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

[MostlyDm]

Ooh. I think I can answer that one. I don't want to speak for [MENTION=25352]mrpopstar[/MENTION], but that did come up earlier. It seems to me that mrpopstar considers applying proficiency from skills to different types of ability checks (which is presented as a variant rule) to not be RAW (even though it is a rule that is written) and, therefore, assumes it is not in play.*

With those assumptions, it becomes easier to understand (but not necessarily easier to agree with): Medicine, being inextricably and exclusively linked to Wisdom, cannot confer knowledge of anatomy, biology, or anything else, nor logical analysis of said knowledge, because knowledge and reason are the providence of Intelligence. Wisdom can only offer intuition and instinct to the situation. Proficiency in medicine, then, can only represent such an approach. At least, I think that's his position.

It makes sense. I just, personally, disagree with the fundamental assumption it is built on. The variant rule exists so that people who recognize that it improves their game can use it (why write it at all if the assumption is that it won't be used?).


* Not that it's relevant to the discussion at hand, but I am curious if this hardline approach extends to optional rules, such as feats and multiclassing, as well.

Thanks. If indeed he would agree with your summary, then I understand a little better.

I fundamentally disagree, but I understand.

The single best thing 5e did for skills was introduce tool proficiencies not tied to a particular ability score, thus illustrating the precedent that the two need not be married.

I'd have no problem calling for an Intelligence (Medicine) check, a Strength (Intimidation) check, or a Constitution (Stealth) check. Or any of a thousand other combinations.

As far as I'm concerned, I'll ask for a check, and then let the player provide any justification they like for adding proficiency... whether that justification comes from skills, background, wherever.

 

[mrpopstar]

I can speak for myself!



In my opinion, Medicine is about the diagnoses of diseased giant rat bites and cackle fever.

I don't find forensic applications reasonable.

That's cool, though. Right?

 

[Rune]

I can speak for myself!



In my opinion, Medicine is about the diagnoses of diseased giant rat bites and cackle fever.

I don't find forensic applications reasonable.

That's cool, though. Right?

Does this mean that you disagree with my assessment of the implications of your [RAW only] position? Because, if so, I don't know how to reconcile this latest statement with a refusal to allow an Intelligence (Medicine) check to investigate a corpse's cause of death. At the very least, such a check should be able to tell you what diseases the deceased did not have. Which might be useful information.

 

[mrpopstar]

Does this mean that you disagree with my assessment of the implications of your [RAW only] position? Because, if so, I don't know how to reconcile this latest statement with a refusal to allow an Intelligence (Medicine) check to investigate a corpse's cause of death. At the very least, such a check should be able to tell you what diseases the deceased did not have. Which might be useful information.

I do disagree with your assessment of the implications of my RAWness.



I'm not going to rage quit over an Intelligence (Medicine) check, I simply disagree that Medicine reflects experience with the color, temperature, and contents of corpses.

Adding your proficiency bonus to any ability check you make while performing an autopsy sounds like a good background feature, though.