D&D 5E Do you ever let players stack skills?

[MNblockhead]

When a player is proficient in more than one relevant knowledge skill, I have them make a single Int check (with proficiency modifier) and on success they get the information from all the relevant proficient skills.

In your example, a character skilled in Investigation might find bits of hair and claw on the corpse, and maybe know from the position of the wounds that the monster jumped out at the victim. A character skilled in Medicine might know instead that the wounds targeted vital organs (a sign of intelligence?) and that the victim bled to death (meaning, the creature left the scene before finishing the victim off). A character skilled in both would get both pieces of information.

Ah, that's interesting. One roll but you get more info for a success. I like that. Cuts back on the rolling. On the other hand, I kinda would like my players to have to state what they are doing, like Rya.Reisender's example above

I could see using both approaches. For less important checks, where you just want to move the story along, you could almost treat it like a passive check.

DM: "The party comes across a naked, human corpse laying along side the trail. Doogie, with your knowledge of medicine, you can tell that the man died of an overdose of some kind, apparently inhaled, based on the fine powder on and around his nose. Due to your knowledge of the arcane arts and--uh--practical experience, you identify the material as pixie dust."

PLAYER: "I look for any remaining pixie dust that can be recovered."

 

[MNblockhead]

I wouldn't allow the stacking of skills, nor would I allow multiple checks.

I might grant advantage on the roll, but what is most likely is that the character with more than one relevant proficiency is going to make me feel that there is nothing uncertain to resolve - they are effectively an expert in the relevant field, so if there is something that someone might know, they are the one that would know it.

I agree that in some cases I might rule that having multiple proficiences makes it unreasonable that they would fail and, therefore, that there is no need for a roll. But for more difficult investigatory activity, I want the players to have to work at it and I want their skills--including their multiple, complimentary skills, to mean something.

 

[MNblockhead]

Deducing, discerning, or determining that the wounds targeted vital organs would be the purview of an Intelligence (Investigation) check.

Wisdom (Medicine) checks have a purely palliative function, and they represent effort in a world where healing is the byproduct of rest and magic. They do not measure knowledge of anatomy, forensics, or medical examination.

"Investigation. When you look around for clues and make deductions based on those clues. you make an Intelligence (Investigation) check. You might deduce the
location of a hidden object, discern from the appearance of a wound what kind of weapon dealt it, or determine the weakest point in a tunnel that could cause it to
collapse. Poring through ancient scrolls in search of a hidden fragment of knowledge might also call for an Intelligence (Investigation) check"

"Medicine. A Wisdom (Medicine) check lets you try to stabilize a dying companion or diagnose an illness."

(PHB 178).

I find it strange the knowledge of medicine doesn't help you discern from the appearance of a wound, what kind of weapon dealt it. Yes, medicine is primarily about healing, but to heal you need to understand the nature of the injury and illness. Experience with determining the nature of a medical condition, should help make you better as investigating what weapon delivered a wound.

 

[MNblockhead]

On behalf of your players, I respectfully ask you to please stop doing this.

You're just providing more opportunity to fail by making them roll multiple checks in order to succeed at one task. It's like the exact opposite of the psuedo advantage you're providing the knowledge tasks - whenever something looks like it's a combination of Athletics and Acrobatics you're forcing this pseudo-disadvantage. It would discourage me from ever bothering.

Please just choose one skill to apply - or even let your players choose, and let that choice inform the way the attempt is described.

Let me clarify.

I don't in my games, parse every single action forcing a roll for every possible skill check. Most of the time, i take a theater of the mind, narrative approach.

If it is an attack, I just let the attack roll speak for itself rather than make the player roll skill checks and the attack roll.

PLAYER: "I run at the drunken barbarian who is about to cleave the wizard, leap to the table, springboard from it, and plunge my sword into his chest, hopefully knocking him prone in the process."

In this case, as a DM, I will generally just let them roll their attack. If the attack is a success, the player does what he says. I don't make him roll an athletics check, and an acrobatics check, and a intelligence (investigation) check to find the right angle, etc. Depending on the narrative importance of the battle, I may, or may not require a contested roll to see if the barbarian is knocked down. Otherwise I would have the barbarian just make a saving throw or, if the player rolled well or if the player is much more powerful than the barbarian, I would hand wave it and have the barbarian fall prone.

