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

[empireofchaos]

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].



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.



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.

And there are many creatures that don't leave tracks, because they fly or swim. And lots of things that are not classifiable as animals (beasts), but that are still natural, and therefore amenable to naturalist study.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Perception

Stealth - and Perception to overcome it.

Arcana to figure out magical stuff.

Investigation/Perception/Arcana/Nature/Survival/Insight/History to find clues & information.

Stealth/Sleight of Hand/Thieves' Tools/Perception for all that traditional Find/Remove Traps, Open Locks, Pick Pockets &c thiefly goodness.

Athletics/Acrobatics for the physical side of exploration.

Deception - and Insight to overcome it.

Persuasion/Deception/Intimidate for interaction in general.

Yeah, that's most of 'em. 5e comes pretty close to having just the right-sized skill list. I lean towards small, finite, skill lists though.

One way it could have been done just slightly better (maybe, there could be downsides0 would have been to divorce skills from stats. That way you could just have one skill, like Athletics, and apply STR or DEX or CON depending on whether you were climbing, tumbling, or running a marathon. You'd remove a few more skills that way.

Also 'tools' being open-ended was probably not a great idea.

 

[SailorNash]

Stealth and Perception, without a doubt. Deception/Persuasion comes up a lot as well.

Athletics...more than Acrobatics, but not as much as you'd think.

I don't think I've made a single Investigation roll in any of the past five campaigns I've been a part of.

 

[Saeviomagy]

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].

The players are confused, because the DM is relying on a skill not being present to make the conspiracy understandable?

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.

Only when the animal is actually there.

Knowing stuff about an animal when it isn't present tends to fall into the "less useful" bin. It would be different if animals were things that adventurers need to prepare for, but they almost always are not, OR the defenses against them are plainly obvious even when not face to face with the animal (giant spiders? Anti venom and some way to escape webbing is basically the most complex thing you can get).

Like I said - the DM can go out of their way to make the nature skill more powerful, but the same can be said for every skill, so the point is a bit moot.

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.

I thought I said precisely that, but it means that you're opening up other skills too. The same logic which says "knowledge nature can be used as insight on animals" says "knowledge arcana can be used as insight on elementals", so again: it's a moot point. Every skill has been broadened, and nature is still applying to some of D&Ds weakest creatures that are also incidentally the least negotiated with.

 

[Lehrbuch]

The players are confused, because the DM is relying on a skill not being present to make the conspiracy understandable?

No, he's relying on the skill being present, and of course (if the DM is sensible) this would only be a critical thing to know in the adventure if the PCs have shown past form for going around making Nature checks.

It would be different if animals were things that adventurers need to prepare for, but they almost always are not, OR the defenses against them are plainly obvious even when not face to face with the animal (giant spiders? Anti venom and some way to escape webbing is basically the most complex thing you can get).

Let's just say you seem to play with very different players to me. In my experience, if players have taken Knowledge Skills *and they want to use them* (which is fairly likely) then they will be wanting to roll all the time in planning and exploration phases and wanting to do something creative with the information they find out.

Like I said - the DM can go out of their way to make the nature skill more powerful, but the same can be said for every skill, so the point is a bit moot.

No, it's the players that make the skill powerful. The best(?) that the DM can do is obstruct the players in their attempts to do so.

The same logic which says "knowledge nature can be used as insight on animals" says "knowledge arcana can be used as insight on elementals", so again

Yeah, but Nature and Arcana are not Insight (and vice versa), so while sometimes, in a given situation, a PC could get similar information from more than one skill, it isn't the same. For example, if a PC wants to know whether a particular predator is confused by bright lights, Nature will tell her about the species in general, Insight will tell her about the specific animal she has cast Dancing Lights at. The answer might not always be the same.

Every skill has been broadened, and nature is still applying to some of D&Ds weakest creatures that are also incidentally the least negotiated with.

Well, yes, only a tree-hugging, hippy druid negotiates with plants and animals. But, other PCs variously avoid, capture, harvest, eat, stampede, hunt, sell plants and animals. For a start, not every PC Wizard gets their spell components from "Ye Olde Bargain Magic Emporium".

 

[Unwise]

Stealth > Athletics > Investigation for me. Everything else comes in pretty far behind those.