D&D 5E Medicine Checks

[Tony Vargas]

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.

I'm generally very much on board with G&A, but, seriously, "I'm not a medieval healer, I have no idea. Slap some leeches on her? Sacrifice a chicken? Rub garlic on her feet? Feed her mercury? Look for a root or herb shaped like the part of her that hurts?"

At some point someone would need to make a roll based on a DC. It's the basis for check system in 5e. I could write that down in my OP as DC10 to diagnose heat exhaustion and consider it investing time for no check needed. The only difference is fleshing out the activity.

I appreciate the OP, but there is a point that DMs are just going to judge success/failure or call for checks with whatever DC feels right.
It is very interesting from the perspective of 'how useful is this skill, anyway?' Because examples of the skill being called for in a published source is something we can count.

I'd love to see the same for more skills. (Already saw Arcana - no big shock, a lot more instances of that one.)

 

[Charlaquin]

To me that just looks like you decided it was no roll needed for those actions and results. It's perfectly valid and something that happens at tables all the time.

Yes. That happens fairly often in my games, especially as players learn that declaring actions that they think seem likely to be successful is a more effective strategy than asking to make checks.

At some point someone would need to make a roll based on a DC.

Yes, when they declare an action that has a chance of succeeding, a chance of failing, and a cost or consequence for failing. But that’s not something you can know without knowing what the action in question is.

I could write that down in my OP as DC10 to diagnose heat exhaustion and consider it investing time for no check needed.

You could do that, but the implication would be that any action taken with the intent of diagnosing heat exhaustion would be the same DC. What if I tried to diagnose someone with heat exhaustion by standing on my head? Would you call for a DC 10 Medicine check, or would you tell me it doesn’t work?

Unless you never ever ever roll checks, of course.

I use checks as a means of resolving uncertainty in the outcomes of actions. Not as actions in and of themselves.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm generally very much on board with G&A, but, seriously, "I'm not a medieval healer, I have no idea. Slap some leeches on him? Sacrifice a chicken? Rub garlic on his feet? Feed him mercury? Look for a root or herb shaped like the part of her that hurts?"

I expect action declarations to be reasonably specific and concise. I understand that you are not a medieval healer, and neither am I, so just pick something that seems reasonable to you, and there’s a good chance it will seem reasonable to me too. Especially in the case of heat exhaustion, it doesn’t take a neurosurgeon to figure out how to help someone cool down.

 

[Ashrym]

Of course rolls aren't necessary a lot of the time. That's not actually the point. I'm a fan of not over-using rolls.

This is more about clarifying what medicine encompasses for players and DM's alike. The DC's in the OP are just checks that were given in the game included under medicine.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I expect action declarations to be reasonably specific and concise. I understand that you are not a medieval healer, and neither am I, so just pick something that seems reasonable to you, and there’s a good chance it will seem reasonable to me too.

IMX, players and DMs can come up with radically different ideas of what's "reasonable."
There's points where G&A would do well to accommodate enough abstraction to avoid such gaps.
Those can also be times when alternatives - like calling for a check, and describing a reasonable course of action on a success, and a botched one on a bad enough failure - can be a good idea, too.

As much as I like G&A to get players on-board and engaged and not just calling out checks, it needn't be the only tool in the DM's chest*.








* yes, of course it's actually a mimic.

 

[Charlaquin]

IMX, players and DMs can come up with radically different ideas of what's "reasonable."
There's points where G&A would do well to accommodate enough abstraction to avoid such gaps.

I’m fine with a degree of abstraction. “I I use my healer’s kit to bind and treat their wounds,” for example, is pretty abstract, but meets the relatively low bar of “reasonably specific and concise,” in my opinion.

Those can also be times when alternatives - like calling for a check, and describing a reasonable course of action on a success, and a botched one on a bad enough failure - can be a good idea, too.

I don’t think that playing D&D 5e is ever one of those times, personally. In my experience, doing this “only sometimes” undermines the players’ willingness to declare actions in terms of goal and approach the rest of the time.

As much as I like G&A to get players on-board and engaged and not just calling out checks, it needn't be the only tool in the DM's chest*.

I’d rather apply the same standards for action declaration at all times. That consistency helps build player confidence in their own ability to describe actions. “I’m not an expert in (whatever) but my character would know what to do!” is the protest of someone who knows that sometimes they’re allowed to just say a skill and make a roll, and is trying to convince me that this should be one of those times.

* yes, of course it's actually a mimic.

Of course

 

[Ashrym]

I don’t think that playing D&D 5e is ever one of those times, personally. In my experience, doing this “only sometimes” undermines the players’ willingness to declare actions in terms of goal and approach the rest of the time.

What happens when the player has no idea what his character is capable of, even though the character should? Players need an idea what actions their characters might take.

I didn't make the connection to medical examiner until it came up in modules even though it makes sense, and the same with prosthetics in this thread even though I probably should have. The Slaad example is invasive surgery.

Not every DM or every player has a starting point. Exhaustion came up in this thread and even though it's a common complaint in the forums and a common treatment by medical personnel no one was taking any actions regarding exhaustion. Players and DM's both need an idea of what might call for a check, what might be done without a check, and what might be impossible regardless.

If someone thinks medicine is leaching but the examples in the monster manual include staunching blood loss and operating on Slaad to remove control gems there's a discrepancy on the expectations behind that proficiency in the first place.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I’m fine with a degree of abstraction. “I I use my healer’s kit to bind and treat their wounds,” for example, is pretty abstract, but meets the relatively low bar of “reasonably specific and concise,” in my opinion.

But the treating exhaustion example, above, didn't end up working out like that. It got quite specific.

I don’t think that playing D&D 5e is ever one of those times, personally. In my experience, doing this “only sometimes” undermines the players’ willingness to declare actions in terms of goal and approach the rest of the time.

5e gives the DM a lot of leeway, and taking full advantage of that could mean picking one way of doing things all the time, or going with different ones at different times.
I might be inclined to go heavily G&A to break players of the call-out-rolls habit engrained by 3e, but, when a player just can't come up with an approach, call for a check, and narrate one for them.
One benefit is, when they succeed, they gain an example of what you think is a reasonable approach, and when they fail they gain an experiences that says "you should really try to come up with a reasonable goal."
(Yes, 'training' players is a thing.)

I’d rather apply the same standards for action declaration at all times. That consistency helps build player confidence in their own ability to describe actions.

Except when they get a narrated failure because their idea of a most-likely successful goal didn't match the DMs. Eventually, that will train players to be good at guessing what you'll go for...

 

[GlassJaw]

Skill presentation can account for a lot. Listing some examples can simply be a case of “hey, here’s a bunch of stuff you can do with his skill” vs a list of very specific uses with corresponding DCs and situational modifiers.

I liked that 4E expanded the use of each skill but it got too specific and provided too much detail.

 

[Ashrym]

Skill presentation can account for a lot. Listing some examples can simply be a case of “hey, here’s a bunch of stuff you can do with his skill” vs a list of very specific uses with corresponding DCs and situational modifiers.

I liked that 4E expanded the use of each skill but it got too specific and provided too much detail.

Personally, I would much rather have a bunch of example with DC's to ball park the skill. I take skill proficiencies based on my character concept so matching that up is important to me. That prompts me to do things with my character based on those skills. The DM might never ask for the roll in the entire session or might ask for rolls several times but as long as I'm doing the things I expect to do I feel validated in my concept.

Understanding and fleshing out the skills is all about the character concepts and not a checklist of absolutes.