D&D 5E Where is the point of medicine as a skill?

[jimmyjimjam]

Many people don't disagree with me, they just ignore what I say and talk about a different topic(roleplaying). Roleplaying is fine, but not my point here.

D&D is the topic at hand, and D&D is a roleplaying game.
When talking about a roleplaying game, roleplaying is not your point, is that correct?

 

[aramis erak]

Look at the math... and remember that dungeon crawling is at least partly about resource management for many.

Stabilizing someone without a healing kit: DC10 Wis (Medicine). If pretty typical, this will be a +0 or +1, +2 or +3 for a starting cleric, monk, or paladin. So, 55-70% chance. Add medicine first level, and it goes to 65-80% at first. So your healer cleric becomes MUCH more duration-focused with Medicine skill instead of Healing Kits.

By 5th level, the healer types are likely to be +4 stat, +3 PB, and so 90%. ANd they may be +5 stat bonus...

Rogues as healers using expertise can hit automatic right quick.
Level 1, assuming the standard array's 15 in Dex, 14 in Wis, a rogue-based medic is doing +6, or 85%, 90% if human. At fifth level, he's got a +6 expertise... and possibly a 16 Wis, giving a +9... which, being an ability check rather than an attack, isn't subject to autofail on a 1. At 5th level, a rogue healer can be an auto-make without kit.

From a resource management point of view, it's an excellent choice of skill in the long run.

D&D is the topic at hand, and D&D is a roleplaying game.
When talking about a roleplaying game, roleplaying is not your point, is that correct?

Not everyone plays RPGs as narrative focused story-games. For some, they are a subset of story-driven boardgames. For others, narrative wargames.

D&D has ALWAYS supported both the character scale boardgame mode, and almost always the narrative wargame mode. OE was, officially, an add-on to Chainmail miniatures, not the other way around. AD&D 1E and 2E had Battlesystem as an add-on and/or standalone.

 

[mcbobbo]

So there you have it: House is a Rogue

 

[Andor]

While I understand your point...I would let it cover poison.

Miriam-Webster online has several definitions of illness that I read as including poison.

Specifically the medical dictionary one: an unhealthy condition of body or mind.

But that's just me....carry on...

Oh I would too, if it were in my game. But then again I will also give some one with proficiency with a poisoners kit a prof bonus that roll. Possibly other skills depending on the nature of the affair.

I really love 5e, but I think the skill system, while resting on a very strong base of stat+potential modifier, is probably the weakest part of the game, and medicine the weakest of the skills. Because the Healers kit and Healers feat latched onto it and sucked out its bones.

 

[jimmyjimjam]

Not everyone plays RPGs as narrative focused story-games. For some, they are a subset of story-driven boardgames. For others, narrative wargames.

D&D has ALWAYS supported both the character scale boardgame mode, and almost always the narrative wargame mode. OE was, officially, an add-on to Chainmail miniatures, not the other way around. AD&D 1E and 2E had Battlesystem as an add-on and/or standalone.

Could you point me in the direction of an actual play example of people playing D&D as a "story-driven boardgame" as you put it? I would be very curious to see what that looked like.

 

[Sunseeker]

By the way it's written yeah it does read pretty useless. I think there's some good creative room for what can be done with it though.

 

[aramis erak]

Could you point me in the direction of an actual play example of people playing D&D as a "story-driven boardgame" as you put it? I would be very curious to see what that looked like.

Pick an old module that's primarily a dungeon. draw each room out as a a tile. Players don't bother getting into character, but instead simply move their miniatures and resolve their actions. As they open doors, you put down the new rooms. Nobody bothers speaking in character, actions are described in the third person.

To be honest, it looks a lot like most of the 4E encounters sessions I've seen. Or a game of Space Hulk, or Heroquest. Or Dungeon. Only, with D&D combat mechanics.

 

[Tony Semana]

I've only read the first and last two pages, so sorry if these points have already been mentioned.

With regards to medicine skill needing a roll and the healers kit being an auto-success I see it as; the kit provides the items (bandages, splints and salves) needed to stabilize a downed character. Whereas someone without the kit needs to improvise the treatment to get the same effect. Requiring the skill check under the second circumstance is reasonable.

Now, as for having the medicine skill, it adds to the chance of success for improvising the treatment - makes sense to me. But more than that it adds the ability others have mentioned up-thread around diagnosing illness/disease and prescribing treatment.

In my game, I would leave the rules in place and add the following houserule: if someone has both the medical skill AND a healers kit, a successful roll (DC15) will bring the patient to 1hp instead of just stable (as up-thread mentioned the revivify spell effect) and +1hp for each point the roll succeeds over 20. Failed rolls still stabilize the patient. Yes, I'm houserulling non-magical combat medic.

 

[Li Shenron]

It is a (wis)skill to roll for stabilizing a dying. Nothing more. Nobody will ever pick this skill, because you can do the same thing without even rolling, using a 5gp healing kit (or cast a spell, use a potion etc) The number of skills is limited anyway and this one in its current form is pointless.

There might be selected occasions... yes, but no player would ever choose this skill normally. They should have just made this one a toolset thingy as they did with pick locks, use poison and such. Why adding redundant medicine?

It's the idea of a close & rigid skill list that has no point.

Obviously Medicine as-written is very poor. You have to find your creative uses for it as a player, and hope the DM doesn't run the game too much by the book.

But with that in mind, really the whole approach taken of apparently finalizing the skill list instead of keeping it open both as a whole and each skill individually, is just mediocre.

 

[Goemoe]

With regards to medicine skill needing a roll and the healers kit being an auto-success I see it as; the kit provides the items (bandages, splints and salves) needed to stabilize a downed character. Whereas someone without the kit needs to improvise the treatment to get the same effect. Requiring the skill check under the second circumstance is reasonable.

Now, as for having the medicine skill, it adds to the chance of success for improvising the treatment - makes sense to me. But more than that it adds the ability others have mentioned up-thread around diagnosing illness/disease and prescribing treatment.

In my game, I would leave the rules in place and add the following houserule: if someone has both the medical skill AND a healers kit, a successful roll (DC15) will bring the patient to 1hp instead of just stable (as up-thread mentioned the revivify spell effect) and +1hp for each point the roll succeeds over 20. Failed rolls still stabilize the patient. Yes, I'm houserulling non-magical combat medic.

Best comment to the topic I have seen so far. Thank you for your input!