it, and you can get (with a 1/400 chance) a 18 minimum, so you always know something I love it so much
I usually completely agree with the Dudes on most things, however, I've found myself, especially in regards to deception, persuasion, intimidation, and performance, completely disagreeing with their explanations for each skill. For me, Persuasion is the ability to convince someone that the topic or action you want them to do is right or correct. Deception is the ability to convince someone of a falsehood. Intimidation is the ability through fear to push someone to do something you want them to. Performance is much more complicated. Example, someone could be a master at the piano but have stage fright and be unable to perform in front of others. The tool skill is the playing the piano. The performance is the ability to use that tool to evoke a specific response. So, an acting performance is literally convincing someone that you are someone who you aren't. The difference I see between deception and performance is that when you're deceiving someone you're specifically trying to convince someone of a particular falsehood, and performance is trying to convince someone that you're the earl of buckingham when you're not. Now there's nothing to say that you can't use either skill for the same ends, its just how you go about it that determines the skill.
Saying you're the Earl of Buckingham and being convincing about it is Deception. Playing the role of the Earl of Buckingham while not actually being that person is Performance.
@@Kaelyn91 I never DMed, but the way I would treat this is: 1) Roll a Performance check to see if you're good at impersonating the Earl of Buckingham, then 2) If it succeeds, roll a Deception check with advantage to see if the person you're trying to deceive believes you really are the Earl of Buckingham, with a higher DC the closer that person is to the Earl.
@@Xerxes2005 I can agree that the order of operations here is logical, however depending on the NPC the deception check would be redundant or you'd be better served rolling Insight for the party in question. The latter option obviously requiring the NPC to have a viable stat block. The Performance can serve as and effectively replace the Deception given the appropriate intentions or circumstances. For example, there's a very common psychological phenomenon where people dislike actors who play villains very well for no reason other than they played the villain well. The actor hasn't done anything to actually warrant this feeling, other than portray a good villain. That being said, the actor's roll to accomplish this I would say would be performance rather than deception, as they were never necessarily intending to deceive anyone, just play their role to the best of their ability.
@@cRobin1375 I would generally agree, but it's the intention of the player and/or the circumstances of the attempted deceit that would determine which roll was actually used. My original comment is specifically in reference to the example given in the original comment and already going along with the assumption that there's a needed distinction. For instance, one wouldn't have a performer in a play roll a deception to portray their character, nor would one have someone negotiating a deal that benefits them more than the other party roll performance. The rolls can be used interchangeably, but the situation determines which one I would decide upon.
@Joker-yw9hl keep in mind that even a 30 persuasion check or deception check doesn't necessarily Auto succeed. It might have some benefits but your players can't alter reality and convince the king he's not the king Think of it like attack rolls. If your Barbarian rolls a 30 to hit but it's not a nat 20, does that mean he does more damage? Nope, still does the normal amount of damage as long as he beats the AC and doesn't roll a nat 20
@Odande lol yeah all true enough and I know I shouldn't be banning the subclass for that reason (I'd even love to play as one) but I was just like aaah for most encounters it's just gonna be broken. Luckily no one wanted to play as one anyway so that's a plus
I disagree with your use of intimidation. You can be intimidated without the threat of violence. Someone can be intimidated by someone even if that someone has done nothing. Someone can be seduced by intimidation. I'm currently in a campaign about an arcane plague and I have used the medicine skill multiple times a session. But I do agree for most campaigns it seems mostly useless unless you home brew or use a third party version of the healer's kit.
I 100% agree. In this case, I think Monty is conflating success at intimidation (the die roll) with the skill itself. Someone can be physically imposing and not intimidating. Someone can fail at intimidation and the result is the target thinks it is dead either way. I often use allow characters use their primary stat for intimidation in the right scenarios.
At our table, we've had Medicine crop up a fair few times in 5e* (possibly because our main 5e DM is an actual doctor), but in fairness, it's usually a "you don't have any potions on you, and the magical healer is out of spell slots". Not always- there was a police procedural they ran where it was used for autopsies, and a few where it was part of the process for crafting/fitting a prosthesis (usually magical), and on one memorable occasion when the pregnant NPC we were escorting went into labour. It's also one of those ones where we might roll Medicine to make sure that bones are aligned properly prior to casting a healing spell (I've played with DMs who take the view that magic is great for speeding up healing, but a bone out of place might well 'heal' twisted, and need a Restoration spell to fix the ensuing constant 'low-grade' pain and lack of mobility). Probably still not enough to move it into S or A tiers, but I'd still argue it should be a high C/low B, if only because it gives a backstop for near the ends of dungeons, when your magical resources are low and you've used your potions. Religion, I definitely think you've done dirty. Or at least, you've responded to how many tables have done it dirty. Put it this way, if the gods are real, and do take an active hand in your world (and between curses, empowering clerics/paladins, granting boons, despatching celestials as messengers, etc. it's a fair bet they are still taking a hand), someone living in that world is going to want to stay in the gods' good books (or at least, off their sh!t list). Religion isn't just remembering the stories, or the tenets of faith, it's the skill you'd use to try and please the gods. It's not just a knowledge skill, it's a social skill, especially since the majority of D&D settings have entire pantheons of gods getting up to shenanigans of their own that you're going to want to keep straight. You don't want to find out that you've accidentally pissed off a deity by entering their temple wearing a symbol of a rival deity, or you've called on a god of the harvest to bless your voyage because you got them mixed up with a god of the sea. Again, this isn't going to be a universal experience, but Religion checks have come up pretty often in our campaigns. Usually in the context of coming across holy sites while adventuring and making sure we don't annoy the deity they are sacred to (hilariously, most of the party have been from other continents, with different pantheons, so our DC for the check has been higher than those characters that are locals, and thus familiar- and it's almost always been the local that failed the check. Our Egyptian-themed ranger has been cursed by Anubis and Bastet for misbehaving in shrines on 5 separate occasions so far, while my western-greek-themed warlock has avoided all of the potential faux pas). *The skill gets more use in the other games systems we're currently playing, but those are somewhat besides the point.
The discussion on History in terms of how reliable it is made me think of advice I give as a Lawyer, which is, 1. "There's always a gap between what actually happened and what you can prove," and 2. "I always assume my client is telling the truth as they know/believe it, but I rarely, if ever, have a case get better once I've heard from the other side," and 3. My old prosecutor boss used to say, "Cases are not like fine wine, they don't get better with age." That being said, they didn't even touch on the fact that the PHB suggests using the skill as magic item identification.
May I share a thought, I think intimidation has more application then just, “believing you won’t die if you do as they say.” If you’ve ever gone to a biker bar or a metal concert. You’ll look at a guy and be like “ I don’t want to mess with him”. Or been around a decorated soldier with experience, I think of Jocko Willink, looks imposing / intimidating and demands your respect. A check could be, do you look tough, do you look distinguished / impressive enough to pass as the noble or soldier or bodyguard you say you are. Another example I think of is Grog from CR. At times he’s a goof, and every way Travis acts or present his character (either from what he says or describes what his character is wearing) in key points comes off not intimidating. But other times he’s acting rough, tough or mean. And either says or does things that are imposing. So I think of intimidation as more then just the verbal threat of harm, but the passive threat via looks, or the idea that some deserves honor or respect. The persons looks or knowledge of the persons accomplishments or what the person says, make you go “woe, I’d get schooled by them if I tried to best them.” Which that could have applications to more then just fighting or threat to bodily harm. It could go into things like a player is about to play a card or dice game, participate in a race, or hit a target with an arrow that’s difficult to hit (like Robin hood does or like the girl from the Disney movie Brave). Just food for thought to inspire creative uses of intimidation in DnD 5e.
I like the idea of Intimidation being used as a pseudo - Authority Check. A way to exert your presense. Make others accept your presense or words because they don't dare question. Not necessarily scare them, but to accept their position in the hierarchy, beneath you. You aren't trying to persuade them, you are making them avoid questioning.
My method of making Sleight of Hand better is decoupling it from Stealth. If you're trying to hide your whole body and not be seen at all, roll Stealth. If you're visible but trying to do something secretively, roll Sleight of Hand.
A note regarding Perception, even if it wasn't overused, it would still be S-tier if the DM runs the Surprise rules as written, because Surprise is not supposed to be pass/fail for the entire party, but one where some combatants can be surprised while others notice the ambush just in time to avoid surprise, but not soon enough to warn everyone else.
This seems so odd to me. Generally I would make a stealth check prior to initiative and so, no, either they fail prior to combat with time to shout or succeed and initiate combat. I can't see where that window of time exists where you are making the surprise check in combat itself.
I disagree with your take on Intimidation. I AGREE that it's a C, but there are plenty of examples of intimidation in fiction that are not direct threats. The classic example would be from The Godfather part 2 when Michael is talking to Fredo about his betrayal and getting him to tell him about what he did. He didn't say "Tell me what you know or I'll kill you" But he was absolutely scary as hell BECAUSE you knew, and he knew, and Fredo knew that Michael had his life in his hands and that he was living on borrowed time. Not a single overt threat was made, but he was getting what he wanted, not be deceiving, not by persuading, but by being scary and making everyone near him do what he wanted BECAUSE they knew that being on his bad side is a REALLY bad move.
OR the classic US example. A Police Officer or other Authority Figure can come in throw their weight around and get people to do things. Not because they are lying. Not because they are convincing people or persuading people. But because people know that they have guns, and handcuffs, and cars, and jail cells and that they can pretty easily have you spending a night or a weekend locked up if you piss them off. This is nothing but Intimidation and they don't have to make any overt threats. Just the simple "How would you like to come downtown to answer some questions..." and let that drop.
It doesn't even have to be violence related. A boss can be intimidating but you're not expecting them to have you killed. Meryl Streep in the devil wears Prada is intimidating.
Str based intimidation counterargument for Monty: It still seems worth it to comply with the big scary person even if you don't believe that they won't hurt you. Unless you've got a viable course of resistance or escape, the miniscule chance that complying will keep you safe is better than nothing.
Great point. Intimidation is goal based, making people do the thing you want. You may well intimidate someone so much, they freeze and don't give you any info.
Also, not to be a simpleton about it, but WotC put the Intimidation skill on the character sheet. If I’m playing a big scary guy, or a social manipulator, I want to use that skill. If my DM makes it always backfire because of real-world data about the invalidity of interrogation and torture tactics or whatnot…then I’m going to ask to swap out my proficiency for a skill that actually works in the campaign. At some point we have to remember we’re playing a game and telling a story with friends. If Darth Vader threatens the Death Star commander to hurry up construction, and the guy responds with “Well now we are going on strike because you’re being hurtful, Lord Vader”, that would take me out of the movie. I’m not saying Intimidate should always work, but it shouldn’t automatically fail, or just be an invalid choice.
@@andrewlewis2123 Yeah. I wasn't going to get into RAW use because I saw some other comments on it already, but I agree. Unless I've got an NPC or circumstance where there's no way in hell it could work, I think the roll should be enough to determine how NPCs react. At the very least, players need the heads up at session 0 if you're a GM that already knows you'll rarely allow the use of a basic skill
@@apjapki The idea of a critical success on Intimidation making the target so scared that they can’t competently help you is really funny, I might steal that.
For me intimidation is the Princess Bride "Fezzik, tear his arms off" "Oh you mean this key." they're using Fezzik's brawn to intimidate, but Inigo is making the threat
There is plenty of examples of characters who are not physically imposing but are incredibly intimidating in movies and tv series alone. Like take Hans Landa from Inglorious Basterds for example, he is a small scrawny guy who never even raises his voice, and he is absolutely terrifying.
The way I see the knowledge skills that made them REALLY shine in my group since we used them are these ones: - Knowledge about temples and everything god-related = Religion - Knowledge about events = History (Yes, it's true the history is only written by the victorious, but it's right there were the knowledge in this skill came up stronger. With this skill you can differenciate legend from real things in those books or tales, compare both of them and, also, came up with solutions from the past) - Knowledge about non-normal things (outside god-related) = Arcana - Knowledge about natural phenomena (biology, chemistry, physics, botany...) = Nature - Knowledge about ways to survive = Survival (Eg: you can know that cliff is treacherous with nature, but you know how to climb it with survival and you need the athletism required to do it, don't skip steps.) - Knowledge about injuries and how to fix them = Medicine (Eg1: A goblin stab you with a poisoned dagger, how you know is poisonous? with this skill. Eg2: The king is puking a lot, how do you know what is happening?, roll this skill and the symptoms on the person (not in the meal) say that the meal is not good for consumption. Solution: better to puke everything and be more careful with the food next time. // Yes, it's still a niche skill, but if you only have access to the people to treat, is the go to. I will also say that to heal arcane/eldritch/divine creatures need both skills, Arcana/Religion and Medicine to be able to achive it.) - Knowledge of logical thinking, imaginative scenarios and Poirot reveling the guilty-kind of scene = Investigation (the Poirot part is important to understand, Sherlock Holmes has A LOT more knowledge outside his thinking, he knows from meteorology (Nature check), symptoms in people or corpses (Medicine check) and he is charismatic enough to reveal deep secrets from people via talking (Deception/Persuasion check) or paying attention to the manners, the ways, the moves of people (Insight check). With all those clues gotten, he is good linking them and solving the case (Investigation check)... Only that last bit was investigation. For this reason, solving puzzles or riddles for CHARACTERS is always an investigation check and that's it, because there is no more to it (ofc, it depends on the group. I let my players handle the puzzles or riddles, all of us have fun, but if they are stuck, I ask for a check to give clues). Incredible useful skill, yes, but not that spread as one may think. It's only connecting dots... Oh, and one last thing, this skill is better when more people have it, because 2 heads thinking are better than only one) Ofuf, that was longer than expected... have a nice day, everyone
On Persuasion vs Deception: the outcome of failing a deception check is potentially far more disastrous than failing a persuasion check. Therefore, it makes sense to attempt to persuade more often than deceive if you're aiming to minimize that risk (although deceiving is way more fun).
