D&D 5E What skills are used most in your game?

[Saeviomagy]

I've noticed that you all seem to rate Nature as a rarely used skill. What do you guys use to identify the type of enemy you are facing and its strengths/weaknesses?

Well, typically if it's nature, you don't even need a skill roll to either identify it or work out strengths and weaknesses. 90% of the time it's an animal, and the DM will tell you the name of it because it's ridiculous for him not to say "it's a wolf" just because you don't have a nature skill. You can almost certainly guess it's special abilities if doing so matters in the slightest (ie - you can't stop a wolf from knocking you prone, so it's fairly irrelevant that you know about the ability prior to getting hit with it), and the same goes with strengths and weaknesses.

The only time the skill roll is likely to matter is if it's that 10% of encounters that is a plant creature. And most of the time they're pretty straightforward too.

Heck the same goes for most monster identifications: 5e is pretty slim when it comes to creative monster tactics or abilities that will actually change how the players fight.

 

[Giant2005]

Heck the same goes for most monster identifications: 5e is pretty slim when it comes to creative monster tactics or abilities that will actually change how the players fight.

Resistances, immunities and vulnerabilities are pretty much the only reason why I care.

 

[feartheminotaur]

IME, the most used skills are the ones the PCs have proficiency in. Partly due to the PCs training in the "important" skills first (perception, stealth) and partly due to the nature of the challenges they find themselves need to roll for (no one has tried to wrangle a goat, but they've all tried to figure out if an NPC is lying to them)

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I've noticed that you all seem to rate Nature as a rarely used skill. What do you guys use to identify the type of enemy you are facing and its strengths/weaknesses?

It depends on how you interpret it. If one is using the 4e interpretation of Nature (Which I passionately despise--no knowledge skill has any business applying to every creature of the "natural world" from a rat, to a human, to a dragon. I don't hate the two-axis classification scheme, just the way they assigned knowledge skills to it), then it would come up quite frequently. I think most of us are taking a different approach where it should apply more to plants and wildlife. I apply it to knowledge about that, as well as fey, plant creatures, oozes and other sorts of primitive life-forms.

For other creatures I go with this basic idea:
Arcana: Aberrations, Constructs, Dragons*, Elementals
History: Dragons*, Humanoids, Giants, Monstrosities
Nature: Beasts, Fey, Plants, Oozes
Religion: Celestials, Fiends, Undead

I also allow you to apply your proficiency bonus if you don't have the right skill, but do speak the creature's racial language, under the assumption that you generally learn about culture along with language.

I also tend to be a pushover to player requests to let another skill apply. Sometimes I'll call for things like, "Arcana or Religion, whichever you prefer."

*A good example of one that can fit in more than one category.

 

[empireofchaos]

I've noticed that you all seem to rate Nature as a rarely used skill. What do you guys use to identify the type of enemy you are facing and its strengths/weaknesses?

I mentioned Nature coming up fairly regularly, and the above is one of the key contexts in which it comes up. Another is evaluating the worth of (and possibly, location of) specific flora, fauna, and minerals - woods, furs, gems, herbs, etc. If you run a game which has an economy (I note in passing that there are some DMs that are adamantly opposed to the very idea), Nature is very, very useful.

 

[ThirdWizard]

You must not have any barbarians or rangers in your group. I swear, it seems like they’ll try to use Animal Handling on any animal encountered, no matter how hostile. Nevermind that it's not a charm spell...

I've noticed that you all seem to rate Nature as a rarely used skill. What do you guys use to identify the type of enemy you are facing and its strengths/weaknesses?

In my case, I run an urban game with a bunch of city slickers. I had one adventure where they went out in the wilderness and the characters hated it! It was great.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Heck the same goes for most monster identifications: 5e is pretty slim when it comes to creative monster tactics or abilities that will actually change how the players fight.

You don't think it might be important to know whether a wolf/lion/sabertooth is a solo hunter or a pack hunter? Whether a king cobra is aggressive? What made those big claw marks on the oak tree?

 

[abirdcall]

It changes from group to group. Whatever they tend to specialize in.

I find Perception to be overrated. I mean, it's a fine skill, but only one party member needs to be good at it.

 

[Saeviomagy]

You don't think it might be important to know whether a wolf/lion/sabertooth is a solo hunter or a pack hunter?

Typically covered by tracking. ie: "There's one of them" or "There's 10 of them".

Whether a king cobra is aggressive?

First - most humans are perfectly capable of perceiving aggression in animals, because they tend to make it really obvious.

Second - this is the domain of animal handling, unless you want arcana to be used as insight when your foe is a wizard (which I think is fine - but my stance on skills is "if it sounds plausible, go ahead").

Also the stats for poisonous snakes are so weak that it is fundamentally irrelevant. If you miss the signs of aggression, you might get slightly hurt.

What made those big claw marks on the oak tree?

Again, tracking will give you much of the info that you need.

I'm not saying that a clever DM with an eye to making the nature skill more useful couldn't do it - I'm just saying it requires that for it to be a particularly useful skill. While other knowledge skills are genuinely giving things that the players aren't likely to guess, nature requires the DM to give significantly more depth to natural encounters than is typically present in the source material.

 

[Lehrbuch]

Typically covered by tracking. ie: "There's one of them" or "There's 10 of them".

Yes, if you can see them. If on the other hand, the PCs are thinking more abstractly, Nature is more useful. Also useful to when the Tracking answer is Wrong. Such as, tracking might indicate that a tiger is a pack hunter, but the PC's Nature Skills will reveal, no that's wrong. Hence .... [suspense music].

First - most humans are perfectly capable of perceiving aggression in animals, because they tend to make it really obvious.

Only when the animal is directly in front of you. If you want to know about animals in a place you are planning on going to, and animals that you personally have never seen, then Nature Skill is what you need.

Second - this is the domain of animal handling

Only when the animal is actually there.

Also, there's no problem that there is a bit of overlap anyway. There are multiple ways of doing things. The PCs/players will usually pick the option that they are proficient in.