Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Medicine Checks
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7852648" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>I’m sorry, I don’t think I understand the question.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I’m with you on that. I’m just not sure I have much useful to share here. I call for checks when players describe actions that might succeed, might fail, and have a cost for failing. Strength if the action is based on physical force, Dexterity if it is based on agility and precision, Constitution if it is based on physical endurance, Intelligence if it’s based on recollection or reasoning, Wisdom if it’s based on awareness, observation, or intuition, or Charisma if it’s based on social skills or force of personality. If a player suggests that their Medicine proficiency might be applicable, I allow it as long as the action involves diagnosing or treating ailments or injuries, or relying on medical knowledge. That is true regardless of what ability the check is keyed off of. I don’t know how much more thorough I can be than that.</p><p></p><p></p><p>You keep bringing up this idea of “knowing what your character can do” as if Skills were prescriptive. There’s nothing a character who is trained in medicine can do that a character who isn’t trained in medicine can’t. They’re just less likely to fail when they have to make a check to see if the thing they did worked.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The DC isn’t really the issue here. The issue is trying to invent a hypothetical scenario in which a hypothetical player declares a hypothetical action that hypothetically requires a check to resolve and hypothetically would be appropriate to add the character’s Proficiency Bonus to for their training the Medicine skill. This is far too abstract and removed from reality for anything I might say to be useful. And anything I did invent would only serve to reinforce the incorrect notion that certain outcomes require successful checks to achieve. In my games, “determin(ing) if a patient is safe to move” doesn’t necessarily require a DC10 Wisdom (Medicine) check to do. It might. It might require a DC20 Intelligence (Medicine) check. Or a DC5 Wisdom (Perception) check. Or it might not require a check at all. Or it might be impossible. I don’t know because the goal is completely devoid of any context. Any of those might be appropriate ways to adjudicate actions made with the goal of determining if a patient is safe to move, depending on the scenario and what the PC is doing to try to make that determination.</p><p></p><p></p><p>See, that sounds to me like something to discuss with the play group, potentially at a session zero or something. I don’t see how a big list of tasks that have been listed as requiring Medicine checks to accomplish in an adventure somewhere helps with that at all.</p><p></p><p></p><p>That’s not something I really care to do. If you want to know how I would adjudicate a given action in a given scenario, I will answer. But I’m not particularly interested in inventing scenarios and telling you how I would rule on hypothetical actions in them. I don’t think that’s a valuable use of either of our time.</p><p></p><p></p><p>“Using Medicine” is not a concept I think is applicable to D&D 5e. The Medicine skill is insurance against failure at tasks that involve diagnosis and treatment of ailments, and application of medical knowledge. So, I guess to answer your question, a character who is trained in medicine is capable of doing things from any media involving medical diagnosis and treatment, with a greater success rate than they would have if they were not trained in it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7852648, member: 6779196"] I’m sorry, I don’t think I understand the question. I’m with you on that. I’m just not sure I have much useful to share here. I call for checks when players describe actions that might succeed, might fail, and have a cost for failing. Strength if the action is based on physical force, Dexterity if it is based on agility and precision, Constitution if it is based on physical endurance, Intelligence if it’s based on recollection or reasoning, Wisdom if it’s based on awareness, observation, or intuition, or Charisma if it’s based on social skills or force of personality. If a player suggests that their Medicine proficiency might be applicable, I allow it as long as the action involves diagnosing or treating ailments or injuries, or relying on medical knowledge. That is true regardless of what ability the check is keyed off of. I don’t know how much more thorough I can be than that. You keep bringing up this idea of “knowing what your character can do” as if Skills were prescriptive. There’s nothing a character who is trained in medicine can do that a character who isn’t trained in medicine can’t. They’re just less likely to fail when they have to make a check to see if the thing they did worked. The DC isn’t really the issue here. The issue is trying to invent a hypothetical scenario in which a hypothetical player declares a hypothetical action that hypothetically requires a check to resolve and hypothetically would be appropriate to add the character’s Proficiency Bonus to for their training the Medicine skill. This is far too abstract and removed from reality for anything I might say to be useful. And anything I did invent would only serve to reinforce the incorrect notion that certain outcomes require successful checks to achieve. In my games, “determin(ing) if a patient is safe to move” doesn’t necessarily require a DC10 Wisdom (Medicine) check to do. It might. It might require a DC20 Intelligence (Medicine) check. Or a DC5 Wisdom (Perception) check. Or it might not require a check at all. Or it might be impossible. I don’t know because the goal is completely devoid of any context. Any of those might be appropriate ways to adjudicate actions made with the goal of determining if a patient is safe to move, depending on the scenario and what the PC is doing to try to make that determination. See, that sounds to me like something to discuss with the play group, potentially at a session zero or something. I don’t see how a big list of tasks that have been listed as requiring Medicine checks to accomplish in an adventure somewhere helps with that at all. That’s not something I really care to do. If you want to know how I would adjudicate a given action in a given scenario, I will answer. But I’m not particularly interested in inventing scenarios and telling you how I would rule on hypothetical actions in them. I don’t think that’s a valuable use of either of our time. “Using Medicine” is not a concept I think is applicable to D&D 5e. The Medicine skill is insurance against failure at tasks that involve diagnosis and treatment of ailments, and application of medical knowledge. So, I guess to answer your question, a character who is trained in medicine is capable of doing things from any media involving medical diagnosis and treatment, with a greater success rate than they would have if they were not trained in it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Medicine Checks
Top