I mostly agree with the rankings. Intimidation is one I would bump up to B because I never regret having it and I frequently regret not having it. Religion I would bump down to D as it so rarely comes up.
I find that to be very campaign dependent. I've been in a few campaigns that utilized Religion quite a bit. But I will agree that more campaigns ignore it.
To supplement Monty's discussion of why pure physicality does not entail intimidation, Jayne from Firefly would be a great example. "Jayne, you only have to SCARE him." "Pain is scary!"
My only issue is intimidation, i would rank that at least B or low A. And the reason why is some people are just not nice people and they just hate you purely for "because i can". There's also people who won't budge because either they are super loyal and will follow their orders no matter what or sometimes people are super scared of something else and no matter how much you reassure them they can't get over that fear. Think the carrot and the stick, the carrot is saying what you needs to say either by lying or convincing peacefully to do X thing. Intimidation is the stick where all else fails, do X or Y will happen, guard move out of the way or my group and I will make you move. Scared citizen, i know the baron ordered you to be quite about X thing but if you don't tell me what i need to know i will feed you to my bear right this second. Warlord of raiding tribe, the king who sent us doesn't wish blood, but if you don't stop your raids he will bring his army down upon you. Sometimes intimidation is the only way forward in certain situations. O also sometimes people of power or strength hate silver tongue individuals and respect those who have the guts to make demands to you of all people. Sometimes that will earn people their respect by showing you are no push over and will fight for what you want and they can relate to that.
I think this is a great video, love to hear your takes on the skills. How I normally run my skills is similar to the “shoot arrows at your monks” mindset. Depending on which skills my PCs are proficient in, I will try and set up things so that they can use their skills and feel comfortable in them instead of everyone using the same ones time and time again. I just had a bard, trying to sneak past a dragon, behead a kobold (lol) and wear his armor and head as a disguise and made it as a performance check - this could’ve easily been deception but it seemed more like “acting” to me
Vice for history, or religion, is a PC is proficient in those I’ll usually write the “lore dump” and give it to them as a side bar so they can roleplay their proficiencies and tell the rest of the party instead of just me doing it :-)
I'd argue Arcana as S due to proficiency allowing spellcasters to craft scrolls. Being able to use your downtime to essentially make additional uses of spells like Revivify, Feather Fall, and Freedom of Movement, spells that are not usually going to come up a lot but you definitely want to have in your back pocket in case the need arises, is extremely valuable.
@@TheRawrnstuff You want as many spellcasters as possible with proficiency in Arcana. Not only can you craft more spell scrolls if multiple people have proficiency, having multiple spellcasters with various spellcasters means you can craft spell scrolls from various spell lists (Wizards can craft Phantom Steed, but you need Clerics for Revivify, and then you need Druids for Freedom of Movement, etc.) At high levels of optimization, you would have your entire table as playing some form of spellcaster, either a full-caster or a half caster, since you don't really need martials to tank with how strong crowd control in 5e is. That means everyone should have a spell list, and that means Arcana proficiency to craft scrolls.
@@KobeEscalante "You want as many spellcasters as possible with proficiency in Arcana" Which is different than "You want Arcana even for characters who don't focus on magic". I agree, Arcana is S-tier for all-spellcaster parties, especially at higher levels.
Honestly technically I agree with your intimidation problem because that is exactly how I have seen it used BUT I think you could make more out of it. There are a lot of things you can be scared without the person immediately threatening you. Think about it for example if you meet a policeman. You will IMMEDIATELY start thinking what you might have done wrong, what wrong thing you might say to get in trouble etc. Imagine being a well dressed very high class person in a normal tavern. People might be like "don't mess with him or his dad will ruin you" without you ACTUALLY saying anything or even being menacing at all. Thinking about it a bit while writing maybe you could brake it down more eloquently into: Persuasion is getting someone to do something by making them want to do it. Intimidation is getting someone to do something they don't want to do but are afraid of the consequence. Deception is getting someone to do something for a totally fake reason (either lying about a positive outcome or making them believe a negative consequence that is fake). Let me make a real easy example: selling stuff! Persuasion would be being friendly, making the person happy and thus he pays you a little more to do you a favor. Intimidation would be you make him afraid of missing out on a good deal that might fall to his competitor, tell people he trys to rip people off, or making clear you WILL simply leave if he does not give you a better deal. Deception is making the person believe that is actually a ruby and not glas, a rare artifact and not some random crap etc. This also explains why grok the barbarian is not more or less intimidating than the gnome artificer, because neither is charismatic enough to convey these nuances. Or another CLASSIC example: the high school cheerleader top girl who is friends with everyone not really because her personality is so great but because most people fear her. They don't really HATE her but are kind of compelled to like her because of her status.
For intimidation, watch The Blacklist. Raymond Reddington as a character is a masterclass on the skill. He comes into a room and talks about tea. All the while, his opponent is about to have a massive coronary as they realize they are dealing with the "Concierge of Crime." He's also convincing that he will deliver on their ability to get out of the bad position he's putting them in.
An underrated feature of Arcana as a skill is scribing spell scrolls. You have to have proficiency in Arcana to be able to scribe scrolls. Extra spells in your pocket is an extra resource available to use. And you can scribe spells that you don’t necessarily want broken have to prepare every day because of how niche they are, but being able to carry a copy around for those niche cases can be very useful.
I don't really think Intimidation is that one-dimensional, it's more that I find that people are willing to bring up deception and persuasion more, often in its place. I actually think a fair few skills has this issue that it's just kind of handwaved not having to use it, like with animal handling, and that's the only reason it's lower use. Sometimes that's just our fault as gamers in the system, I think. I agree about History in that it's almost too broad and simply hard to always follow or make use of though.
One way to make Medicine more relevant would be to tie that skill to the healer's kit. You're proficient in Medicine, you have a healer's kit, then you can stabilize a creature with 1 hp and you can restore hit points. Not only can you diagnose an illness, you can also treat it, depending on the illness (or poison) DC, or at least know how to treat it. The Medicine skill alone would only allow you to stabilize with 0 hp and diagnose an illness and know how to treat it, and the healer's kit alone would only stabilize a dying companion. Scrap the Healer feat.
I do think you underrated athletics. It isn’t just for escaping grapples, but initiating them. There are builds that are incredibly useful/strong that are built around that skill.
Stabilising a downed teammate is a negative. It's just better to let them roll in case they hit a nat 20. If they went down and you can't heal them, you're better off trying to end the fight than waste a turn that's not even getting someone back in the fight
@@YMasterS a dead teammate never returns, assumes coup de graces never happen, and banking on a 5% chance when death saves are a 50/50 isn't very wise. Just bring healing word.
@AnaseSkyrider a dead team mate is dead either way, and USUALLY returns. How about we don't assume incredibly rare and stupid house rules are part of the majority of games? Especially when that's not even what that rule is. Edit - also, it's 55%.
"Maybe this is a neurodivergent thing that we think deception is the most useful because we have to deceive everybody to think we're normal people" I feel so attacked but also so understood at the same time.
Athletics v. Acrobatics with regard to movement is the difference between overcoming a force and using the force to your advantage. For example, in the swinging trapeze, the performers use the momentum of the swing to do most of the work of lifting their legs up. It’s the difference between doing a pull up and swinging your body to get the momentum to get on top of the bar.
@@johnymey4034what...do you mean? You didn't watch the end of the video and claimed they put... Other skills in S-tier? How's that twisting your words? You just used a bunch of buzzwords to seem smart
I get Monty's argument about Intimidation being better as a Charisma-based skill, but you can also apply the same logic to Strength. To successfully intimidate someone, that person also has to believe that you're capable of actually being a threat to them. So, when the intimidation is dealing with bodily harm, they'd be more inclined to believe that a big, noticeably strong dragonborn would actually be able to harm them rather than the small, charismatic halfling. There's also the fairly common instance in DnD where the target of the intimidation doesn't have any way to reasonably and safely refuse the demand, even if they aren't confident that the player character will honor their promise to not harm them if them comply. In those instances, you could argue that Strength is the much more important ability as that's what would convince the target to see you as a threat.
Wow. Very interesting. In our home games, History and Medicine are way up the list and Arcana and Insight are much lower. Maybe our other DM and I are just running the stuff very much differently... Was kinda suprised about this tier-list!
Yeah, of all their videos this is one of the ones I'd take the biggest grain of salt with. What skills are useful is highly dependent on your DM and the adventure you're playing. If your DM only runs games in cities like Waterdeep or Ravnica then Nature won't be a useful skill, but if your DM is constantly running games set in more natural environments its stock will shoot way up. That's just one example, but overall this video is more useful in how it gives an idea of how the Dudes play rather than taking it at face value.
I really like the way these vids help us get to know you guys and the way you see the world and your views and experiences. It really goes to show how games can have deep meaning and learning value and it reminds us that the people you play games with are the most important parts of games and learning experiences in general.
Strength based intimidation makes just as much sense as Charisma based. If you were on a walk and saw a cute dog you wanted to pet. Then the dog shows its teeth and growls, and it intimidates you causing you to fear it and run away. It didnt have to demand anything to change the way you wanted to react. Intimidating is about changing the way someone would act. Not necessarily about getting them to do a specific thing you want.
When can we expect more spell tier ranking videos? I love hearing your opinions on them and it sometimes gets me thinking about spells I have maybe been too harsh on.
For Intimidation, it's actually more variable, imho. Threat of torture is just basic. Blackmail is more interesting, as well as actual sanctions. "If you don't bow to your new king, you'll starve - we hold the grain produce and your sea-trade routes," - is clearly a direct threat. "If we don't get promised reward, everyone will know not to deal with you, and your reputation will be ruined so much no gold will ever repair it." Not every player is capable of dishing it out efficiently, as not many people are good at this in life 😂
An anecdote about intimidation: I was playing an Aasimar trying to get information from a young peasant at a church. He was clearly being evasive and I wanted to intimidate him so I unfurled my wings, raised off the ground and said, "Do not lie to me child!" My DM said, "I'm not going to even make you roll for it, this kid is terrified." So I've found that intimidation is more of a player skill and less of a character skill.
I think with the intimidation skill they are missing that intimidation is not always on purpose. You could have a player use and intimidation check if they say some thing that made intimidate someone it doesn’t just have to be threat
At 26:50 ish, when talking about intimidation and actually holding up the 'bargain' if they comply- if you were planning on still killing them if they didn't push the button then that sounds like deception. Definitely with Kelly on that one.
Dang, I was really surprised to see Medicine ranked so low on this list, but I guess it's really just a different strokes kinda thing; I called for some really pivotal medicine checks all the time in the last campaign I ran. It was definitely S-tier in our campaign. Healing, surgery, resetting bones, determining Time of Death, careful disection... there's a lot that falls under it. But I guess if it's an animal, I could just have them roll one of those all-too-common Animal Handling checks, instead.
Also strongly agree on not feeling like history/religion are adequate. They're extremely broad. After I played Call of Cthulhu, I realized that there are substantially better ways to handle things like this. Agree that making them akin to Tools would be a decent enough solution for D&D!
It bugs me that Medicine is attributed to Wisdom. Wisdom is the "Vibes" stat. Intelligence is the "Knowledge" stat. Surely learning human biology, effects of herbs, and CPR, are more in the domain of knowledge than vibes. Like, I feel like it was put there simply because certain classes favor WIS, and certain classes favor INT, and it seemed thematically convenient, rather than based on what the ability stands for.
@@TheRawrnstuff totally agree! When I was running 5e, I let my players use Intelligence or Wisdom, whichever is higher, so those sorts of things. Same with Strength for Intimidation-- Strength and Intelligence are underused in general, imo
@@TLBainter I hear ya. When I run 5E, I basically ignore skills, only ever asking the ability check. Though I do make it a point to note to the players that if they have a proficiency that they feel should help, to ask if they can benefit from it - whether by way of PB or advantage. Their suggestion also helps me to better pinpoint what exactly it is that they're wanting to do, and adjust the DCs and what they get out of the roll respectively. "Incorrect" proficiencies might yield limited results tho, like animal handling to determine if the corpse in the forest was killed by beasts, or just scavenged upon. It would still be an Intelligence check, as per investigation proficiency.
