D&D 5E Medicine Checks

[Ashrym]

NOt sure if you're interested in just random brainstorming, but here are a few ideas that have mainly investigative or RP uses, rather than practical healing applications.

Most of this is just off the top of my head (caveat emptor, I'm very new to 5e!). However, a few are from 3pp bestiaries: "remove tumor" was related to some sort of attack form; and "treat the slowed condition" came from a weapon attack implicitly causing a mobility-hampering leg injury. The haircut thing is a nod to the old "barber surgeon."

DC 5

• extract a tooth
• give shave / haircut to order
• treat minor / cosmetic (0 hp) injuries (eg, rashes, burns, scratches)

DC 10

• medical communication (eg, read journals, give lectures, draw anatomical diagrams)
• craft simple prosthetic (eg, dentures, non-functional hand, fake eye)
• preserve biological sample
• treat a wound to avoid scarring

DC 15

• craft complex prosthetic (eg, spectacles, basic jointed hand, realistic fake eye)
• remove tumor
• extract rot grub (within 3 rounds of penetration)
• minimally injurious torture (!!)
• deduce general medical history upon examination (eg, congenital issues, major childhood diseases)

DC 20

• extract rot grub (more than 3 rounds after penetration)

Varies

• treat / calm madness
• treat injury-related condition (eg, blindness; slowed by hamstring, sprain, fracture)

I'd like to see Medicine checks applied with abilities besides Wisdom, if that rule is available. Seems like forensics and academic uses are good match for Intelligence. A competent, stylish haircut is totally a Charisma check, because no one wants to offend the king at his daughter's wedding ball.

Also wish there was a Physician's Kit (with, eg, blades, pliers, painkillers, tweezers, sutures, jars, etc) that would somehow synergize with Medicine). But it's not obvious how to do that, given how Ability Checks and Proficiency work.

I like all of these. They fit the ability and the level of non-magic use. Especially prosthetics because it's not an angle I was thinking of but very appropriate.

 

[Simonb1]

I don't using Survival for Navigation or Sailing, that's what Navigator's Tools are for.

And foraging make sense to me for knowing what foods are safe to eat. If you can recognize poisonous stuff while inside the body through Medicine, you should also be able to recognize poisonous stuff before putting it inside your body.

I use Nature for non-humanoid outdoors knowledge.

I slightly disagree, but only for sailing a boat I would use Water Vehicles Proficiency rather than Navigator's tools.

Simon

 

[Ashrym]

NOt sure if you're interested in just random brainstorming, but here are a few ideas that have mainly investigative or RP uses, rather than practical healing applications.

Most of this is just off the top of my head (caveat emptor, I'm very new to 5e!). However, a few are from 3pp bestiaries: "remove tumor" was related to some sort of attack form; and "treat the slowed condition" came from a weapon attack implicitly causing a mobility-hampering leg injury. The haircut thing is a nod to the old "barber surgeon."

DC 5

• extract a tooth
• give shave / haircut to order
• treat minor / cosmetic (0 hp) injuries (eg, rashes, burns, scratches)

DC 10

• medical communication (eg, read journals, give lectures, draw anatomical diagrams)
• craft simple prosthetic (eg, dentures, non-functional hand, fake eye)
• preserve biological sample
• treat a wound to avoid scarring

DC 15

• craft complex prosthetic (eg, spectacles, basic jointed hand, realistic fake eye)
• remove tumor
• extract rot grub (within 3 rounds of penetration)
• minimally injurious torture (!!)
• deduce general medical history upon examination (eg, congenital issues, major childhood diseases)

DC 20

• extract rot grub (more than 3 rounds after penetration)

Varies

• treat / calm madness
• treat injury-related condition (eg, blindness; slowed by hamstring, sprain, fracture)

I'd like to see Medicine checks applied with abilities besides Wisdom, if that rule is available. Seems like forensics and academic uses are good match for Intelligence. A competent, stylish haircut is totally a Charisma check, because no one wants to offend the king at his daughter's wedding ball.

