D&D 5E And now for something completely useless...

[drjones]

I find it a little weird that the healers kit is not in with the rest of the tools. No, you don't need to be proficient to use it but if I had a choice between someone trained in first aid and someone who just fell off the turnip truck with a first aid kit looking after my sucking chest wound I would want the trained person.

I'm sure it is trying to make it possible to have a back-up for when the healer goes down (though with a DC of 10 if enough people try they are going to be able to stabilize the healer as well) but a healer who intentionally does not take medicine and hopes to just use kits is probably being short sighted and had better be getting some amazing skill in exchange.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I've been thinking about this too.

As [MENTION=60886]bganon[/MENTION] notes, there's a conceptual difference between being proficient with the Healer's Kit (~EMT) and in Medicine (~physician). That's the way it was in the last play test, but not apparently in the Basic rules, where the healer's kit is no longer a tool -- i.e. it no longer requires proficiency to use a healer's kit.

The effect of the healer's kit now is a simple non-magical way of replicating the effect of the Spare the Dying cantrip. That's fine, but it means it's effectively trivial. It also means that proficiencies in the final play test are not a valid source for comparison

As the OP notes, the herbalism kit is the hinge now. And, given that this will all be moot in a few days, here is my proposed solution/houserule.

The skill Medicine additionally grants proficiency with the herbalism kit.

There's still reason to take the tool proficiency (since tools are "easier" to acquire, can be bought with money and time, and are not fixed in number as are apparently skills), and medicine adds to that, with modest but real benefits in terms of identifying illness, performing epidemiology on a village, and curing disease.

Now the argument against this is if any class or background has proficiency in medicine and in the herbalism kit. If not, then applying the above requires no further changes. If there are, then the "tool" proficiency opens up if medicine is chosen as a skill.

 

[Joe Liker]

Torches and lanterns are not useless simply because there's a light cantrip. Just sayin'.

Medicine is no more useless than any other knowledge skill. Its practical effects in combat may be limited, but that's only one of the pillars.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I find it a little weird that the healers kit is not in with the rest of the tools. No,

Sorry -- your post came up while I was typing. Yeah, I'm not wild about the change, but I think that my proposed solution still works. (Granted it's more powerful than my proposal if the healer's kit were are tool: in which case Medicine could grant proficiency in the Healer's kit; overall that's weaker, though).

 

[DEFCON 1]

I fully intended on eliminating the Medicine skill and bundling its effects into Survival. These notes on what they do just confirm it for me. In my past games I always felt Survival needed a little more 'oomph' because my players were just not found out in the wilderness without their packs and equipment often enough to make Survival a worthwhile skill independent of Nature. When it came to skills like Endurance, Heal, Nature, and Survival... the more I could condensed them down the most useful they would be.

Now in 5E for me... Survival is absorbing Medicine, and Nature is absorbing Dungeoneering, thereby giving both of them a little wider use.

 

[Tormyr]

I think the last poster hit it: Although they only list one thing in the description, there is more to being proficient in medicine than knowing how to stabilize a downed ally. Areas where I'd have PCs make a medicine check (although some of these could also be achieved via other checks, such as survival checks):

* To determine the effects of a poison without suffering the effects.
* To determine what is causing an ailment that is impacting an entire villiage.
* To determine how long the PCs can survive without fresh water.
* To determine the effects of a disease.
* To determine cause of death.
* To overbill.

I think this is a good list, but practicing this skill leaves you vulnerable to a malpractice suit.

 

[Charles Wright]

If you aren't proficient in a skill, don't the Disadvantage rules apply? So being proficient in the skill in question means you don't take the lowest of two roles.

 

[Agamon]

If you aren't proficient in a skill, don't the Disadvantage rules apply? So being proficient in the skill in question means you don't take the lowest of two roles.

That's just weapon proficiency, not for skills.

 

[Charles Wright]

That's just weapon proficiency, not for skills.

Hmmm... I smell a house rule coming on.

 

[Agamon]

Hmmm... I smell a house rule coming on.

You lose out on the prof bonus already, why disadvantage, too?

Also, that weapon prof thing isn't true, my bad.