What they are taking about re: acrobatics and circus acts or parkour: then ask for a strength(acrobatics) check. That flexibility is built into the rules. So a rogue with a 10 strength but expertise in acrobatics would still rock those checks, but not quite as well as dexterity (acrobatics)
I Think Arcana is easily an S Pick for every Full Caster just because so they can make spell scrolls... E.g.: the wizard/pact of chain warlock giving everyone a find familiar spell scroll..... Or the other way around: every other spellcaster giving the wizard permanent acces to the best non-wizard spells (esp. cleric spells)
After bg3 I've started putting 'hidden caches' in travel to add something to optional survival checks. Our Barbarian likes shiny things and I had him trip over a half-buried chest. He found a shield with a fancy gold trim. He has found 5 of these chests now and has just started naturally rolling survival and spots them. Mind I roll a hidden d10 to determine IF there's a cache when travel, no cache, or maybe even a mimic. Also I'd actually put performance at a C. When I've had situations of "I resisted the siren's song.. as my action can I roll performance to scream loud enough to drown them out to give my allies advantage on the saving throw" and for SOME REASON my DM allowing that to work.. I think there's some value in it for crafty players if a DM treats it broadly like theatrics.
I would put athletics into A tier since it can be a considerable element to strength based martials. Maintaining a grapple is one of the few ways martials can force an opponent to focus on them, and can also combo with frighten effects to lock an enemy down if you shove them prone. It’s a skill that can benefit considerably from expertise, imo.
Point about intimidation: When faced with death or even just extreme injury, people will almost always comply. There are exceptions but those are rare indeed. People comply even if they don't believe the one intimidating them will have mercy on them, because what's the other option? If the other option is something that justifies such a sacrifice, then they weren't going to comply anyway no matter what. But if it's something they could be persuaded into by that or violence than they will comply if they're scared enough. There are other nuances that might be applied to characters with certain personalities, but as a whole, intimidation can be just a thing people feel based on someone's looks
Tool proficiencies are the ones that are seldom used outside of thieves' tools or tinker's tools, or whatever the artificer is using. I mean, we even have groups with non-rogues taking thieves tools. When do leatherworking tools come to use in the middle of a dungeon or while traveling?
Leather working is good for survival campaigns where your character needs to go out hunting animals and turning their hides into tents, clothing or armor as protection against the elements.
Xanathar's Guide has a useful expansion on the rules for tool proficiencies, giving guidelines on what you can do with them. For example, alchemist kit gives advantage on knowledge checks related to potions and poisons, and you can attempt a number of effects (not sure I agree with some of the DCs): Activity / DC Create a puff of thick smoke / 10 Identify a poison / 10 Identify a substance / 15 Start a fire / 15 Neutralize acid / 20 Also "As part of a long rest, you can use alchemist’s supplies to make one dose of acid, alchemist’s fire, antitoxin, oil, perfume, or soap." It's true to say that, even then, leatherworking tools are pretty underwhelming compared to some others.
Arcana proficiency is important for any spell casting class because it is required in order to craft spell scrolls. This makes it S tier for casters because having more people able make scrolls increases your teams overall power. Nature proficiency also helps with harvesting poisons. Not worth a tier increase necessarily, but worth mentioning.
In my table we play with a variant skill system, containing only five "skills": Lore, Survival, Perception, Stealth, and Manipulation/Influence. Other roles just use the regular abilities (Strength, Dexterity...) each character is proficient in one "skill" which we call their "Specialty". So far been great. All the skills see pretty equal use, and are very straight forward.
This sounds neat. Out of curiosity, how do you handle expert classes like rogue and bard, who get more proficiencies, jack of all trades, multiplie expertises, etc.?
To make acrobatics more useful, i like to allow falling characters to make an acrobatics check with a DC equal to the number of feet they fell, with a success still taking fall damage, but not being knocked prone.
Id do it the other way around. The first thing they teach you in gymnastics is how to fall so you dont break something. however doing so involves a sort of 'crumple' maneuver so you end up prone. I wouldnt let it negate damage completely but it is a genuine way of lessening the impact. Love this idea though:)
Actually now im thinking about it more id offer the choice. Landing on your feet is an acrobatic feat but so is crumpling, theyre just mutually exclusive. You have either land of your feet and let your knees take the full impact- doing damage, or you can crumple and end up prone but take less damage.
Wrong! Perception employs all of your senses and allows you to notice secret doors, traps and hidden monsters. Investigation is a mental skill that allows you to deduce what happened given clues or how to manipulate complex machinery or tell how a trap works. Tired of DMs trying to nerf Perception. Look at all the modules for 5E, all of them require Perception checks to notice traps. Then to disarm it, if you wanted to, you would need investigation to tell what kind of trap it is and how to disarm it. It's a 3 step process of Perception, Investigation (if you aren't going to just bypass it or set it off remotely) and then your tools to disarm it. DnD One will finally fix this BS by tying Perception to the Search Action and Investigation to the Study Action. I'm just really tired of DMs thinking they are smarter than the game developers and switching mechanics around arbitrarily. And that's what it is - vibes.and feels. This is why I like well written rules so DMs/Players can't just push their BS interpretation out there.😅 Just because players are smart and pick Perception based skills and feats doesn't mean you have to ruin their builds with your terrible homebrew.
@@007ohboy Wauw, just wauw. Who hurt you? Homebrew is fundamental to D&D, it's in its very DNA. "I'm just really tired of DMs thinking they are smarter than the game developers and switching mechanics around arbitrarily." just shows you know nothing about D&D. Perception is doing to much IMO, and I quite like, both as a player and a DM, to give a lot more to investigation. Perception does way too much in the game even with the OP interpretation, and it's terrible design from the designers of the game. You've given no arguments _why_ Perception should do everything and investigation almost nothing at all, you're just saying game developers probably know best, but that's not an argument, that's just an appeal to authority. I will always use investigation for anything trap based. Perception is what you eyes and ears happen to fall on (and is at my table almost exclusively used passively as a kind of anti-stealth), Investigation is what you are actually looking for. Give Intelligence based stats some love!
@@007ohboy Perception will notice something is wrong. Like that brick is out place, an Investigation check will let you know it is a pressure plate for a trap.
@jaspermooren5883 Because you break feats and skills dodo 🦤. Observant is nerfed with your ruling. 5E makes it clear, Jeremy Crawford made it clear, Passive Perception is what is used to notice secret doors, traps and hidden enemies. Your senses ARE the most important asset you have. Duh! Your hearing, your sight, your "6th sense" is all covered by Perception because that's easy. None of you who break 5E rules actually offer anything better that doesn't make the game more convoluted and nerfs people's skills. Your ruling are arbitrary and you homebrew wackos never look at the whole system and only the tiny part you want to "correct". You break stealth mechanics and they make no sense. You don't use passive skills which means you call for a lot of BS rolls because "vibes" and lazy DMing. You think being Invisible is the same as hiding for your BBEG but then switch to RAW stealth mechanics when the players do the same thing to your monsters.👻 😆 I can smell the inconsistencies and the rulings being pull from one's arse because they either don't know RAW or have an even crappier homebrew solution for everything. I play at 7 different tables. I will not join any group who has a 7 page homebrew change log just to play your crappy modded game. I want to play REAL DnD and not your knockoff. DMs have full control over the story, enemies, npcs, and possibilities, but for the love of God, stop ✋️ messing with the game engine and then wonder why your campaign "crashes" all the time. 😆 🤣
@comicnimn Exactly. You notice a trap. But if your investigation is crap, you won't be educated enough to know how to disarm it. Secret doors is automatically spotted. Sorry dudes above with your homebrew BS. You notice that book is off on the shelve. You go over and manipulate it and "click", you found a secret. Simple stuff is handled by Perception. Whe. You are talking about complexity, that's when you need investigation. One is your senses, one is your intelligence/education. None of the Homebrewers every use investigation right, either. 😆 Me: "I found a dead body. I want to know how she died and based on the clues I see, deduce what may have killed her and who did it." DM: Ummm....roll an wisdom check? Me: OMG! Dude, that's totally an Investigation check. It's literally sleuthing. Arrgh! DM: Your right you're right. Oops! You come to a door. Roll Investigation to notice a trap! Me: SMH...and this is what happens when WOTC do not clearly define their rules and leave NO interpretation otherwise you get DMs ruling that a creature loses their advantage to attack because a wizard cast See Invisibility. 5E is a total package and none of its mechanics are isolated. If you tug at one rule, like a string of a web, you are going to unravel the whole damn thing. 🙄
Form of Dread had the right of it when they said "5E has six skills: Grapple(Athletics), Escape Grapple(Acrobatics), Benefit From Pass without trace(Stealth), Make Scrolls(Arcana), Don’t Be Surprised(Perception) and DM Fiat(The others)". Yes, a good DM can and should make every skill useful enough to be worth picking up, but by RAW only five have any real mechanical effect of guaranteed value, and everything else is a matter of "mother may I"ing or otherwise convincing the DM into doing what you want until you hit their limit and they make you roll. It's not even that every skill needs to have defined mechanical effects. The freedom of a more freeform skill system has real advantages and appeal. But the fact that 5e is so inconsistent and half-baked in its skill design is a very real problem and incentivises degenerate behaviours like the aforementioned "mother may I-ing" precisely because there is no standardized expectation for how the game treats skills. My issues with 5e and the weird expectations it places on DMs aside, what this really means is that only Athletics, Acrobatics, Arcana, Stealth, and Perception are by definition of the rubric in use capable of being A or S tier (and indeed they all are, with Arcana and Acrobatics being A and Athletics, Perception, and Stealth being S (though as optimization level and the proportion of the party who is spellcasters increases, Arcana becomes S, and similarly as summoned minions become more prevalent Athletics drops to A)). The others are B tier at the absolute best, with their actual tiers in practice being rather campaign-dependent (with Deception and Persuasion by far being the strongest B tier candidates).
My DM always makes us explain our line of reasoning on why we would be rolling an insight check. Something like "This kid has changed his story multiple times and is acting very shifty, so I'm watching him closely to try and figure out exactly what he's lying about to catch him in a lie." Or "This guy's personality has changed multiple times right in front of us, is this guy possessed?" I haven't played Pathfinder 2e but I really do like how in Pathfinder 1e there's ways in combat to use skills like intimidation. Cornugon Smash is one that comes to mind. When you do damage with a power attack you get to make a free intimidate check against them to slap them with the Shaken condition, which gives them a -2 on attack rolls, weapon damage rolls, saving throws, ability checks and skill checks. Or dreadful carnage which does the same thing to every enemy within 30 feet whenever you reduce something to 0 hit points. And of course there's Intimidating Prowess which lets you add your Strength score to Intimidate checks. Point is, it is very possible to make a system that lets you use skills in tangible ways in and out of combat and 5e should have implemented that.
What? Acrobatics is objectively worse than Athletics. You can't build a Character around Acrobatics. You can build an amazing Character around Athletics. Grapple, Push and pull builds are super strong.
Makes more of a difference if you only have one attack. Swashbuckler tumbles through the first guard and stabs the cleric. They then keep moving and dive behind the Altar for a bonus action Hide.
@jasoncox4338 What action in combat asks for an Acrobatics check other than escaping or preventing a Grapple? Outside of DM fiat, Acrobatics doesn't just allowed you to slip passed enemies to attack a different target behind them...
@@chrisg8989 tumbling through is suggested in the DMG. They use lots of other options in this video, so choosing not to on a skill they don't see much use for would be a strange call.
Are "Skills" really necessary? Can all the skill rolls be replaced with ability rolls and dc manipulation? All of the knowledge skills blend together like a Venn diagram and that's over half the skills. 3 of the 4 charisma skills are nearly interchangeable and performance of an instrument should be dexterity anyway. It doesn't matter how charismatic someone is, if they suck at playing the triangle they're out of the band. That's 14 out of 18 skills. Ability checks already exist and are different from ability saves. "I want to get past that guard." "How?" "I want to list all the reasons this is a dead-end job so they quit and walk away." "Okay, Intelligence roll." "No wait, I want to have a flex off with them until they are humiliated and leave." "Riiiight, Strength or Charisma roll. Your choice." TL:DR - Any roll that can be contested gets it's own modifier. That leaves Athletics and Stealth (sometimes). Anything else is an ability roll.
I've had games where Perception wasn't even close to number 1, but yeah, generally you are right. It also depends on how the players play the game though, players determine more which skills see use than the DM when I'm running the game. They make all the decisions that lead up to certain skill usage, and as long as it's resonably relevant, I'll allow it. For example Investigation and Perception are completely interchangeble for 95% of use cases in my games, it's really just what the player wants and how they describe it. I quite actively promote players in using their skills in interesting ways.
You missed a really cool option for the HISTORY skill. In games I've used it to know heraldry banners. Or knowing about organizations within the game world. You might not know who is the leader of the assassins guild is. But you might know that the skull with crossed daggers is the assassin's guild symbol. Which allows the non-rogue party member seek out the group. Because 5e shortened the skill list from prior editions. Treat them more like macro-skills. History could also mirror general education and general knowledge. Because you read a book on history you may have an understanding of different philosophies. Again look at the skills in macro form. Survival you basically made it tracking and foraging. But this skill could be used to find game trails for quicker travel in untamed lands. Or knowing the signs of the weather changing up. A severe weather change can make knowing the survival skill important. Because you'll know this camp site is vulnerable to flash floods in heavy rains. So instead of pitching a tent here, we should sling some hammocks up in these older trees. Not only could it make it so you can fish. But you also know how to cook said fish. Or salt it in a way so the fish doesn't spoil. Not only can you live off the land you can profit from too.
