For example, I find when I run there's a lot of athletics, acrobatics, survival, investigation, perception and persuasion checks.
...
So at your table(s) what skill proficiencies get applied to a lot of meaningful checks?
I find when I run I'm about 50% perception, 35% investigation, and 15% insight. It was a definite retraining from earlier editions where "Spot" was the god of noticing things to call for different checks. Whenever there's a more specific skill, including things like Survival to track or notice spore, I do that. But I play with a DM who is like 80% perception, it's really almost like a skill tax. My first character with him was a bard who I gave expertise with it, it came up that much.I still have some open issues with overusing Perception.
I see where this could be a problem. But for me athletics and acrobatics are much more coming up in Challenges (think more freeform 4e skill challenges). For example while climbing through an extended cave complex there was chutes that required climbing, where the default for that is STR (Athletics), and planned if they had a few navigation failures was for them to start making CON (Athletics) checks to stave off levels of exhaustion.I used to have too many Athletics and Persuasion, but eventually I realised the problem is not with the system. It is all our fault. We just assume that there HAS to be a check to resolve challenges, but that's not really what ability checks are for... their purpose is to resolve a DM's indecision i.e. when the DM doesn't want the responsibility to decide an outcome. Does the Barbarian break the door, does the Rogue find the trap, does the Wizard know the arcane symbol? The rules allow the DM to decide yes or no, or let the dice decide instead.
This is a really good idea, I'll borrow this if you don't mind.Persuasion had its own issue because it's used for contests (not always but still), and those make a lot more sense to leave it to the dice, since they are challenges between characters. It got used more often than Deception which in turn got used more than Intimidation, presumably because players prefer parleying nicely than aggressively (when they want to be aggressive, they rather attack). But I managed to balance the three of them better when I realized that Intimidation doesn't have to be called for only when the PCs want the targets to believe THEY are the threat, but also when ANYTHING ELSE is the threat. Meaning, use Intimidation whenever the purpose is to scare the target as in "if you don't do as I say, something bad will happen to you". It helped turning a lot of Persuasion checks into Intimidation.
It was #7 for me.Wow. I'm still the only one who picked religion. Given the prevalence of holy symbols on even commoners here in the real world, the game I run has religious symbology, holy days, etc. for the dozens of gods all over the place. That and I still use it for undead lore. It comes up a lot.
...my real issue is with the "worthless" skills that pretty much never see play: Animal Handling, Medicine, and Performance. Animal Handling can be used to placate beasts, either in an encounter to control a mount/pack animal, but PCs usually just kill the beast and don't use mounts/pack animals much. Medicine is completely worthless thanks to Healer's Kit, Poisoner's Kit, and Herbalist's Kit, which can all provide the same use. Performance is similar to Medicine...

(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.