D&D 5E Medicine skill; adding some new uses so it isn't waste of a skill training

[pukunui]

Don't forget the four other uses in the Monster Manual.

You're being facetious, right?

Medicine is a "knowledge skill", much like History, Arcana or Nature.

If that's the case, then shouldn't it be based on Intelligence rather than Wisdom?

The one issue I have with the skill is the idea that, regardless of the kind of injury, you can somehow use the Medicine skill to stop someone from dying in just 6 seconds. It's a rather video-gamey rule that I just try not to think about, since it irks me so much when I do.

 

[Saeviomagy]

You're being facetious, right?

If that's the case, then shouldn't it be based on Intelligence rather than Wisdom?

The one issue I have with the skill is the idea that, regardless of the kind of injury, you can somehow use the Medicine skill to stop someone from dying in just 6 seconds. It's a rather video-gamey rule that I just try not to think about, since it irks me so much when I do.

Well, technically you can only save people from things where half the time they would otherwise recover on their own (15% of the time within 30 seconds!)

The real weirdness is that at high levels, this is basically everything.

 

[Lehrbuch]

There are a few skills-related threads going on right now and I think I see some patterns, so I'm curious: Do your players ask to make skill checks when you play?

Yes, I think this is one of the big differences of peoples in-play experiences with skills.

One option is that the players mostly (or at least often) initiate the idea that the Medicine Skill (or whatever) is going to be useful in a particular circumstance. As long as the DM tends to run with "reasonable" player initiated ideas, then there doesn't seem to be much issue in this case about the relative usage or value of skills. The players use the skills that they want to use. The usage of a particular skill really just depends on the creativity of the players, and the desire of each player for her PC to use particular skills. When her PC has Medicine and Vehicle (Land) Proficiency every problem can be solved with an anatomy lesson and /or reckless use of a donkey-cart.

On the other hand, another option is that skill use opportunities are something that the DM "provides". In this case, frequency of skill use depends on the creativity of the DM / adventure writer in providing those opportunities, and the capability of the players to identify that a "skill use opportunity" is occurring.

Both options are Good and Correct, of course. It's just a matter of preference. And most campaigns will mix both options. The two options also have different potential problems. When players initiate opportunities for skill use, it can become difficult for the DM to anticipate the actions of the party. When the DM provides skill use opportunities, he needs to understand which skills that the players want/expect to see used.

 

[iserith]

Yes, I think this is one of the big differences of peoples in-play experiences with skills.

One option is that the players mostly (or at least often) initiate the idea that the Medicine Skill (or whatever) is going to be useful in a particular circumstance. As long as the DM tends to run with "reasonable" player initiated ideas, then there doesn't seem to be much issue in this case about the relative usage or value of skills. The players use the skills that they want to use. The usage of a particular skill really just depends on the creativity of the players, and the desire of each player for her PC to use particular skills. When her PC has Medicine and Vehicle (Land) Proficiency every problem can be solved with an anatomy lesson and /or reckless use of a donkey-cart.

On the other hand, another option is that skill use opportunities are something that the DM "provides". In this case, frequency of skill use depends on the creativity of the DM / adventure writer in providing those opportunities, and the capability of the players to identify that a "skill use opportunity" is occurring.

Both options are Good and Correct, of course. It's just a matter of preference. And most campaigns will mix both options. The two options also have different potential problems. When players initiate opportunities for skill use, it can become difficult for the DM to anticipate the actions of the party. When the DM provides skill use opportunities, he needs to understand which skills that the players want/expect to see used.

Mostly I see the difference as either players asking to "use skills" or players just doing things in the fiction and the DM calling for checks as appropriate. Those that use the former method seem to run into problems with D&D 5e skills, especially Medicine, because the rules only say it has particular uses. So if a player is "using skills," then Medicine looks like a waste because "it only has the one use." Those who use the latter method of player just doing things in the fiction with the DM calling for checks as appropriate don't seem to have the same issues with D&D 5e skills as written.

Personally, as a player, I'd never ask to "use a skill" unless the DM has already called for an ability check (e.g. "Make a Wisdom check..." "Okay, does Medicine apply here?"). Asking to "use a skill" is establishing that the outcome of the fictional action is uncertain. Not only is that not the player's role, but I certainly don't want to give the DM an excuse to leave my fate up to a fickle d20.