I treat history as a “Do I know the historical situation surrounding the local humans and the goblins” “I didn’t think it would be important to write this down before, but my character might remember” Or a “I forgot to buy X back in town, and it’s not something that we absolutely would have bought, can I retcon having bought it”
1) based 2) don't love this - characters are not their players and should recall info the players don't if they aren't using the DM as a crutch. 3) insane time travel magic, no thanks
The other thing with Acrobatics is that in a lot of situations where you think it would come into play, they're resolved through Dexterity saving throws instead.
An alternate way to use history checks is if your player forgot to take notes of something they did and want the DM to be nice enough to remind them lol
As a DM I ask for this check all the time. It's not that my note-taker doesn't take good notes, but he doesn't always know what information will be relevant later.
I kind of hate this. Either your players aren't paying attention to your story or you (DM) don't care if your players understand what is going on. Unless they have switched off completely, just tell them. I have a whole life, I try to take notes and remember but there's nothing to be gained withholding public info from past sessions
@@apjapki I kinda hate it, but not for that reason. 5E doesn't recognize "skill checks", like a History Check. It's just an Intelligence check. If you're proficient in the History skill, you get to add PB to Intelligence checks that relate to that skill. I kinda feel like _anyone_ who was there when a thing happened should have the bonus, not just people who've studied history.
@@apjapkiYeah, I had a DM who did this all the time, and it drove me crazy. Yes, the burden is on the players to be paying attention to the plot and characters. But like with many things, you shouldn’t use an in-character solution for a player-centric problem. If I had reacted by taking Skill Expert to boost my INT and grab Expertise in History, or the PHb feat that gives you an eidetic memory, would that have really solved me zoning out at times? No, it probably would’ve just escalated tensions. I instead try to elevate the stock of History by having it apply to culture and traditions, too. Not just ancient legends but also current events, trends, factions, politics. Sadly those don’t come up that much more often in my games 😂
In favor of history, I have been at SO many tables where if you’re trying to recall something as your character, such as the name of noble you met 30 sessions ago, the DM calls for a history check and if you fail you just don’t remember. History has basically functioned as an alternative to taking notes for those players that refuse to take them, and while I don’t think that’s the purpose of the History skill, it’s how I’ve seen it be implemented several times.
To be fair, even good note-takers don't always get everything. Sometimes a bit of information seems innocuous at the time it's revealed only to be relevant later in an unexpected way. I agree that this shouldn't be used as a substitute for note-taking, but I think it's fine to use it as an aid.
@@magnusprime962 I am in support of history and I don’t mean to make it seem like note taking is a certain solution, and history being utilized this way isn’t all bad. It’s like the Keen Mind feat where you can mechanically have a reason to take less notes
I kind of hate this. Either your players aren't paying attention to your story or you (DM) don't care if your players understand what is going on. Unless they have switched off completely, just tell them. I have a whole life, I try to take notes and remember but there's nothing to be gained withholding public info from past sessions.
Love it! Intimidation I find to be a great skill in hierarchies, evil campaigns, and heists. It would be fun to think about these skills and checks from the perspective of the monsters
Your dim view of Intimidation comes from your very narrow idea of what intimidation means. “You’ll never work in this town again” is intimidation. You can indirectly intimidate somebody ; the Chinese call it “borrowing the tiger’s terror”. Your notion that people assume a person with a high STR score “will beat them up anyway” is silly.
The way I've always differentiated between Nature and Survival: Nature is knowing which berries are edible, Survival is being able to find them.
We always play survival as the "don't get lost in the woods" skill.
Being proficient in nature makes you a biologist, being proficient in survival makes you a wilderness survivor.
I ran it similar to that too, it's book knowledge vs practical
@@basselstineart or any terrain really.
When it comes to knowing what berries are edible, Nature would be through reading a book on the subject, while Survival would be knowledge accumulated in the field.
When Kelly and Monty disagree, I almost always agree with Kelly, and this is no exception. You can intimidate someone without threatening them. You can be intimidated by someone who has not even looked at you or spoken to you, and it can be for reasons other than fear of harm. You can be intimidating because you are very beautiful or very intelligent or many other things.
Oh no, they're hot!
Here's a good example of an intimidation check that has nothing to do with threats:
"Welcome to the Salty Spittoon; how tough are you?"
"How tough am I? I ate a bowl of nails for breakfast this morning!"
"Yeah? So?"
"Without any milk."
"(Terrified) Oh; uh, go on ahead."
I think the way to remedy this is just make a passive intimidation skill, which is weirdly a strength-based check lol
Bruce Lee in Enter the Dragon, used intimidation A LOT and never threatened, never even spoke much of the time, just a look or a movement and people were like "Whoa... I think I am just going to go away."
@@theultimatesvengali4430 i think it would be a wild skill for any stat you are way better at then them
I think you guys miss something really important with Intimidation: that long-term effect can be a boon. A skill like Deception might need to be reused on the same person every time you wanna sneak a lie past them. But if you make an NPC comply out of fear for their life, then come back a week later and ask for the same thing? That first Intimidation check probably still applies.
And, of course, as others said, there are many more ways to be intimidating than "do this or I'll kill you". One of my favorite from a player of mine recently was telling an NPC, "Yeah, we're the ones who killed your mom for being evil. Now please stop upsetting us."
I think Monty forgot to consider that intimidation could also be using one's social status to coerce one into doing something.
It isn't all physical harm with the intimidation skill
It doesn't even have to be direct threats, or even threats at all. Intimidation just has to be anything that scares or overawes a person into doing something
im thinking about someone like Silco from Arcane, he is neither big, not really charismatic and is small and not beefy, But he has power and a sharp intellect.
To me someone that really seems indifferent and cold with a threats is more scary then a big hotheaded person. A really sharp intellect can be really scary especially if that person does not have anything really to hold em' back and act on violence.
I think you are thinking about persuasion. Persuading someone isn't just done through rhetoric and charm. Sometimes persuasion occurs through fear and anger.
@@brendanmcnassar4565With persuasion though, you’re making an argument to convince someone of something. You pretty much have to use your words. With intimidation, you don’t necessarily need to say anything, you can just give off an aura. Just by the way you hold yourself when you walk into a tavern, the waiter might give you the best seat in the house.
It’s like good cop, bad cop. Good cop uses persuasion and bad cop uses intimidation, even though both have the same resources and power at their disposal, and the inability to make physical threats. Good cop will make an argument, appealing to your sense of self interest, guilt, etc. try to persuade you that it’s in your best interest to plead guilty. Bad cop will try to intimidate you and have fear (e.g. how badly you’ll do in prison, scary aura making you unconsciously likely to cave) be the reasoning to drive you to cave.
It's only because Kelly brought up intimidation in the context of someone being able to use the Strength score as intimidation rather than Charisma. The same rules still apply. You still have to believe the threat will be honored. If the Nobility says "Do this or else I will bar you from the court of XYZ, you still have to believe they won't bar you anyways."
"Nobody is ever going to die because their character isn't proficient in acrobatics."
Doreen from Fantasy High would like a word with you.
On the topic of cross score skills, people tend to forget that they're completely official and can be used. Knot tying is specifically called out as: Intelligence-sleight of hand
And so is strength-based intimidation in the PHB.
It's an alternate rule, but then again, so is using a grid.
Dexterity performance comes up A LOT in games I run
The PHB mentions Strength for Intimidation, but where is Intelligence + Sleight of Hand mentioned for Knot Tying? That should be a Survival check.
I could also see Dexterity/Medicine for surgery in certain situations
In my games the performance skill is actually quite useful. I don't limit it to playing an instrument, but include "acting" as well. So if you want pass as someone else, performance check, if you want to pretend to be sick/injured/poisoned, pretend to fall, etc.
It does step on the toes of decpetion, but I try to think of the difference between "acting" and "lying". I feel it balances out nicely.
This is pretty much exactly how I think of it. The distinction between an act (of any kind) and a lie is very important.
Performance is huge if you allow it to be. So many role playing uses.
I mean performance is the best skill obviously! There's nothing like creating the most legendary show people talk about centuries later. I once played a bard that rolled a 50 (yes 50!) on a performance check and it was talked about even in the follow up campaign a century later, now that is what I call epic! Few other skills can do that kind of stuff.
But on a more serious note: Yes! this is actually in the rules as well. The actor feat specifically boosts the Performance skill:
"You have advantage on Charisma (Deception) and Charisma (Performance) checks when trying to pass yourself off as a different person." So it is clearly implied that performance absolutely can be used for acting purposes.
@@jaspermooren5883 50?? seems awesome!
Also, nice catch. I didn't think of the actor feat.
@@pedrobrito4461 Yeah like lvl 18 or something, and my lute was literally blessed by a bard turned god I was a main follower off, so I my lute added a d12 on every Performance check + expertise at high level and the lore bards ability to add inspiration (also d12 at that level) on themselves gave me a theoretical maximum of something like 62, but that meant that I would have rolled maximum on like 4 dice at the same time or something. Rather unlikely. But the 50 I did manage to roll. High level characters are insane if you built them for it.
Honestly, the skill system of 5e really rises or falls on the DM's ability to determine how skills should be used and in what contexts. I've used history as a memory check, and in that sense, it's actually pretty useful. Kelly's idea of intimidation is unnecessarily limited. You can be intimidated by someone's very presence when they walk into a room, without them ever threatening physical violence towards you. Intimidation can involve blackmail and other forms of social intrigue. Animal handling can be used to train animals to obey non-verbal commands (think wild-shaped Moon druid using 3 consecutive bear grunts to instruct his wolf companion to attack). Pretty much every skill in 5e has its place and niche areas of usefulness.
Why do we need a memory check in DnD? A whole week goes by between sessions where in game two seconds pass. Either it's public information or it isn't.
@@apjapki That's a bit exaggerated (at least, in my games)... And I've found it useful for recalling certain facts about enemies or factions, details about people's lives, etc. Saying "it's either public information or it's not" is oversimplifying.
Example - a rogue disguises herself to look like a certain noblewoman. I have her roll a History check to recall specific details about her appearance. She gets a high number and recalls that the lady has a birthmark on her chin and a small scar above her left eyebrow. The rogue now gets to roll her Deception with advantage.
Well said.
well said.
I think you mean Monty's view of intimidation. Kelly was advocating for alternate uses beyond straight physical threats, at least before aquiescing to Monty's strange "only actual physical threats" view, which is more of a table limitation than anything.
I've always treated History checks as memory. If a player asks if their character would know something, I think about it and make a judgement on how difficult the check might be, and then ask them to roll History. Usually it's folklore, history, legends, or current events. Then again I value the Intelligence skills in my games a little more than others would.
Good shout, especially since it's int based
Same, but not. I have them roll an Intelligence check. If the character is proficient in a skill that could help, they get to add their PB to the roll.
"Skill checks" don't really exist in 5E, rules as written.
But same, I treat Intelligence more like memory, as well as an "Ask a hint or guidance from the GM" ability.
@@TheRawrnstuff Intelligence needs all the help it can get!
@@20storiesunder It sure does. 5E did it dirty.
It's so poorly devised. It shouldn't track the _intelligence_ of the character, since that is actually determined by the player. A complete donkey of a player could have capped INT and do the dumbest things imaginable, and the barbarian with INT 3 could be an absolute tactical genius, as long as the player has the chops for it.
Nobody would want their DM to go like "that's a very smart plan. Roll an Intelligence check to see if you can come up with it."
@gaminreasons8941 And everything goes down the drain when a player takes the keen Mind feat and basically passes those knowledge base rolls because of that.
Intimidation works great if you think about it from a charisma POV. Imagine "oh dear, the guards would not be happy to know about you trying to mislead us. Don't worry about it though, friend. Just take us where we want, and we'll forget all about this."
I would let you roll Intimidation or Persuasion in this situation. Maybe both and pick the higher outcome.
This is a great example for charisma based intimidation. On the other hand staring at the bandits with your hand on your axe saying "YOU want to rob ME? How lucky are you feeling today?" would be strength based imo...
@@dodobarthel2249 and taking a hit and not even flinching would be CON based intimidation
@@dodobarthel2249 I keep thinking about Andre the Giant's characters intimidating someone by just picking them up effortlessly or crushing a rock or whatever without saying anything, and it makes me more upset at Monte and other DMs not letting the barbarian use STR for intimidation if its appropriate contextually
And about arcana in Xanathar there's the rules that a character with proficiency can make scrools and is pretty usefull
Or magic items. It's either Arcana (which covers ALL magic items) or a specific tool (which covers items related to the tool). Arcana is just better
That makes it S tier for all spellcaster
@@noaharkwvca its S tier for any warlock
Arcana is S-tier in my campaign as the #1 go-to skill for understanding and interacting with anything magical.
@@AvangionQpersonally I would draw a line between "divine" and "arcane" magic. I would have it so that if you're trying to identify something made by a wizard that's arcana but if you're trying to identify something cast by a cleric that's religion. Might not be quite as accurate but it gives more use to religion.
Intimidation for me doesn’t just encapsulate threat but also just the application of a commanding presence.
Most good parents know you don’t need to hit your kid get them to toe the line.
And a veiled threat is still a threat, if the mob implies that you shouldn’t do something they aren’t trying to persuade you not to do it, it’s a command with less culpability, a wielding of presence instead of words for intimidation.
