D&D 5E Medicine Checks

[Theo R Cwithin]

A couple others, basically just more surgery:

DC 15:

• remove a tattoo without trace

DC varies:

• "correct" a "deformity" without trace (eg, remove a tiefling's tail, a fae's wings, or an orc's tusks)

re: All the discussion of whether or not this is a useful exercise....

For me at least, lists like this are simply interesting. Sometimes, it's nice to see what/how people are thinking on a particular topic; hear about contexts and situations that others have seen; maybe enjoy some off-the-wall ideas; get some baseline starting points (for us new 5e DMs!); and so forth. Personally, I don't really care what the DC is; I'll decide that myself at the table. But I do care that I can glance over such a list and think, "Oh, that's an interesting idea! Could I work that sort of situation into an encounter? Or character concept? Or different game system? Or a story, or sketch, or...?"

This is just brainstorming by a creative community. It's inspirational.


What's not especially inspirational, tbh, is the fact that, 70 replies into a thread requesting brainstorming and resources, only about half-a-dozen of them actually provide any brainstorming or resources.

 

[Ashrym]

Now I'm wondering what would happen if I transplanted the tail I take off the tiefling who doesn't want it and try to attach it successfully to something else.

Frankenstein's monster was the product of science. Does that mean I can build a body out of parts and bring it to life using medicine following the fantasy horror trope? Just a random thought. The mad scientist approach might be doing some interesting things with medicine as an evil NPC following that line of thought.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

DC 25: Transplant tail.

Sounds reasonable, it's certainly fits the trope. If nothing else, it seems appropriate to add a degree of challenge/depth to building a golem, something beyond just "I read the manual of golems!" Why not add in a few steps, like assembling the body (Medicine for Flesh, Masonry for Stone, etc), then "programming" it, then charging it up, then "permancing" it or something. It could make for a whole mini-adventure arc-- either doing it, or foiling it.

* Of course, now I'm pondering a very sad flesh golem composed entirely of others' rejected deformities.

 

[Ashrym]

Sounds reasonable, it's certainly fits the trope.

In the case of the evil npc mad scientist in medicine it doesn't even need to be possible. The idea that it might be possible and what he tries in his experiments attracts me to the idea.

Medicine already fits npc's. It might make for an interesting horror campaign too instead of just the CSI / medical examiner.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

It really didn’t get very specific. The action Ashrym eventually committed to was “I examine Bob’s symptoms to figure out the best way to treat them.” It was pulling teeth to get him to commit to it, but the actual action declaration was pretty abstract.

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.)

Training players is definitely a thing, but what you’re training them to do here is to argue real hard that they just can’t think of an action so you’ll do it for them. This is where silly arguments like “how am I supposed to know how to treat heat exhaustion, I’m not a medieval surgeon!” come from. Instead of training players to come up with elaborate justifications for their supposed inability to commit to an action, I would rather train them to be creative and come up with approaches they think might work.

Except when they get a narrated failure because their idea of a most-likely successful goal didn't match the DMs.

In my experience this doesn’t happen terribly often, and when it does the consequences are pretty minor. I tend to be pretty generous with what I consider “a reasonable chance of success” so unless you’re describing obviously impossible things like jumping to the moon or whatever, you’re more likely to get an “Ok, that’ll require a DC20 Wisdom check and if you fail (insert consequence)” than a straight-up failure.

Eventually, that will train players to be good at guessing what you'll go for...

Yeah...? Is that a bad thing to train them to do...?

 

[Ashrym]

DC 10 determine the age of blood stains
DC 15 identify missing organs

It really didn’t get very specific. The action Ashrym eventually committed to was “I examine Bob’s symptoms to figure out the best way to treat them.” It was pulling teeth to get him to commit to it, but the actual action declaration was pretty abstract.

That's funny. I feel like I'm pulling teeth just to get an example of something you might decide to make me roll.

I'm still going through campaigns and finding quite a few medicine checks, mostly forensics. If I tried to Frankenstein life using science would you consider that impossible or possible?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Training players is definitely a thing, but what you’re training them to do here is to argue real hard that they just can’t think of an action so you’ll do it for them.

Not, s'much, because a good Approach is a shot at narrated success, so you're always going to want to go there if you can, but a lame approach isn't just a risk of narrated failure, it's also lame. Un-fun, and it creates a barrier to playing the character you envisioned, because you're blocked ATM.

This is where silly arguments like “how am I supposed to know how to treat heat exhaustion, I’m not a medieval surgeon!” come from.

It's not a silly argument, it's a character different from the player - and DM.

Yeah...? Is that a bad thing to train them to do...?

It can be, because you're training them to manipulate you rather than play their character. And that gaming the DM dynamic is already a significant risk in 5e.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's funny. I feel like I'm pulling teeth just to get an example of something you might decide to make me roll.

