Ok, I'll give you Diplomacy, maybe Bluff, though the rest are stretching since they have in-combat or in-dungeon applications.
Why is it stretching it? A lot of skills can be used in different situations. (In fact, I can use most "dungeon-crawling" skills outside of dungeons. Endurance, Athletics, Acrobatics, Stealth. The only explicitely for Dungeons is... .Dungeoneering.)
Imaro said:
Uhm, I'm confused...how is "Leadership" narrowly focused...when it encompasses so much. I think one of the problems is that 4e has both broadly defined skills (Thievery) and narrow skills(Bluff). It's kind of confusing on what approach it's actually striving for.
So in order to be a good Thief...I just need Thievery (Okay, maybe Stealth), but in order to be a good leader...I need Diplomacy, History, Intimidate and Insight
A good thief actually needs Perception (finding traps and identifying treasure), Stealth (escaping notice), Acrobatics (escaping if caught), Athletics (getting over obstacles) and Thievery (disabling traps, opening locks). Of course, a passable thief might be possible with less.
As far as Tracking vs. Hunting goes. Being able to Track something is exactly that, it doesn't teach you how to use a particular weapon to kill it, what environment your prey is found in, I believe Hunting would encompass tracking...the same way Thievery encompasses opening locks...but neither work in reverse. Again we run into 4e's disparity between broadly defined skills vs. narrower skills.
But how many people learn to track without the rest? And definitely tracking is related to just perception - to notice the details that the followed creature leaves.
Again, why do you need these skills in order to make something. Every craftsperson is not a star athlete, an acrobat, a historian or a long distance runner...yet your proposed solution requires them to be all these things to have skills in blacksmithing.
You don't need all of the skills. If we use a skill challenge approach, you might be able to use only one or two skills all time. And if you're not doing overly hard stuff, sufficient levels or base ability score are all you need.
Yet wouldn't a leadership skill give an overall impression of how well you combine these skills in leadership situations...thus you might be good at negotiating with men you lead, but totally unfit to negotiate in a situation where you have no power over those you are negotiating with...or even where they have power over you. While someone with the Diplomacy skill is just a good all around negotiator in a variety of situations, but wouldn't know how to handle a situation in which they are commanding an unruly mob of mercenaries who only respect brute strength and fierceness(intimidate skill).
See, and that's why there are diplomacy and intimidate, but not leadership. if you want to lead with diplomacy but encounter a mob that only listens to strength and fiereceness, you have a problem. But if you just have a Leadership skill, you can handle any type of troops, regardless of its a unruly mob or a highly disciplined army. You can no longer differentiate between both - and if you allow all three skills to be applied in the same situation, why bother with leadership? having Diplomacy and Intimidate is probably far better, because it covers all leadership + some, while if you mix Leadership and any of the other two skills, you have a strong overlap.
Both for Crafting and Leadership you could of course create a feat that covers it, and says "you get a +2 feat bonus on skill checks made to Craft an item, and once per day you can reroll a failed check for that task" or "you get a +2 feat bonus on skill checks made to command, direct or train subordinates, and once per day you can reroll a failed check for that task".
(Of course, the feat is the PC expression of the Craft/Leadership stuff, for NPCs you might create a specific trait for it or just handwave it...)