When the teacher gives the student the death stare and they shut up, no words spoken between the two, no threat of iss, nothing… that’s still a successful intimidation check imo
I would argue Athletics is an A. It is used for Grapples/Shoves, making it basically mandatory for any strength-based character.
I think shoving is too situational, or at least it has been in my current campaign playing a Battlemaster. A lot of the enemies I've wanted to knock down are high strength monsters, which means it's less reliable. It also has negative synergy with ranged attacks, which could range from not all that relevant all the way up to a complete deal breaker depending on your party. You still take it, but to me that level of being dependent on the types of enemies you face as well as your party's composition makes it feel about as B-tier as it gets.
Being the only strength skill, it already is mandatory by design
And it can be used to escape grapples, making it strictly superior to Acrobatics in every regard except its associated ability score and balance checks.
I wouldn’t say “mandatory for strength based characters” as much as “most optimal due to being the only strength based skill.”
If you're a Beast Barbarian it is S tier since they can add an athletics check to their jumping distance/height (if you take the jumping option at level 6). Built right you can reach low orbit in a single jump (and survive the fall) :D
I find that DMs often incorrectly use acrobatics and athletics interchangeably. Athletics is running, jumping, throwing, pretty much anything that happens during a football game. Acrobatics is body control and balance. Jumping distance and height is 100% athletics. Whether or not you make the jump is athletics. Whether not you are able to do so gracefully and avoid a trap on the other side of the gap is acrobatics. DMs often just let people use acrobatics when athletics should apply because DEX is a more common stat people put points in, and they want to throw their players a bone.
Strength-based intimidation is clearly a better way for big scary guys. Kelly is right on this one
I dunno. Monty is right that intimidation is more than just being scary.
@@mathdemigod8162Not really. His point is that they need to believe you’ll not do the thing in order to be intimidated into doing what you want. That’s a logic based reaction. Intimidation is about fear. If there’s a chance to avoid the terrible thing, most will take it even if it’s a thin hope.
I run it as sort of a combo, in that the DC will be lower if they have reason to believe you can back it up
You have to keep in mind that a player's equipment and reputation can affect Intimidation too
I agree. Pigeonholing skills is what makes them useless.
As a player I love using insight not as a "lie detector", but something more of a "reading body language". Like if we encounter a group of travellers, I'm asking questions like "Are they eyeing our purses?" "Do they keep their hands close to their weapons?", just less of an "do they lie" and more of a "what might be their next physical move".
As a GM I describe it in a fairly similar way, let's say someone's insighting a tavern keeper and I would say "They seem to be looking at you with no outright hostility, but you notice their eyes wander off to the axe hanging on the wall about five feet away from them. If you cross the line, they seem to be ready to grab it"
Yeah. My current group uses it as "what kind of gist am I getting?" Like, my Goblin Artificer SUCKS at insight but that doesn't mean she stops being suspicious if she rolls poorly, she's just not as able to act on the suspicion. Also the Warlock has a ritual for telepathy so we can all converse like "you feeling what I'm feeling?" to try and sus things if that's set up beforehand.
This can get hilarious when BOTH sides of an argument or situation are lying to us.
While it may be niche, I tend to use Intimidation as a replacement for Persuasion when dealing with savage or strong races, such as orcs, goblins, dwarves, goliaths, etc. The rationale being that such races are more easily persuaded by strong words than flowery ones. I still use Intimidation for veiled threats as Kelly mentioned, but Persuasion takes its place for these same races. In essence, someone Persuading an orc uses word games to confuse them and get the information they want, which infuriates the orc once he realizes what just happened.
I like that.
I use the History skill to let players know facts about the world in general, not just past history. So if a rogue wants to check what he knows about the local crime syndicate, i let him roll History, but if the paladin wants to do the same, he will either get higher DC, Disadvantage, both, or i might even outright refuse and tell him there is no reasonable way for him to have this information.
It becomes the catch-all knowledge roll, and i adjust it on the fly to make sense in-character. It really is a lot simpler to handle than people might think.
Absolutely, in my opinion, they overrated Arcana and underrated History (and maybe even Religion) based on the ways they run their game. I think Arcana is good, but it relies on having a high magic setting where the DM is going to use it for far more than the PHB lays out for the skill. If the DM plays things a lot closer to RAW, then History, Arcana, and Religion are probably all going to be somewhere around the B/C tier (campaign-dependent)
"I'd like to make this jump Acrobatically." "Great. How many flips would you like to do before falling 6 feet short of the ledge?"
"as a brazilian, i will acrobatically do a double jump"
Athletics is how far you jump. Acrobatics is if you can successfully land on your feet without hitting anything midair
😂😂😂
To me, an Acrobatics jump check is to run along the side of a wall Prince of Persia style.
@@AvangionQ But Monks have a skill that just does that
Intimidation is just a more, aggressive, form of persuasion. But like persuasion it can take many forms, it might be a threat of violence, whether that's raw muscle, a dagger against their throat, or plain old using magic to turn them inside out, but the threat could be more social, using Blackmail to coerce someone is threatening their social status and may affect their livelihood. Sometimes Intimidation can be very subtle.
Intimidation doesn't require aggression
@@joshbisig I didn't say that it did.
You forgot the most important part about Athletics, it's the skill you need to be able to grapple enemies effectively.
Intimidation is way more than making a threat.
Scaring, lowering morale, dissuading someone from taking interest, etc. etc.
Rile playing on both sides are vital. Skills are guides it's good players.
The ultimate intimidating character I had was an Eladrin rogue covered in serious scars. She bled at lease her hp total in fights.
Once healed up in armor or in formal attire, the elvish beauty with the scars was just scary. When the sweet pleasant voice came out while she finished cleaning off blood using a bag of holding worth of rags.
As a DM, I actually always try to make skill do something if somebody takes them and tend to really spread skill checks, utilising all of them. I write different quests where different types of skills might do the trick and can't be substituted with another skill or a spell.
Also, in my games Insight is one of the most important skills. It lets you understand the emotional state of a person, or what kind of personality they have and how to approach them, and my games are usually pretty psychological so it's important to make the right decisions.
You don't need to believe someone will let you live to be intimidated. Anyone holds a pistol in my face, i'll be intimidated regardless of how much i think compliance will help & even if i thought i wasn't gonna make it, i'd still do what i was told in the hopes i'd be ok.
Intimidation : frighten or overawe (someone), especially in order to make them do what one wants.
You can succeed an intimidation & not get valuable information ( that's where something like insight is combo'd with it. )
but they have still been intimidated.
Most common use : "I make myself look scary, to try & make the X run away/yield/panic"
11:32 I should note, that another boon to Arcana is being able to write a Spell Scroll of your own spell that you can then hand to the party wizard. This is very useful in optimized tables.
I love playing scribes wizard because of the advantage in arcana, combine it with getting expertise in it, and you can get (with a 1/400 chance) a 18 minimum, so you always know something
I love it so much
Arcana is S-tier in my campaign as the #1 go-to skill for understanding and interacting with anything magical.
I usually completely agree with the Dudes on most things, however, I've found myself, especially in regards to deception, persuasion, intimidation, and performance, completely disagreeing with their explanations for each skill. For me,
Persuasion is the ability to convince someone that the topic or action you want them to do is right or correct.
Deception is the ability to convince someone of a falsehood.
Intimidation is the ability through fear to push someone to do something you want them to.
Performance is much more complicated. Example, someone could be a master at the piano but have stage fright and be unable to perform in front of others. The tool skill is the playing the piano. The performance is the ability to use that tool to evoke a specific response. So, an acting performance is literally convincing someone that you are someone who you aren't.
The difference I see between deception and performance is that when you're deceiving someone you're specifically trying to convince someone of a particular falsehood, and performance is trying to convince someone that you're the earl of buckingham when you're not.
Now there's nothing to say that you can't use either skill for the same ends, its just how you go about it that determines the skill.
Saying you're the Earl of Buckingham and being convincing about it is Deception. Playing the role of the Earl of Buckingham while not actually being that person is Performance.
@@Kaelyn91 I never DMed, but the way I would treat this is: 1) Roll a Performance check to see if you're good at impersonating the Earl of Buckingham, then 2) If it succeeds, roll a Deception check with advantage to see if the person you're trying to deceive believes you really are the Earl of Buckingham, with a higher DC the closer that person is to the Earl.
@@Kaelyn91 honestly I think it’s both, and you could use either.
@@Xerxes2005 I can agree that the order of operations here is logical, however depending on the NPC the deception check would be redundant or you'd be better served rolling Insight for the party in question. The latter option obviously requiring the NPC to have a viable stat block. The Performance can serve as and effectively replace the Deception given the appropriate intentions or circumstances. For example, there's a very common psychological phenomenon where people dislike actors who play villains very well for no reason other than they played the villain well. The actor hasn't done anything to actually warrant this feeling, other than portray a good villain. That being said, the actor's roll to accomplish this I would say would be performance rather than deception, as they were never necessarily intending to deceive anyone, just play their role to the best of their ability.
@@cRobin1375 I would generally agree, but it's the intention of the player and/or the circumstances of the attempted deceit that would determine which roll was actually used. My original comment is specifically in reference to the example given in the original comment and already going along with the assumption that there's a needed distinction. For instance, one wouldn't have a performer in a play roll a deception to portray their character, nor would one have someone negotiating a deal that benefits them more than the other party roll performance. The rolls can be used interchangeably, but the situation determines which one I would decide upon.
All the Eloquence homies know Persuasion and Deception are top tier
As a new DM I am guilty of outright banning Eloquence from my table, lol
@@Joker-yw9hlSkill issue ;)
@Joker-yw9hl keep in mind that even a 30 persuasion check or deception check doesn't necessarily Auto succeed. It might have some benefits but your players can't alter reality and convince the king he's not the king
Think of it like attack rolls. If your Barbarian rolls a 30 to hit but it's not a nat 20, does that mean he does more damage? Nope, still does the normal amount of damage as long as he beats the AC and doesn't roll a nat 20
@Odande lol yeah all true enough and I know I shouldn't be banning the subclass for that reason (I'd even love to play as one) but I was just like aaah for most encounters it's just gonna be broken. Luckily no one wanted to play as one anyway so that's a plus
@Joker-yw9hl for sure, I get that. Your table your rules. Personally I ban bear totem Barbarian because it's a brain dead, boring choice
Moral of the story: every table is different and every DM is gonna favor different checks and use them in slightly different ways.
Far point. The intent of how to use the skill and interpret the usage is kind of subjective and lends itself to creativity I suppose.
I disagree with your use of intimidation. You can be intimidated without the threat of violence. Someone can be intimidated by someone even if that someone has done nothing. Someone can be seduced by intimidation.
I'm currently in a campaign about an arcane plague and I have used the medicine skill multiple times a session. But I do agree for most campaigns it seems mostly useless unless you home brew or use a third party version of the healer's kit.
I 100% agree. In this case, I think Monty is conflating success at intimidation (the die roll) with the skill itself. Someone can be physically imposing and not intimidating. Someone can fail at intimidation and the result is the target thinks it is dead either way. I often use allow characters use their primary stat for intimidation in the right scenarios.
At our table, we've had Medicine crop up a fair few times in 5e* (possibly because our main 5e DM is an actual doctor), but in fairness, it's usually a "you don't have any potions on you, and the magical healer is out of spell slots". Not always- there was a police procedural they ran where it was used for autopsies, and a few where it was part of the process for crafting/fitting a prosthesis (usually magical), and on one memorable occasion when the pregnant NPC we were escorting went into labour. It's also one of those ones where we might roll Medicine to make sure that bones are aligned properly prior to casting a healing spell (I've played with DMs who take the view that magic is great for speeding up healing, but a bone out of place might well 'heal' twisted, and need a Restoration spell to fix the ensuing constant 'low-grade' pain and lack of mobility). Probably still not enough to move it into S or A tiers, but I'd still argue it should be a high C/low B, if only because it gives a backstop for near the ends of dungeons, when your magical resources are low and you've used your potions.
Religion, I definitely think you've done dirty. Or at least, you've responded to how many tables have done it dirty. Put it this way, if the gods are real, and do take an active hand in your world (and between curses, empowering clerics/paladins, granting boons, despatching celestials as messengers, etc. it's a fair bet they are still taking a hand), someone living in that world is going to want to stay in the gods' good books (or at least, off their sh!t list). Religion isn't just remembering the stories, or the tenets of faith, it's the skill you'd use to try and please the gods. It's not just a knowledge skill, it's a social skill, especially since the majority of D&D settings have entire pantheons of gods getting up to shenanigans of their own that you're going to want to keep straight. You don't want to find out that you've accidentally pissed off a deity by entering their temple wearing a symbol of a rival deity, or you've called on a god of the harvest to bless your voyage because you got them mixed up with a god of the sea.
Again, this isn't going to be a universal experience, but Religion checks have come up pretty often in our campaigns. Usually in the context of coming across holy sites while adventuring and making sure we don't annoy the deity they are sacred to (hilariously, most of the party have been from other continents, with different pantheons, so our DC for the check has been higher than those characters that are locals, and thus familiar- and it's almost always been the local that failed the check. Our Egyptian-themed ranger has been cursed by Anubis and Bastet for misbehaving in shrines on 5 separate occasions so far, while my western-greek-themed warlock has avoided all of the potential faux pas).
*The skill gets more use in the other games systems we're currently playing, but those are somewhat besides the point.