 

[Lehrbuch]

Personally, as a player, I'd never ask to "use a skill" unless the DM has already called for an ability check (e.g. "Make a Wisdom check..." "Okay, does Medicine apply here?"). Asking to "use a skill" is establishing that the outcome of the fictional action is uncertain. Not only is that not the player's role, but I certainly don't want to give the DM an excuse to leave my fate up to a fickle d20.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "asking to use a skill". In my experience (both as player and DM) players tend to say things like "OK, I'll use my medicine knowledge to work out whether that rash on the fighter is contagious", or "Right, I'm proficient in operating Land Vehicles, so I'm totally the person to crash this donkey cart through the portal while avoiding the horde of demons".

It's not so much "asking for a roll" as "providing an in-fiction explanation as to why the PC will be successful". It's when the DM doesn't totally buy the explanation that she decides a roll is required (and when she really doesn't believe the explanation that she decides a roll isn't even possible).

 

[Tony Vargas]

Mostly I see the difference as either players asking to "use skills" or players just doing things in the fiction and the DM calling for checks as appropriate.

Yep. Appealing as the latter is (and, I agree, it is /the/ way to go, especially in 5e, which very clearly says to do exactly that), it runs up against a stumbling block in that players learn from experience. A player of an 8 STR, 18 DEX Halfling rogue doesn't have to be told to roll is -1 Athletics (when he was expecting based on the action he described to roll his +8 Acrobatics) very often before he starts trying to make a case for the specific skill he'd like to use.

 

[iserith]

I guess it depends on what you mean by "asking to use a skill". In my experience (both as player and DM) players tend to say things like "OK, I'll use my medicine knowledge to work out whether that rash on the fighter is contagious", or "Right, I'm proficient in operating Land Vehicles, so I'm totally the person to crash this donkey cart through the portal while avoiding the horde of demons".

It's not so much "asking for a roll" as "providing an in-fiction explanation as to why the PC will be successful". It's when the DM doesn't totally buy the explanation that she decides a roll is required (and when she really doesn't believe the explanation that she decides a roll isn't even possible).

In both examples you give, I wouldn't see this as asking to use a skill. The players are stating a goal and approach which is what I'm seeking as DM and do as a player. Asking to use a skill is "Can I make a Deception check?" or "I want to make a Stealth check to..." Both no-no's at my table. The DM calls establishes uncertainty and calls for the mechanics to come into play.

 

[iserith]

Yep. Appealing as the latter is (and, I agree, it is /the/ way to go, especially in 5e, which very clearly says to do exactly that), it runs up against a stumbling block in that players learn from experience. A player of an 8 STR, 18 DEX Halfling rogue doesn't have to be told to roll is -1 Athletics (when he was expecting based on the action he described to roll his +8 Acrobatics) very often before he starts trying to make a case for the specific skill he'd like to use.

I'm not sure I follow entirely, but I don't object to players doing stuff their characters have a good chance of pulling off if it comes down to a roll. That's smart play in my view. Asking to make a check, however, not so much.

 

[Lehrbuch]

In both examples you give, I wouldn't see this as asking to use a skill. The players are stating a goal and approach which is what I'm seeking as DM and do as a player. Asking to use a skill is "Can I make a Deception check?" or "I want to make a Stealth check to..." Both no-no's at my table. The DM calls establishes uncertainty and calls for the mechanics to come into play.

It seems to be mostly an argument of semantics? I do get what you mean that players don't/shouldn't usually explicitly ask to make Stealth roll (or some other game mechanic), for example (although depends on context a bit).

However, as far as I can see, it is totally legitimate for players to propose that their PC is using their medicine skill to do something, or their stealth proficiency, or whatever. It is then up to the DM to judge whether that particular usage is possible (or not), and if it is possible whether or not there is uncertainty about the outcome and hence the need for a roll.

This is what I mean by players providing the opportunity to use a skill. It is the players who propose what the PCs are doing and what the desired outcome is. The players (explicitly or implicitly) indicate that the reason for success is whatever (which could include skill proficiency or similar). The DM's role is to judge how to resolve this; either it happens as the players suggest (player fiat), it happens (or doesn't happen) some other way (DM fiat), or a roll is required to decide the outcome.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Personally I take "can I make a roll on Y" and "can I do X, which I expect to trigger a roll on Y" and "I do X, which I expect to be able to do, and I expect to trigger a roll on Y" to be basically synonymous much of the time. It's trivial to ask for clarification in the cases where X is unclear, and likewise to inform someone that yes, they can do something etc.

I get that there's some immersion issues there, but I find it less jarring than (for instance) characters using player names, or having one player go to the loo or any number of other things that are a lot less trivial.