You’re not going to get one from me. Because I treat checks as a tool for resolving actions with uncertain outcomes. I don’t have any DCs floating around, absent the context of an action being declared in my game,

Not, s'much, because a good Approach is a shot at narrated success, so you're always going to want to go there if you can, but a lame approach isn't just a risk of narrated failure, it's also lame. Un-fun, and it creates a barrier to playing the character you envisioned, because you're blocked ATM.

Your experience is not consistent with mine. In my experience, if players can just roll without declaring an action some of the time, they will want to do it any time they have a goal and can’t immediately think of an approach that might successfully achieve it.

It's not a silly argument, it's a character different from the player - and DM.

You’re really telling me you can’t possibly think of anything to help somebody who got really hot?

It can be, because you're training them to manipulate you rather than play their character. And that gaming the DM dynamic is already a significant risk in 5e.

I’m not the roleplaying police. It’s not my job to worry about whether someone is “playing their character.” Are you listening to my descriptions of the environment, making decisions about what you want to do in that environment, and describing what your character does? Then you’re playing your character. It’s none of my business whether your decisions are influenced by what you think I’m likely to be receptive to. Frankly, it seems like smart play if they are.

 

[Ashrym]

You’re not going to get one from me. Because I treat checks as a tool for resolving actions with uncertain outcomes. I don’t have any DCs floating around, absent the context of an action being declared in my game,

And you can't imagine an example of a scenario on your own that might be uncertain in your mind? Or have never had an example in a game where a player did something that was uncertain? Don't both with giving a DC. I don't need that. I'm looking for examples of how you might see medicine applied, including your opinion on the Frankenstein example.

It looks like you are simply deflecting the question, tbh.

You’re really telling me you can’t possibly think of anything to help somebody who got really hot?

I has nothing to do with what your or I might think of. It's what an experienced or trained individual might think of. I am not my character and my personal knowledge and experience isn't any more than my physical strength is. There needs to be a way to apply the gap between my knowledge and my character's knowledge.

If I'm roleplay someone capable of invasive surgery possessing detailed training in forensic medicine and anatomy I shouldn't have to go to a medical library to figure out what my character might be capable of doing. My character knows that even if I don't so relying on what I know isn't actually playing the character to the character's abilities.

 

[Charlaquin]

And you can't imagine an example of a scenario on your own that might be uncertain in your mind? Or have never had an example in a game where a player did something that was uncertain? Don't both with giving a DC. I don't need that. I'm looking for examples of how you might see medicine applied,

When a player declares an action that has an uncertain outcome, I will call for a check with a DC I feel is appropriate, with the ability I feel is most relevant. When I do so, the player is free to suggest that their proficiency in Medicine might be relevant. If the action involves diagnosing or treating an injury or ailment, or applying medical training, it is likely I will agree, and they can add their Proficiency Bonus. I could probably make up an example of a scenario and an action a hypothetical player might declare in the scenario that I would call for a Wisdom check to resolve if that exact situation occurred, and that I would be willing to allow Medicine proficiency to apply to. But I don’t believe that would be a valuable exercise. It involves too many assumptions to be practically useful, as it is highly unlikely for just such a scenario to come up in game. And in general I find that only bad things come from trying to guess in advance what actions the players might take and pre-planning checks and DCs for those assumed actions.

including your opinion on the Frankenstein example.

I didn’t answer the Frankenstein question because I don’t have enough context to make a ruling with any confidence. If you give me a scenario, and an action (with clear goal and approach), I can rule on it, but again, I don’t think doing so would be a valuable exercise, for either of us.

It looks like you are simply deflecting the question, tbh.

It’s not a question I am particularly interested in answering. But if you give me more context I’ll tell you how I would rule, if you want me to do that for some reason.

I has nothing to do with what your or I might think of. It's what an experienced or trained individual might think of. I am not my character and my personal knowledge and experience isn't any more than my physical strength is.

Neither of us is trained in the things your character is trained in. Any action you describe and I resolve is an abstraction of what your character might do. But you are still the one in control of your character, you have to be the one who says what they do. You don’t have to be especially detailed, just reasonably specific and concise. You’ve already described a fair few actions that satisfy that requirement.

There needs to be a way to apply the gap between my knowledge and my character's knowledge.

Between the abstraction that separates what we say at the table from what occurs in the fiction, and the bonuses that you apply to checks in the event that a check is needed to resolve your action, I think that gap is pretty well accounted for.

If I'm roleplay someone capable of invasive surgery possessing detailed training in forensic medicine and anatomy I shouldn't have to go to a medical library to figure out what my character might be capable of doing. My character knows that even if I don't so relying on what I know isn't actually playing the character to the character's abilities.

You don’t have to go to a medical library. Just tell me what you intend to accomplish, and what your character does in the fiction to try and accomplish it. “I examine Bob’s symptoms to try and determine the best way to treat them” was a beautiful action declaration. It expresses your goal and your approach concisely and with a reasonable degree of specificity. You didn’t need to be a surgeon to do that.