The discussion on History in terms of how reliable it is made me think of advice I give as a Lawyer, which is, 1. "There's always a gap between what actually happened and what you can prove," and 2. "I always assume my client is telling the truth as they know/believe it, but I rarely, if ever, have a case get better once I've heard from the other side," and 3. My old prosecutor boss used to say, "Cases are not like fine wine, they don't get better with age."
That being said, they didn't even touch on the fact that the PHB suggests using the skill as magic item identification.
May I share a thought,
I think intimidation has more application then just, “believing you won’t die if you do as they say.” If you’ve ever gone to a biker bar or a metal concert. You’ll look at a guy and be like “ I don’t want to mess with him”. Or been around a decorated soldier with experience, I think of Jocko Willink, looks imposing / intimidating and demands your respect.
A check could be, do you look tough, do you look distinguished / impressive enough to pass as the noble or soldier or bodyguard you say you are.
Another example I think of is Grog from CR. At times he’s a goof, and every way Travis acts or present his character (either from what he says or describes what his character is wearing) in key points comes off not intimidating. But other times he’s acting rough, tough or mean. And either says or does things that are imposing.
So I think of intimidation as more then just the verbal threat of harm, but the passive threat via looks, or the idea that some deserves honor or respect. The persons looks or knowledge of the persons accomplishments or what the person says, make you go “woe, I’d get schooled by them if I tried to best them.” Which that could have applications to more then just fighting or threat to bodily harm. It could go into things like a player is about to play a card or dice game, participate in a race, or hit a target with an arrow that’s difficult to hit (like Robin hood does or like the girl from the Disney movie Brave). Just food for thought to inspire creative uses of intimidation in DnD 5e.
I like the idea of Intimidation being used as a pseudo - Authority Check. A way to exert your presense. Make others accept your presense or words because they don't dare question. Not necessarily scare them, but to accept their position in the hierarchy, beneath you. You aren't trying to persuade them, you are making them avoid questioning.
My method of making Sleight of Hand better is decoupling it from Stealth. If you're trying to hide your whole body and not be seen at all, roll Stealth. If you're visible but trying to do something secretively, roll Sleight of Hand.
As in UA, sleight of hand should be lockpicking and then a tool proficiency on top confers advantage.
Also, don't forget that proficiency in arcana allows you to make spell scrolls!
That banter over the 10 second rule was a wonderful example of how y’all are so great. I don’t even play D&D, but love watching you 2.
A note regarding Perception, even if it wasn't overused, it would still be S-tier if the DM runs the Surprise rules as written, because Surprise is not supposed to be pass/fail for the entire party, but one where some combatants can be surprised while others notice the ambush just in time to avoid surprise, but not soon enough to warn everyone else.
This seems so odd to me. Generally I would make a stealth check prior to initiative and so, no, either they fail prior to combat with time to shout or succeed and initiate combat.
I can't see where that window of time exists where you are making the surprise check in combat itself.
I disagree with your take on Intimidation.
I AGREE that it's a C, but there are plenty of examples of intimidation in fiction that are not direct threats.
The classic example would be from The Godfather part 2 when Michael is talking to Fredo about his betrayal and getting him to tell him about what he did.
He didn't say "Tell me what you know or I'll kill you"
But he was absolutely scary as hell BECAUSE you knew, and he knew, and Fredo knew that Michael had his life in his hands and that he was living on borrowed time.
Not a single overt threat was made, but he was getting what he wanted, not be deceiving, not by persuading, but by being scary and making everyone near him do what he wanted BECAUSE they knew that being on his bad side is a REALLY bad move.
OR the classic US example.
A Police Officer or other Authority Figure can come in throw their weight around and get people to do things.
Not because they are lying.
Not because they are convincing people or persuading people.
But because people know that they have guns, and handcuffs, and cars, and jail cells and that they can pretty easily have you spending a night or a weekend locked up if you piss them off.
This is nothing but Intimidation and they don't have to make any overt threats. Just the simple "How would you like to come downtown to answer some questions..." and let that drop.
It doesn't even have to be violence related. A boss can be intimidating but you're not expecting them to have you killed. Meryl Streep in the devil wears Prada is intimidating.
Str based intimidation counterargument for Monty: It still seems worth it to comply with the big scary person even if you don't believe that they won't hurt you. Unless you've got a viable course of resistance or escape, the miniscule chance that complying will keep you safe is better than nothing.
Great point. Intimidation is goal based, making people do the thing you want. You may well intimidate someone so much, they freeze and don't give you any info.
Also, not to be a simpleton about it, but WotC put the Intimidation skill on the character sheet. If I’m playing a big scary guy, or a social manipulator, I want to use that skill. If my DM makes it always backfire because of real-world data about the invalidity of interrogation and torture tactics or whatnot…then I’m going to ask to swap out my proficiency for a skill that actually works in the campaign.
At some point we have to remember we’re playing a game and telling a story with friends. If Darth Vader threatens the Death Star commander to hurry up construction, and the guy responds with “Well now we are going on strike because you’re being hurtful, Lord Vader”, that would take me out of the movie. I’m not saying Intimidate should always work, but it shouldn’t automatically fail, or just be an invalid choice.
@@andrewlewis2123 Yeah. I wasn't going to get into RAW use because I saw some other comments on it already, but I agree. Unless I've got an NPC or circumstance where there's no way in hell it could work, I think the roll should be enough to determine how NPCs react. At the very least, players need the heads up at session 0 if you're a GM that already knows you'll rarely allow the use of a basic skill
@@apjapki The idea of a critical success on Intimidation making the target so scared that they can’t competently help you is really funny, I might steal that.
That's just having a low DC.
For me intimidation is the Princess Bride "Fezzik, tear his arms off" "Oh you mean this key." they're using Fezzik's brawn to intimidate, but Inigo is making the threat
There is plenty of examples of characters who are not physically imposing but are incredibly intimidating in movies and tv series alone. Like take Hans Landa from Inglorious Basterds for example, he is a small scrawny guy who never even raises his voice, and he is absolutely terrifying.
The way I see the knowledge skills that made them REALLY shine in my group since we used them are these ones:
- Knowledge about temples and everything god-related = Religion
- Knowledge about events = History (Yes, it's true the history is only written by the victorious, but it's right there were the knowledge in this skill came up stronger. With this skill you can differenciate legend from real things in those books or tales, compare both of them and, also, came up with solutions from the past)
- Knowledge about non-normal things (outside god-related) = Arcana
- Knowledge about natural phenomena (biology, chemistry, physics, botany...) = Nature
- Knowledge about ways to survive = Survival (Eg: you can know that cliff is treacherous with nature, but you know how to climb it with survival and you need the athletism required to do it, don't skip steps.)
- Knowledge about injuries and how to fix them = Medicine (Eg1: A goblin stab you with a poisoned dagger, how you know is poisonous? with this skill. Eg2: The king is puking a lot, how do you know what is happening?, roll this skill and the symptoms on the person (not in the meal) say that the meal is not good for consumption. Solution: better to puke everything and be more careful with the food next time. // Yes, it's still a niche skill, but if you only have access to the people to treat, is the go to. I will also say that to heal arcane/eldritch/divine creatures need both skills, Arcana/Religion and Medicine to be able to achive it.)
- Knowledge of logical thinking, imaginative scenarios and Poirot reveling the guilty-kind of scene = Investigation (the Poirot part is important to understand, Sherlock Holmes has A LOT more knowledge outside his thinking, he knows from meteorology (Nature check), symptoms in people or corpses (Medicine check) and he is charismatic enough to reveal deep secrets from people via talking (Deception/Persuasion check) or paying attention to the manners, the ways, the moves of people (Insight check). With all those clues gotten, he is good linking them and solving the case (Investigation check)... Only that last bit was investigation. For this reason, solving puzzles or riddles for CHARACTERS is always an investigation check and that's it, because there is no more to it (ofc, it depends on the group. I let my players handle the puzzles or riddles, all of us have fun, but if they are stuck, I ask for a check to give clues). Incredible useful skill, yes, but not that spread as one may think. It's only connecting dots... Oh, and one last thing, this skill is better when more people have it, because 2 heads thinking are better than only one)
Ofuf, that was longer than expected... have a nice day, everyone
Oh yay! Something to watch while I catch up on work!
On Persuasion vs Deception: the outcome of failing a deception check is potentially far more disastrous than failing a persuasion check. Therefore, it makes sense to attempt to persuade more often than deceive if you're aiming to minimize that risk (although deceiving is way more fun).
I mostly agree with the rankings. Intimidation is one I would bump up to B because I never regret having it and I frequently regret not having it. Religion I would bump down to D as it so rarely comes up.
I find that to be very campaign dependent. I've been in a few campaigns that utilized Religion quite a bit. But I will agree that more campaigns ignore it.
To supplement Monty's discussion of why pure physicality does not entail intimidation, Jayne from Firefly would be a great example.
"Jayne, you only have to SCARE him."
"Pain is scary!"
Ultimately, the most important skills are the ones your DM ranks the highest.
Intimidation is also Presence, invoking fear and sometimes with no words. Just a change of grip on your sword or a lean forward etc
My only issue is intimidation, i would rank that at least B or low A. And the reason why is some people are just not nice people and they just hate you purely for "because i can". There's also people who won't budge because either they are super loyal and will follow their orders no matter what or sometimes people are super scared of something else and no matter how much you reassure them they can't get over that fear. Think the carrot and the stick, the carrot is saying what you needs to say either by lying or convincing peacefully to do X thing. Intimidation is the stick where all else fails, do X or Y will happen, guard move out of the way or my group and I will make you move. Scared citizen, i know the baron ordered you to be quite about X thing but if you don't tell me what i need to know i will feed you to my bear right this second. Warlord of raiding tribe, the king who sent us doesn't wish blood, but if you don't stop your raids he will bring his army down upon you. Sometimes intimidation is the only way forward in certain situations.
O also sometimes people of power or strength hate silver tongue individuals and respect those who have the guts to make demands to you of all people. Sometimes that will earn people their respect by showing you are no push over and will fight for what you want and they can relate to that.
I think this is a great video, love to hear your takes on the skills. How I normally run my skills is similar to the “shoot arrows at your monks” mindset. Depending on which skills my PCs are proficient in, I will try and set up things so that they can use their skills and feel comfortable in them instead of everyone using the same ones time and time again.
I just had a bard, trying to sneak past a dragon, behead a kobold (lol) and wear his armor and head as a disguise and made it as a performance check - this could’ve easily been deception but it seemed more like “acting” to me
Vice for history, or religion, is a PC is proficient in those I’ll usually write the “lore dump” and give it to them as a side bar so they can roleplay their proficiencies and tell the rest of the party instead of just me doing it :-)
I'd argue Arcana as S due to proficiency allowing spellcasters to craft scrolls. Being able to use your downtime to essentially make additional uses of spells like Revivify, Feather Fall, and Freedom of Movement, spells that are not usually going to come up a lot but you definitely want to have in your back pocket in case the need arises, is extremely valuable.
S-Tier skills, by their metrics, are skills that the party would want to have on pretty much everybody. Arcana doesn't manage that.
@@TheRawrnstuff You want as many spellcasters as possible with proficiency in Arcana. Not only can you craft more spell scrolls if multiple people have proficiency, having multiple spellcasters with various spellcasters means you can craft spell scrolls from various spell lists (Wizards can craft Phantom Steed, but you need Clerics for Revivify, and then you need Druids for Freedom of Movement, etc.)
At high levels of optimization, you would have your entire table as playing some form of spellcaster, either a full-caster or a half caster, since you don't really need martials to tank with how strong crowd control in 5e is. That means everyone should have a spell list, and that means Arcana proficiency to craft scrolls.
@@KobeEscalante "You want as many spellcasters as possible with proficiency in Arcana"
Which is different than "You want Arcana even for characters who don't focus on magic". I agree, Arcana is S-tier for all-spellcaster parties, especially at higher levels.
Honestly technically I agree with your intimidation problem because that is exactly how I have seen it used BUT I think you could make more out of it. There are a lot of things you can be scared without the person immediately threatening you. Think about it for example if you meet a policeman. You will IMMEDIATELY start thinking what you might have done wrong, what wrong thing you might say to get in trouble etc.
Imagine being a well dressed very high class person in a normal tavern. People might be like "don't mess with him or his dad will ruin you" without you ACTUALLY saying anything or even being menacing at all.
Thinking about it a bit while writing maybe you could brake it down more eloquently into:
Persuasion is getting someone to do something by making them want to do it.
Intimidation is getting someone to do something they don't want to do but are afraid of the consequence.
Deception is getting someone to do something for a totally fake reason (either lying about a positive outcome or making them believe a negative consequence that is fake).
Let me make a real easy example: selling stuff!
Persuasion would be being friendly, making the person happy and thus he pays you a little more to do you a favor.
Intimidation would be you make him afraid of missing out on a good deal that might fall to his competitor, tell people he trys to rip people off, or making clear you WILL simply leave if he does not give you a better deal.
Deception is making the person believe that is actually a ruby and not glas, a rare artifact and not some random crap etc.
This also explains why grok the barbarian is not more or less intimidating than the gnome artificer, because neither is charismatic enough to convey these nuances.
Or another CLASSIC example: the high school cheerleader top girl who is friends with everyone not really because her personality is so great but because most people fear her. They don't really HATE her but are kind of compelled to like her because of her status.
