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

[jodyjohnson]

That's just weapon proficiency, not for skills.

Although true in the Open Playtest, is this in basic? Under Weapon proficiency it doesn't mention it.

 

[Charles Wright]

I don't feel that just losing proficiency bonus is enough for having never done something before. I feel that it also ups the importance of skills (and, apparently, weapon proficiencies). I will try it with disadvantage with my group and if it becomes a problem I'll stop.

 

[Syntallah]

The medicine skill is worthless.

I already decided to add a houserule that makes it worthwhile and give players an incentive to use it. I just haven't yet thought of what that might be.

I do want it to give back a few hit points, especially during a short rest, just how many is TBD.

I also will be ruling that it has to be a trained skill (used with the healers kit) to get that benefit.

I have house ruled that a Medicine Check [DC 20] will simulate the 'natural 20 on a death save' (i.e. improve the dying character up to 1hp).

 

[KarinsDad]

I have house ruled that a Medicine Check [DC 20] will simulate the 'natural 20 on a death save' (i.e. improve the dying character up to 1hp).

This makes sense.

I also like the concept of using a charge out of the Healing Kit and the Medicine skill during a short rest will result in some hit point recovery. For example, DC 15 and a charge, 1 hit point per level, DC 20 and a charge, 2 hit points per level. It's not a lot of healing, but it does use up a charge out of the Healing Kit for each PC tended to, and it does give a little bit of simulation of actual damage being recovered (sutured cuts, splinted broken fingers, whatever).

With the proficiency concept of +2 (to an eventual +6) added to a D20 roll, skills have to have real mechanical meaning in the game, or players will not take them and will just use them untrained.

 

[Agamon]

Although true in the Open Playtest, is this in basic? Under Weapon proficiency it doesn't mention it.

Yeah, they got rid of it, just noticed that.

Man, I'm going to have to take notes while reading the Player's Handbook rather than gloss over what I think I know.

 

[Agamon]

I don't feel that just losing proficiency bonus is enough for having never done something before. I feel that it also ups the importance of skills (and, apparently, weapon proficiencies). I will try it with disadvantage with my group and if it becomes a problem I'll stop.

It will probably result in players doing whatever they can to try and get advantage to try and counter that. That or fail at most of what they try.

A flat -2 to the roll might work better as a house rule. That's a difference of 4 between those that are proficient and not at low level.

 

[Charles Wright]

I hope that it will foster cooperation in skill choice among my players and creative, out-of-the-box thinking.

The -2 isn't a bad idea, either.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

There is no Healer's Kit proficiency. That was removed after the playtest. There is the Medicine skill proficiency, there is Herbalism Kit proficiency, and there are Healer's Kits where no proficiency is relevant.

Just thought that needed to be brought up.

 

[Dungeoneer]

Sounds like medicine is pretty useless. That would make it similar to the 4e 'heal' skill, which was also useless.

Maybe they decided it only 'feels like' D&D if there's a useless heal skill?

 

[Anand]

I also disliked it, seems pretty useless. I liked the idea of simulating a 20 on the death saving throw, or maybe even linking to the expenditure of hit dice?