Note my liberal use of the word "generally."

There are times when a party member tries to do something truly heroic (or outstandingly reckless) at a time when success and failure have great narrative importance. In those situations, I may require a skill check as part of, for example, the player's move action. If the rogue wants to jump from the cliff, onto the giant, and stab him in the eye just before the giant is about to stomp on his unconscious comrade... I dunno... seems like that is more than a move action and attack. Seems more likely to fail and seems that success should feel hard won.

 

[MNblockhead]

Distinction is the byproduct of separation.
...it remains my contention that knowledge of anatomy, forensics, and medical examination are not the purview of the Medicine skill.

I can see where you are coming from with all of your points in your posts, except this one. Maybe not forensics...fine. But Medicine skill does not imply knowledge of anatomy? Really?

 

[MNblockhead]

For me I do the exact opposite. This feels like "I try to read the letter in elvish. Now I try to read the letter in goblin. Okay, how about in giant?"

A character knows everything their character knows all at the same time - they don't wall off most of their knowledge because how the game system separates skills mechanically.

And these checks are often orthogonal to each other. History might tell you that the style was ancient Elven, religion might tell you that the symbols on it are associated with demons and demon hunters, arcana may tell you that the runes on it aren't arcane in nature, and investigation shows soot in the deep crevices as if it survived a fire but that was long ago.

Skills shouldn't be used to penalize the players because while something should be obvious to the character with their knowledge, but the player didn't ask to use the right skill.

This is why I love this forum. Folks sharing multiple, reasonable approaches, articulated well.

My come away is to continue to experiment with various approaches and perhaps never settle into just one.

Ultimately, I think of skills as a PLAYER aid to given them ideas on how to approach and role play challenges in the game. Normally, I find that I let me players describe what they want to do and what they want to know and make a case for which attribute to use and whether they have proficiency. If it is reasonable I give it to them.

 

[mrpopstar]

"Investigation. When you look around for clues and make deductions based on those clues. you make an Intelligence (Investigation) check. You might deduce the
location of a hidden object, discern from the appearance of a wound what kind of weapon dealt it, or determine the weakest point in a tunnel that could cause it to
collapse. Poring through ancient scrolls in search of a hidden fragment of knowledge might also call for an Intelligence (Investigation) check"

"Medicine. A Wisdom (Medicine) check lets you try to stabilize a dying companion or diagnose an illness."

(PHB 178).

The Medicine skill represents a specific aspect of Wisdom. Wisdom reflects how attuned you are to the world around you and represents perceptiveness and intuition. — When you diagnose an illness in 5th Edition, you acquire knowledge without proof, evidence, or conscious reasoning, or without understanding how the knowledge was acquired.

I find it strange the knowledge of medicine doesn't help you discern from the appearance of a wound, what kind of weapon dealt it. Yes, medicine is primarily about healing, but to heal you need to understand the nature of the injury and illness. Experience with determining the nature of a medical condition, should help make you better as investigating what weapon delivered a wound.

You are investigating a wound. Calling for an ability check using Investigation seems obvious.

Medicine doesn't heal, it has a purely palliative function.

 

[mrpopstar]

I can see where you are coming from with all of your points in your posts, except this one. Maybe not forensics...fine. But Medicine skill does not imply knowledge of anatomy? Really?

Anatomy is for necromancers.

 

[Blue]

For less important checks, where you just want to move the story along, you could almost treat it like a passive check.

DM: "The party comes across a naked, human corpse laying along side the trail. Doogie, with your knowledge of medicine, you can tell that the man died of an overdose of some kind, apparently inhaled, based on the fine powder on and around his nose. Due to your knowledge of the arcane arts and--uh--practical experience, you identify the material as pixie dust."

PLAYER: "I look for any remaining pixie dust that can be recovered."

In keeping with your passive checks, the PHB only to roll checks when there's doubt. I have no problems giving someone trained in medicine basic information exactly as you say - simply because it should be obvious to someone trained.

Not saying everything should be that, but I assume training gives basic competency even if you ability score isn't sky high. A 10 wisdom ranger trained in survival would have no problems finding a good campsite in my book,

 

[mrpopstar]

How often do we see ability checks where no skill or tool proficiency applies?