For intimidation, watch The Blacklist. Raymond Reddington as a character is a masterclass on the skill. He comes into a room and talks about tea. All the while, his opponent is about to have a massive coronary as they realize they are dealing with the "Concierge of Crime." He's also convincing that he will deliver on their ability to get out of the bad position he's putting them in.
Or bruce lee in Enter the Dragon. With a look, a slight movement, he could cower a person/
"Don't hurt my dog."
"I would never hurt a dog," immediately 🔫 person in the leg. 😅
An underrated feature of Arcana as a skill is scribing spell scrolls. You have to have proficiency in Arcana to be able to scribe scrolls. Extra spells in your pocket is an extra resource available to use. And you can scribe spells that you don’t necessarily want broken have to prepare every day because of how niche they are, but being able to carry a copy around for those niche cases can be very useful.
I don't really think Intimidation is that one-dimensional, it's more that I find that people are willing to bring up deception and persuasion more, often in its place. I actually think a fair few skills has this issue that it's just kind of handwaved not having to use it, like with animal handling, and that's the only reason it's lower use. Sometimes that's just our fault as gamers in the system, I think.
I agree about History in that it's almost too broad and simply hard to always follow or make use of though.
One way to make Medicine more relevant would be to tie that skill to the healer's kit. You're proficient in Medicine, you have a healer's kit, then you can stabilize a creature with 1 hp and you can restore hit points. Not only can you diagnose an illness, you can also treat it, depending on the illness (or poison) DC, or at least know how to treat it. The Medicine skill alone would only allow you to stabilize with 0 hp and diagnose an illness and know how to treat it, and the healer's kit alone would only stabilize a dying companion. Scrap the Healer feat.
I do think you underrated athletics. It isn’t just for escaping grapples, but initiating them. There are builds that are incredibly useful/strong that are built around that skill.
medicine is literally one of the only skills that does have a specific use in combat: stabilizing downed teammates
But a 20gp item completely replaces it.
@@apjapkiand it's worse than a 1st level spell on half of the spell lists.
Stabilising a downed teammate is a negative. It's just better to let them roll in case they hit a nat 20.
If they went down and you can't heal them, you're better off trying to end the fight than waste a turn that's not even getting someone back in the fight
@@YMasterS a dead teammate never returns, assumes coup de graces never happen, and banking on a 5% chance when death saves are a 50/50 isn't very wise. Just bring healing word.
@AnaseSkyrider a dead team mate is dead either way, and USUALLY returns. How about we don't assume incredibly rare and stupid house rules are part of the majority of games? Especially when that's not even what that rule is.
Edit - also, it's 55%.
"Maybe this is a neurodivergent thing that we think deception is the most useful because we have to deceive everybody to think we're normal people" I feel so attacked but also so understood at the same time.
Athletics v. Acrobatics with regard to movement is the difference between overcoming a force and using the force to your advantage. For example, in the swinging trapeze, the performers use the momentum of the swing to do most of the work of lifting their legs up. It’s the difference between doing a pull up and swinging your body to get the momentum to get on top of the bar.
I'm calling it right now that Perception, Persuasion and Stealth are the S tiers.
They are just true to form. They dont hide their bias.
@@johnymey4034 but those arn't the S teirs they choose, you're too lazy to even skip to the end...
@@johnymey4034is it such a lazy idea to make a comprehensive guide to help players understand how they can expect to perform with a given skill?
@@johnymey4034Entitled much? Don't watch the videos if you don't like them. There's plenty of content you can consume
@@johnymey4034what...do you mean? You didn't watch the end of the video and claimed they put... Other skills in S-tier? How's that twisting your words? You just used a bunch of buzzwords to seem smart
I get Monty's argument about Intimidation being better as a Charisma-based skill, but you can also apply the same logic to Strength.
To successfully intimidate someone, that person also has to believe that you're capable of actually being a threat to them. So, when the intimidation is dealing with bodily harm, they'd be more inclined to believe that a big, noticeably strong dragonborn would actually be able to harm them rather than the small, charismatic halfling.
There's also the fairly common instance in DnD where the target of the intimidation doesn't have any way to reasonably and safely refuse the demand, even if they aren't confident that the player character will honor their promise to not harm them if them comply. In those instances, you could argue that Strength is the much more important ability as that's what would convince the target to see you as a threat.
Wow. Very interesting. In our home games, History and Medicine are way up the list and Arcana and Insight are much lower. Maybe our other DM and I are just running the stuff very much differently... Was kinda suprised about this tier-list!
Yeah, of all their videos this is one of the ones I'd take the biggest grain of salt with. What skills are useful is highly dependent on your DM and the adventure you're playing. If your DM only runs games in cities like Waterdeep or Ravnica then Nature won't be a useful skill, but if your DM is constantly running games set in more natural environments its stock will shoot way up. That's just one example, but overall this video is more useful in how it gives an idea of how the Dudes play rather than taking it at face value.
I really like the way these vids help us get to know you guys and the way you see the world and your views and experiences.
It really goes to show how games can have deep meaning and learning value and it reminds us that the people you play games with are the most important parts of games and learning experiences in general.
Strength based intimidation makes just as much sense as Charisma based.
If you were on a walk and saw a cute dog you wanted to pet. Then the dog shows its teeth and growls, and it intimidates you causing you to fear it and run away. It didnt have to demand anything to change the way you wanted to react. Intimidating is about changing the way someone would act. Not necessarily about getting them to do a specific thing you want.
When can we expect more spell tier ranking videos? I love hearing your opinions on them and it sometimes gets me thinking about spells I have maybe been too harsh on.
For Intimidation, it's actually more variable, imho.
Threat of torture is just basic. Blackmail is more interesting, as well as actual sanctions. "If you don't bow to your new king, you'll starve - we hold the grain produce and your sea-trade routes," - is clearly a direct threat. "If we don't get promised reward, everyone will know not to deal with you, and your reputation will be ruined so much no gold will ever repair it."
Not every player is capable of dishing it out efficiently, as not many people are good at this in life 😂
An anecdote about intimidation: I was playing an Aasimar trying to get information from a young peasant at a church. He was clearly being evasive and I wanted to intimidate him so I unfurled my wings, raised off the ground and said, "Do not lie to me child!" My DM said, "I'm not going to even make you roll for it, this kid is terrified." So I've found that intimidation is more of a player skill and less of a character skill.
I think with the intimidation skill they are missing that intimidation is not always on purpose. You could have a player use and intimidation check if they say some thing that made intimidate someone it doesn’t just have to be threat
At 26:50 ish, when talking about intimidation and actually holding up the 'bargain' if they comply- if you were planning on still killing them if they didn't push the button then that sounds like deception.
Definitely with Kelly on that one.
Dang, I was really surprised to see Medicine ranked so low on this list, but I guess it's really just a different strokes kinda thing; I called for some really pivotal medicine checks all the time in the last campaign I ran. It was definitely S-tier in our campaign. Healing, surgery, resetting bones, determining Time of Death, careful disection... there's a lot that falls under it.
But I guess if it's an animal, I could just have them roll one of those all-too-common Animal Handling checks, instead.
Also strongly agree on not feeling like history/religion are adequate. They're extremely broad. After I played Call of Cthulhu, I realized that there are substantially better ways to handle things like this. Agree that making them akin to Tools would be a decent enough solution for D&D!
It bugs me that Medicine is attributed to Wisdom.
Wisdom is the "Vibes" stat. Intelligence is the "Knowledge" stat. Surely learning human biology, effects of herbs, and CPR, are more in the domain of knowledge than vibes.
Like, I feel like it was put there simply because certain classes favor WIS, and certain classes favor INT, and it seemed thematically convenient, rather than based on what the ability stands for.
@@TheRawrnstuff totally agree! When I was running 5e, I let my players use Intelligence or Wisdom, whichever is higher, so those sorts of things. Same with Strength for Intimidation-- Strength and Intelligence are underused in general, imo
@@TLBainter I hear ya. When I run 5E, I basically ignore skills, only ever asking the ability check.
Though I do make it a point to note to the players that if they have a proficiency that they feel should help, to ask if they can benefit from it - whether by way of PB or advantage.
Their suggestion also helps me to better pinpoint what exactly it is that they're wanting to do, and adjust the DCs and what they get out of the roll respectively. "Incorrect" proficiencies might yield limited results tho, like animal handling to determine if the corpse in the forest was killed by beasts, or just scavenged upon. It would still be an Intelligence check, as per investigation proficiency.
What they are taking about re: acrobatics and circus acts or parkour: then ask for a strength(acrobatics) check. That flexibility is built into the rules. So a rogue with a 10 strength but expertise in acrobatics would still rock those checks, but not quite as well as dexterity (acrobatics)
I Think Arcana is easily an S Pick for every Full Caster just because so they can make spell scrolls...
E.g.: the wizard/pact of chain warlock giving everyone a find familiar spell scroll.....
Or the other way around: every other spellcaster giving the wizard permanent acces to the best non-wizard spells (esp. cleric spells)
After bg3 I've started putting 'hidden caches' in travel to add something to optional survival checks. Our Barbarian likes shiny things and I had him trip over a half-buried chest. He found a shield with a fancy gold trim. He has found 5 of these chests now and has just started naturally rolling survival and spots them. Mind I roll a hidden d10 to determine IF there's a cache when travel, no cache, or maybe even a mimic.
Also I'd actually put performance at a C. When I've had situations of "I resisted the siren's song.. as my action can I roll performance to scream loud enough to drown them out to give my allies advantage on the saving throw" and for SOME REASON my DM allowing that to work.. I think there's some value in it for crafty players if a DM treats it broadly like theatrics.
I would put athletics into A tier since it can be a considerable element to strength based martials. Maintaining a grapple is one of the few ways martials can force an opponent to focus on them, and can also combo with frighten effects to lock an enemy down if you shove them prone. It’s a skill that can benefit considerably from expertise, imo.
Point about intimidation:
When faced with death or even just extreme injury, people will almost always comply. There are exceptions but those are rare indeed. People comply even if they don't believe the one intimidating them will have mercy on them, because what's the other option? If the other option is something that justifies such a sacrifice, then they weren't going to comply anyway no matter what. But if it's something they could be persuaded into by that or violence than they will comply if they're scared enough. There are other nuances that might be applied to characters with certain personalities, but as a whole, intimidation can be just a thing people feel based on someone's looks
Tool proficiencies are the ones that are seldom used outside of thieves' tools or tinker's tools, or whatever the artificer is using. I mean, we even have groups with non-rogues taking thieves tools.
When do leatherworking tools come to use in the middle of a dungeon or while traveling?
Leather working is good for survival campaigns where your character needs to go out hunting animals and turning their hides into tents, clothing or armor as protection against the elements.
Xanathar's Guide has a useful expansion on the rules for tool proficiencies, giving guidelines on what you can do with them.
For example, alchemist kit gives advantage on knowledge checks related to potions and poisons, and you can attempt a number of effects (not sure I agree with some of the DCs):
Activity / DC
Create a puff of thick smoke / 10
Identify a poison / 10
Identify a substance / 15
Start a fire / 15
Neutralize acid / 20
Also "As part of a long rest, you can use alchemist’s supplies to make one dose of acid, alchemist’s fire, antitoxin, oil, perfume, or soap."
It's true to say that, even then, leatherworking tools are pretty underwhelming compared to some others.
Arcana proficiency is important for any spell casting class because it is required in order to craft spell scrolls. This makes it S tier for casters because having more people able make scrolls increases your teams overall power.
Nature proficiency also helps with harvesting poisons. Not worth a tier increase necessarily, but worth mentioning.
In my table we play with a variant skill system, containing only five "skills": Lore, Survival, Perception, Stealth, and Manipulation/Influence. Other roles just use the regular abilities (Strength, Dexterity...) each character is proficient in one "skill" which we call their "Specialty". So far been great. All the skills see pretty equal use, and are very straight forward.
This sounds neat. Out of curiosity, how do you handle expert classes like rogue and bard, who get more proficiencies, jack of all trades, multiplie expertises, etc.?
The "passive" skills you mention at the end make me think the 3.5e checks for will, reflexes and such. I liked that system.
41:42 and Monty succeeds his Persuasion roll.
Monty no!
The Oxford definition for intimidating is “having a frightening, overawing, or threatening effect”
To make acrobatics more useful, i like to allow falling characters to make an acrobatics check with a DC equal to the number of feet they fell, with a success still taking fall damage, but not being knocked prone.
Id do it the other way around. The first thing they teach you in gymnastics is how to fall so you dont break something. however doing so involves a sort of 'crumple' maneuver so you end up prone. I wouldnt let it negate damage completely but it is a genuine way of lessening the impact. Love this idea though:)
Actually now im thinking about it more id offer the choice. Landing on your feet is an acrobatic feat but so is crumpling, theyre just mutually exclusive. You have either land of your feet and let your knees take the full impact- doing damage, or you can crumple and end up prone but take less damage.
I really like the idea about locking the bonds, fears, traits etc behind insight DCs
Perception - I Feel a Draft.
Investigation - Finding where the draft is coming from (Secret Door)
Wrong! Perception employs all of your senses and allows you to notice secret doors, traps and hidden monsters.