Also wish there was a Physician's Kit (with, eg, blades, pliers, painkillers, tweezers, sutures, jars, etc) that would somehow synergize with Medicine). But it's not obvious how to do that, given how Ability Checks and Proficiency work.

I forgot to add that replacing WIS for INT in the check is normal depending on how this check is being used.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I appreciate your feedback. I'm still looking at going in another direction, however, so if you were to flesh out medicine more what would you include?

To make Medicine actually useful on a scale that would be along the lines of things like Persuasion, Arcana, or Insight (I won't even attempt to equal it out to Perception or Stealth because that won't ever happen)... you would need to use it for actions that will occur throughout a normal adventuring day apart from very specific plotlines you have set up for the characters that would demand its use.

Yes, if you have an adventure that involves a murder mystery the use of Medicine will get a full use through the day. But what about the adventure through a typical dungeon delve for example? If none of the list would ever come up then (and it'd be important to really ask yourself "Will PCs actually inquire about what happened to this dead Hook Horror they found, or will they just move on down the passage")... nor come up with any other standard prototypical adventuring activities... then your list is insufficient to make Medicine a worthwhile skill. Yes, that one time in 30 it'll be gravely useful, but the other 29 times the players are going to be happy to have taken Perception, Survival, Athletics, and Stealth instead.

So if you want Medicine to have a place in the game where PCs will actually use it, there's really only one way to do it-- any healing and recovery in the game requires Medicine checks, even if it is magically given. Some examples:

- Anyone who drops to 0 HP and falls unconscious does not wake up when they regain HP (through magical healing or a potion or whatever.) They can only wake up when the HP gain is coupled with a person using an action to make an additional Medicine check to wake them (via smelling salts or whatever other narrative device you use to explain it.) The check would be say DC 21, minus the current HP count of the unconscious character-- that way if you healed them a large amount they could wake up easier, but if you only gave them a single hit point it would take a DC 20 Medicine check to wake them. This would also cut down on the up-and-down nature of healing because it would now require two actions to get a PC back in the fight-- one for the healing, and one for the Medicine check. You're less likely to let your fellow PCs drop to 0 HP if its going to require two actions to get them back up and into the fight.

- If someone casts Cure Wounds, don't make the hit points be just randomly generated with the dice as normal, but instead use Medicine checks to determine how many hit points get recovered. The person using healing magic still needs a knowledge in anatomy and health to get the most out of their magic when they heal somebody.

- Use Medicine checks to allow PCs to recover an Exhaustion level on a short rest so long as the person making the check uses their short rest to attend to the exhausted party (so the nurse does not gain any benefits from the short rest, their hour is spent purely helping someone else.) Likewise if a nurse spends a long rest attending to another PC, that PC can regain 2 levels of exhaustion (with the nurse gaining no benefits from the rest.)

Now if you were hoping to avoid house rules, then obviously these will not help you. But I don't think the game as it stands will make Medicine an at-all-useful-or-meaningful skill without house rules. The game is just not set up to do so, no matter how many weird and esoteric body analysis ideas you try and add to your list. Those things just don't ever get used in the game with any significance except in the very specific incidences where you as the DM have set up the adventure specifically to use them.

 

[Hriston]

I'm asking because it's something mentioned a few times in this thread. If players never initiates an action to create a use for the check then what is the point of having the check in the game at all? That's why I asked you your opinion.

So, you’re asking if I think it’s a good idea? No, I don’t. I’m happy with the list of skills provided and haven’t had any problems with it. You seem to be using check and skill interchangeably here, which makes it hard to be sure what you mean. They aren’t the same thing. If the player doesn’t declare an action, or declares an action with a certain outcome or without meaningful consequences for failure, then there is no check. It hasn’t been removed. It never existed because I didn’t call for it. But if by check you actually mean skill, I don’t think there’s a problem with having elements listed in the rules that don’t see play because the players aren’t interested in that aspect. I mean, what if no one wants to play a paladin? Do you ban the class from your game?