Investigation is a mental skill that allows you to deduce what happened given clues or how to manipulate complex machinery or tell how a trap works.
Tired of DMs trying to nerf Perception. Look at all the modules for 5E, all of them require Perception checks to notice traps.
Then to disarm it, if you wanted to, you would need investigation to tell what kind of trap it is and how to disarm it. It's a 3 step process of Perception, Investigation (if you aren't going to just bypass it or set it off remotely) and then your tools to disarm it.
DnD One will finally fix this BS by tying Perception to the Search Action and Investigation to the Study Action.
I'm just really tired of DMs thinking they are smarter than the game developers and switching mechanics around arbitrarily. And that's what it is - vibes.and feels. This is why I like well written rules so DMs/Players can't just push their BS interpretation out there.😅
Just because players are smart and pick Perception based skills and feats doesn't mean you have to ruin their builds with your terrible homebrew.
@@007ohboy Wauw, just wauw. Who hurt you?
Homebrew is fundamental to D&D, it's in its very DNA. "I'm just really tired of DMs thinking they are smarter than the game developers and switching mechanics around arbitrarily." just shows you know nothing about D&D.
Perception is doing to much IMO, and I quite like, both as a player and a DM, to give a lot more to investigation. Perception does way too much in the game even with the OP interpretation, and it's terrible design from the designers of the game. You've given no arguments _why_ Perception should do everything and investigation almost nothing at all, you're just saying game developers probably know best, but that's not an argument, that's just an appeal to authority. I will always use investigation for anything trap based. Perception is what you eyes and ears happen to fall on (and is at my table almost exclusively used passively as a kind of anti-stealth), Investigation is what you are actually looking for. Give Intelligence based stats some love!
@@007ohboy Perception will notice something is wrong. Like that brick is out place, an Investigation check will let you know it is a pressure plate for a trap.
@jaspermooren5883 Because you break feats and skills dodo 🦤. Observant is nerfed with your ruling. 5E makes it clear, Jeremy Crawford made it clear, Passive Perception is what is used to notice secret doors, traps and hidden enemies.
Your senses ARE the most important asset you have. Duh! Your hearing, your sight, your "6th sense" is all covered by Perception because that's easy.
None of you who break 5E rules actually offer anything better that doesn't make the game more convoluted and nerfs people's skills. Your ruling are arbitrary and you homebrew wackos never look at the whole system and only the tiny part you want to "correct".
You break stealth mechanics and they make no sense. You don't use passive skills which means you call for a lot of BS rolls because "vibes" and lazy DMing. You think being Invisible is the same as hiding for your BBEG but then switch to RAW stealth mechanics when the players do the same thing to your monsters.👻 😆
I can smell the inconsistencies and the rulings being pull from one's arse because they either don't know RAW or have an even crappier homebrew solution for everything.
I play at 7 different tables. I will not join any group who has a 7 page homebrew change log just to play your crappy modded game. I want to play REAL DnD and not your knockoff.
DMs have full control over the story, enemies, npcs, and possibilities, but for the love of God, stop ✋️ messing with the game engine and then wonder why your campaign "crashes" all the time. 😆 🤣
@comicnimn Exactly. You notice a trap. But if your investigation is crap, you won't be educated enough to know how to disarm it. Secret doors is automatically spotted. Sorry dudes above with your homebrew BS. You notice that book is off on the shelve. You go over and manipulate it and "click", you found a secret. Simple stuff is handled by Perception. Whe. You are talking about complexity, that's when you need investigation. One is your senses, one is your intelligence/education.
None of the Homebrewers every use investigation right, either. 😆
Me: "I found a dead body. I want to know how she died and based on the clues I see, deduce what may have killed her and who did it."
DM: Ummm....roll an wisdom check?
Me: OMG! Dude, that's totally an Investigation check. It's literally sleuthing. Arrgh!
DM: Your right you're right. Oops! You come to a door. Roll Investigation to notice a trap!
Me: SMH...and this is what happens when WOTC do not clearly define their rules and leave NO interpretation otherwise you get DMs ruling that a creature loses their advantage to attack because a wizard cast See Invisibility.
5E is a total package and none of its mechanics are isolated. If you tug at one rule, like a string of a web, you are going to unravel the whole damn thing. 🙄
"You should do what I want or I'll speak to your manager" -> Charisma (Intimidation)
Form of Dread had the right of it when they said "5E has six skills: Grapple(Athletics), Escape Grapple(Acrobatics), Benefit From Pass without trace(Stealth), Make Scrolls(Arcana), Don’t Be Surprised(Perception) and DM Fiat(The others)". Yes, a good DM can and should make every skill useful enough to be worth picking up, but by RAW only five have any real mechanical effect of guaranteed value, and everything else is a matter of "mother may I"ing or otherwise convincing the DM into doing what you want until you hit their limit and they make you roll.
It's not even that every skill needs to have defined mechanical effects. The freedom of a more freeform skill system has real advantages and appeal. But the fact that 5e is so inconsistent and half-baked in its skill design is a very real problem and incentivises degenerate behaviours like the aforementioned "mother may I-ing" precisely because there is no standardized expectation for how the game treats skills.
My issues with 5e and the weird expectations it places on DMs aside, what this really means is that only Athletics, Acrobatics, Arcana, Stealth, and Perception are by definition of the rubric in use capable of being A or S tier (and indeed they all are, with Arcana and Acrobatics being A and Athletics, Perception, and Stealth being S (though as optimization level and the proportion of the party who is spellcasters increases, Arcana becomes S, and similarly as summoned minions become more prevalent Athletics drops to A)). The others are B tier at the absolute best, with their actual tiers in practice being rather campaign-dependent (with Deception and Persuasion by far being the strongest B tier candidates).
My DM always makes us explain our line of reasoning on why we would be rolling an insight check. Something like "This kid has changed his story multiple times and is acting very shifty, so I'm watching him closely to try and figure out exactly what he's lying about to catch him in a lie." Or "This guy's personality has changed multiple times right in front of us, is this guy possessed?"
I haven't played Pathfinder 2e but I really do like how in Pathfinder 1e there's ways in combat to use skills like intimidation. Cornugon Smash is one that comes to mind. When you do damage with a power attack you get to make a free intimidate check against them to slap them with the Shaken condition, which gives them a -2 on attack rolls, weapon damage rolls, saving throws, ability checks and skill checks. Or dreadful carnage which does the same thing to every enemy within 30 feet whenever you reduce something to 0 hit points. And of course there's Intimidating Prowess which lets you add your Strength score to Intimidate checks.
Point is, it is very possible to make a system that lets you use skills in tangible ways in and out of combat and 5e should have implemented that.
What? Acrobatics is objectively worse than Athletics.
You can't build a Character around Acrobatics. You can build an amazing Character around Athletics. Grapple, Push and pull builds are super strong.
Makes more of a difference if you only have one attack.
Swashbuckler tumbles through the first guard and stabs the cleric. They then keep moving and dive behind the Altar for a bonus action Hide.
@jasoncox4338 What action in combat asks for an Acrobatics check other than escaping or preventing a Grapple?
Outside of DM fiat, Acrobatics doesn't just allowed you to slip passed enemies to attack a different target behind them...
@@chrisg8989 tumbling through is suggested in the DMG. They use lots of other options in this video, so choosing not to on a skill they don't see much use for would be a strange call.
@@jasoncox4338 optional rule. Right.
Are "Skills" really necessary? Can all the skill rolls be replaced with ability rolls and dc manipulation? All of the knowledge skills blend together like a Venn diagram and that's over half the skills. 3 of the 4 charisma skills are nearly interchangeable and performance of an instrument should be dexterity anyway. It doesn't matter how charismatic someone is, if they suck at playing the triangle they're out of the band. That's 14 out of 18 skills. Ability checks already exist and are different from ability saves.
"I want to get past that guard."
"How?"
"I want to list all the reasons this is a dead-end job so they quit and walk away."
"Okay, Intelligence roll."
"No wait, I want to have a flex off with them until they are humiliated and leave."
"Riiiight, Strength or Charisma roll. Your choice."
TL:DR - Any roll that can be contested gets it's own modifier. That leaves Athletics and Stealth (sometimes). Anything else is an ability roll.
Top 10 skills in DnD:
10. It
9. Depends
8. On
7. How
6. Your
5. DM
4. Plays
3. The
2. Game
1. Perception
You read my mind.
I've had games where Perception wasn't even close to number 1, but yeah, generally you are right. It also depends on how the players play the game though, players determine more which skills see use than the DM when I'm running the game. They make all the decisions that lead up to certain skill usage, and as long as it's resonably relevant, I'll allow it. For example Investigation and Perception are completely interchangeble for 95% of use cases in my games, it's really just what the player wants and how they describe it. I quite actively promote players in using their skills in interesting ways.
You missed a really cool option for the HISTORY skill. In games I've used it to know heraldry banners. Or knowing about organizations within the game world. You might not know who is the leader of the assassins guild is. But you might know that the skull with crossed daggers is the assassin's guild symbol. Which allows the non-rogue party member seek out the group. Because 5e shortened the skill list from prior editions. Treat them more like macro-skills. History could also mirror general education and general knowledge. Because you read a book on history you may have an understanding of different philosophies.
Again look at the skills in macro form. Survival you basically made it tracking and foraging. But this skill could be used to find game trails for quicker travel in untamed lands. Or knowing the signs of the weather changing up. A severe weather change can make knowing the survival skill important. Because you'll know this camp site is vulnerable to flash floods in heavy rains. So instead of pitching a tent here, we should sling some hammocks up in these older trees. Not only could it make it so you can fish. But you also know how to cook said fish. Or salt it in a way so the fish doesn't spoil. Not only can you live off the land you can profit from too.
I treat history as a
“Do I know the historical situation surrounding the local humans and the goblins”
“I didn’t think it would be important to write this down before, but my character might remember”
Or a
“I forgot to buy X back in town, and it’s not something that we absolutely would have bought, can I retcon having bought it”
1) based
2) don't love this - characters are not their players and should recall info the players don't if they aren't using the DM as a crutch.
3) insane time travel magic, no thanks
#3 is actually a feat in Pathfinder.
The other thing with Acrobatics is that in a lot of situations where you think it would come into play, they're resolved through Dexterity saving throws instead.
An alternate way to use history checks is if your player forgot to take notes of something they did and want the DM to be nice enough to remind them lol
As a DM I ask for this check all the time. It's not that my note-taker doesn't take good notes, but he doesn't always know what information will be relevant later.
I kind of hate this. Either your players aren't paying attention to your story or you (DM) don't care if your players understand what is going on. Unless they have switched off completely, just tell them. I have a whole life, I try to take notes and remember but there's nothing to be gained withholding public info from past sessions
@@apjapki I kinda hate it, but not for that reason. 5E doesn't recognize "skill checks", like a History Check. It's just an Intelligence check. If you're proficient in the History skill, you get to add PB to Intelligence checks that relate to that skill. I kinda feel like _anyone_ who was there when a thing happened should have the bonus, not just people who've studied history.
Not a *good* way, but certainly an alternate way
@@apjapkiYeah, I had a DM who did this all the time, and it drove me crazy. Yes, the burden is on the players to be paying attention to the plot and characters. But like with many things, you shouldn’t use an in-character solution for a player-centric problem. If I had reacted by taking Skill Expert to boost my INT and grab Expertise in History, or the PHb feat that gives you an eidetic memory, would that have really solved me zoning out at times? No, it probably would’ve just escalated tensions.
I instead try to elevate the stock of History by having it apply to culture and traditions, too. Not just ancient legends but also current events, trends, factions, politics. Sadly those don’t come up that much more often in my games 😂
I love the discussions that these kinds of videos have. I could listen to a whole video of examples of how different skills are used.
In favor of history, I have been at SO many tables where if you’re trying to recall something as your character, such as the name of noble you met 30 sessions ago, the DM calls for a history check and if you fail you just don’t remember. History has basically functioned as an alternative to taking notes for those players that refuse to take them, and while I don’t think that’s the purpose of the History skill, it’s how I’ve seen it be implemented several times.
To be fair, even good note-takers don't always get everything. Sometimes a bit of information seems innocuous at the time it's revealed only to be relevant later in an unexpected way. I agree that this shouldn't be used as a substitute for note-taking, but I think it's fine to use it as an aid.
@@magnusprime962 I am in support of history and I don’t mean to make it seem like note taking is a certain solution, and history being utilized this way isn’t all bad. It’s like the Keen Mind feat where you can mechanically have a reason to take less notes
I kind of hate this. Either your players aren't paying attention to your story or you (DM) don't care if your players understand what is going on. Unless they have switched off completely, just tell them. I have a whole life, I try to take notes and remember but there's nothing to be gained withholding public info from past sessions.
Screw that, I'm taking Keen Mind and kicking my feet up if the DM is gonna play it like that.
Love it! Intimidation I find to be a great skill in hierarchies, evil campaigns, and heists. It would be fun to think about these skills and checks from the perspective of the monsters
Your dim view of Intimidation comes from your very narrow idea of what intimidation means. “You’ll never work in this town again” is intimidation. You can indirectly intimidate somebody ; the Chinese call it “borrowing the tiger’s terror”. Your notion that people assume a person with a high STR score “will beat them up anyway” is silly.
I think it would be really cool to hear you guys talk about revising the skill system that save the problems you brought up.