I'm commenting because I, as a DM, might want to use the checks for story flavor. For example, in one of the adventures there is a check when examining a corpse that determines the body died by creatures bursting out of it's flesh after implanted eggs hatched.

That's flavor and telegraphs what to expect shortly thereafter. That doesn't happen unless the DM deliberately creates a scenario with an expected action. The expected action has an expected DC. I'm looking for examples like that. Creating those scenarios causes players to take actions that initiate the checks.

This isn't a debate on how the D&D check system works. It's a request for help with what activities and at what difficulties those checks might entail. That doesn't matter if it's in response to a character initiated action or a DM planned scenario.

We clearly have different priorities of play. I don’t think you should gate your telegraphing and descriptive flavor behind ability checks. When I DM, I try not to have expectations about what the players’ characters will do. I think that treads too far into their territory.

I don't disagree. Where I disagree is in thinking that reacting to player actions is the only time a person would set a DC. DM's create the scenarios and those scenarios include expected actions. Those actions include expected DC's and results. The only difference is in having planned it out in advance instead of waiting for players to try something.

Don't get caught up in "how D&D should be played". How you play it still going to have scenarios and DC's, correct?

Scenario, or situation , is intrinsic to RPGing, but I like to have situations that are in response to player interest. If an ability check is required to resolve a player-declared action, it will have a DC.

 

[GlassJaw]

This is just my opinion, and it’s a bit of a controversial one, but if the player is thinking of what to try in terms of what their skills are and what those skills can do, they’re going about things backwards. They should thinking in terms of what they want to accomplish and what their character might do to try and achieve that goal. Let the DM worry about whether or not that task requires a check, and if so what kind.

I do think a list like this is useful. I just think it’s better as a DM tool to help setting appropriate DCs, rather than a player tool to allow them choose actions from a menu.

Why not both?

When a skill (like Medicine) is described with a single entry, it is deceiving. I really like what XGtE did for tools and what 4E did for skills (although like most things, 4E went too far).

When you give players more options and details on what's possible, they are more inclined to take the ball and run with it themselves.

 

[Ashrym]

To make Medicine actually useful on a scale that would be along the lines of things like Persuasion, Arcana, or Insight (I won't even attempt to equal it out to Perception or Stealth because that won't ever happen)... you would need to use it for actions that will occur throughout a normal adventuring day apart from very specific plotlines you have set up for the characters that would demand its use.

Yes, if you have an adventure that involves a murder mystery the use of Medicine will get a full use through the day. But what about the adventure through a typical dungeon delve for example? If none of the list would ever come up then (and it'd be important to really ask yourself "Will PCs actually inquire about what happened to this dead Hook Horror they found, or will they just move on down the passage")... nor come up with any other standard prototypical adventuring activities... then your list is insufficient to make Medicine a worthwhile skill. Yes, that one time in 30 it'll be gravely useful, but the other 29 times the players are going to be happy to have taken Perception, Survival, Athletics, and Stealth instead.

So if you want Medicine to have a place in the game where PCs will actually use it, there's really only one way to do it-- any healing and recovery in the game requires Medicine checks, even if it is magically given. Some examples:

- Anyone who drops to 0 HP and falls unconscious does not wake up when they regain HP (through magical healing or a potion or whatever.) They can only wake up when the HP gain is coupled with a person using an action to make an additional Medicine check to wake them (via smelling salts or whatever other narrative device you use to explain it.) The check would be say DC 21, minus the current HP count of the unconscious character-- that way if you healed them a large amount they could wake up easier, but if you only gave them a single hit point it would take a DC 20 Medicine check to wake them. This would also cut down on the up-and-down nature of healing because it would now require two actions to get a PC back in the fight-- one for the healing, and one for the Medicine check. You're less likely to let your fellow PCs drop to 0 HP if its going to require two actions to get them back up and into the fight.

- If someone casts Cure Wounds, don't make the hit points be just randomly generated with the dice as normal, but instead use Medicine checks to determine how many hit points get recovered. The person using healing magic still needs a knowledge in anatomy and health to get the most out of their magic when they heal somebody.

- Use Medicine checks to allow PCs to recover an Exhaustion level on a short rest so long as the person making the check uses their short rest to attend to the exhausted party (so the nurse does not gain any benefits from the short rest, their hour is spent purely helping someone else.) Likewise if a nurse spends a long rest attending to another PC, that PC can regain 2 levels of exhaustion (with the nurse gaining no benefits from the rest.)

Now if you were hoping to avoid house rules, then obviously these will not help you. But I don't think the game as it stands will make Medicine an at-all-useful-or-meaningful skill without house rules. The game is just not set up to do so, no matter how many weird and esoteric body analysis ideas you try and add to your list. Those things just don't ever get used in the game with any significance except in the very specific incidences where you as the DM have set up the adventure specifically to use them.

There's no such thing as unhelpful brainstorming.

I also don't think treating exhaustion is actually a house rule, either. Treating hypothermia, heatstroke, or exhaustion are things first aid covers. It's one of those things where survival might prevent hypothermia but medicine helps someone who has already gotten hypothermia.

Those are things a person would seek medical care for. Any actual overlap can use different DC's where one skill works better than the other.

I'm hoping to avoid house rules but if one catches my interest I might anyway, or others.

The exhaustion example is actual an example of "I try this activity" and the DM selects the skill and DC, and possibly fleshes out expectations. That's the current system WAI.

I like a higher DC to wake up an unconscious character too.

So, you’re asking if I think it’s a good idea? No, I don’t. I’m happy with the list of skills provided and haven’t had any problems with it. You seem to be using check and skill interchangeably here, which makes it hard to be sure what you mean. They aren’t the same thing. If the player doesn’t declare an action, or declares an action with a certain outcome or without meaningful consequences for failure, then there is no check. It hasn’t been removed. It never existed because I didn’t call for it. But if by check you actually mean skill, I don’t think there’s a problem with having elements listed in the rules that don’t see play because the players aren’t interested in that aspect. I mean, what if no one wants to play a paladin? Do you ban the class from your game?


We clearly have different priorities of play. I don’t think you should gate your telegraphing and descriptive flavor behind ability checks. When I DM, I try not to have expectations about what the players’ characters will do. I think that treads too far into their territory.


Scenario, or situation , is intrinsic to RPGing, but I like to have situations that are in response to player interest. If an ability check is required to resolve a player-declared action, it will have a DC.

We don't have different ways of playing, lol. You have some kind obsession with not wanting to simply write down examples of skill checks. The difference in those terms is also only proficiency because those proficiencies are listed under "skills".

If Bob the cleric told you the DM he treats Cher the barbarian for exhaustion would you set a medicine DC and what would it be? Writing that action down on paper with the DC has nothing to do with labelling the acrion or how to play the game.

Write down some examples of actions players took in your games that you called for medicine and the DC you gave. Then write down some examples of actions you took as a player and the DM requested a medicine and the DC he or she gave. Then brainstorm some hypothetical actions you might try as a character or a player might try that you might hypothetically see or give a medicine check with the hypothetical DC and write those examples down.

How hard is it to write down examples and DC's? How does writing them down in advance change anything when you place a current against which to swim, a trap to find and disarm, a wall to climb, or a door to force open? If I asked you for ideas on new traps and the DC's for them would you argue it's impossible to design new traps because the player needs to initiate an action and then the DM needs to determine the DC on that action?

I am asking dor examples, actual or hypothetical. Surely your roleplaying experience has something.

 

[Charlaquin]

Why not both?

Because players and DMs have different roles, and I don’t think a list of specific tasks and DCs is conducive to the fulfillment of the players’ role. If anything, it leads to players performing part of the DM’s role as they start initiating (or asking to initiate) checks instead of describing actions.

When a skill (like Medicine) is described with a single entry, it is deceiving.

Deceiving? In what way?

I really like what XGtE did for tools and what 4E did for skills (although like most things, 4E went too far).

4e has a very different approach to action resolution than 5e does. In 4e, it is appropriate for players to ask to make checks, and DMs are encouraged to grant these requests unless they have a compelling reason not to. 5e doesn’t work that way, and what worked for skills in 4e will not necessarily work for skills in 5e.

When you give players more options and details on what's possible, they are more inclined to take the ball and run with it themselves.

There are no limits to what is possible. Players should not be thinking of skills as prescriptive, and a 3e style list of things you can accomplish by “using a skill” is unhelpful. Players shouldn’t be looking at the skill list as a menu of tasks they can perform. They should be describing actions and allowing the DM to determine if those actions require checks to be resolved, and if so what kind.

 

[GlassJaw]

There are no limits to what is possible.

Players should not be thinking of skills as prescriptive, and a 3e style list of things you can accomplish by “using a skill” is unhelpful. Players shouldn’t be looking at the skill list as a menu of tasks they can perform. They should be describing actions and allowing the DM to determine if those actions require checks to be resolved, and if so what kind.

Well it doesn't always work that way at the table. Providing more description or options is conducive to more ideas.

Again, there's a reason why the Medicine skill has been brought up numerous times with people either a) questioning it's usefulness at all, or b) trying to expand its uses.

 

[Charlaquin]

We don't have different ways of playing, lol. You have some kind obsession with not wanting to simply write down examples of skill checks. The difference in those terms is also only proficiency because those proficiencies are listed under "skills".

I’m pretty sure you do have different styles of playing.

If Bob the cleric told you the DM he treats Cher the barbarian for exhaustion would you set a medicine DC and what would it be?

I’m not Hriston, but I suspect based on his comments that his DMimg style is similar to mine. If Bob the cleric told me he “treats Cher the barbarian for exhaustion,” I would say, “Ok, I’m hearing that your goal is to remove a level of exhaustion from Cher. What is your character doing to try and accomplish that goal?” Without that information, I can’t adequately determine if the approach has a chance of succeeding at the goal, a chance of failing, and a cost or consequence for failing, so I don’t know if a check is appropriate to resolve it, or what the appropriate ability, skill, or DC might be if it is.

Writing that action down on paper with the DC has nothing to do with labelling the acrion or how to play the game.

Write down some examples of actions players took in your games that you called for medicine and the DC you gave. Then write down some examples of actions you took as a player and the DM requested a medicine and the DC he or she gave. Then brainstorm some hypothetical actions you might try as a character or a player might try that you might hypothetically see or give a medicine check with the hypothetical DC and write those examples down.

I don’t know that examples of actions performed in my game would be helpful to anyone else, because they are specific and context-sensitive. An action requires both a goal and an approach. Most of these “example actions” you’ve listed in this thread are just goals, so the DCs assigned to them seem arbitrary to me. How do you know that “determin(ing) the time and cause of death with no visible marks” is Hard when you don’t know what the character is actually doing to try to make that determination?

How hard is it to write down examples and DC's? How does writing them down in advance change anything when you place a current against which to swim, a trap to find and disarm, a wall to climb, or a door to force open?

Because doing so divorces the difficulty of a task from the actual task, and instead assigns it to an orphaned goal. It encourages the DM to just use the written DC regardless of what action the player takes to try to achieve the goal, which in turn rewards players for simply stating goals and/or skills instead of describing actions.

If I asked you for ideas on new traps and the DC's for them would you argue it's impossible to design new traps because the player needs to initiate an action and then the DM needs to determine the DC on that action?

I would argue that DCs are unnecessary for designing traps. Just decide what the trap does and how it works, and when the players interact with it, determine the results of their actions based on logic and your understanding of the trap you designed. If an action has a chance of achieving its goal, a chance of failing, and a cost or consequence for failing, set a DC based on your assessment of the likelihood of success and failure. Is it easy? DC 5. Moderate? DC 10. Hard? DC 15. Etc.