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

[iserith]

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.

In my view, it's fine to say you're drawing upon your knowledge of medicine to perform some task. But to say "I want to make a Medicine check..." is establishing the outcome of the fictional action you're attempting as uncertain which isn't the player's role. As a player, I don't want to encourage my DM to ask me to roll either. I'd rather just succeed outright wherever possible. Previous editions of the game encouraged players to ask to make skill checks. This one does not, though players can ask if a particular proficiency applies to an ability check called for by the DM.

 

[Lehrbuch]

In my view, it's fine to say you're drawing upon your knowledge of medicine to perform some task. But to say "I want to make a Medicine check..." is establishing the outcome of the fictional action you're attempting as uncertain which isn't the player's role. As a player, I don't want to encourage my DM to ask me to roll either.

Yes, I agree with all this.

The only difference seems to be that I consider "say[ing] you're drawing upon your knowledge of medicine to perform some task" to be using the Medicine Skill. Whereas, you seem to be drawing a distinction between that "usage" and a usage where a dice is rolled.

 

[Storyteller Hero]

As part of my Artificer work on DMG, I had added a spell that uses Medicine checks to treat a patient for poison and disease, inspired by the magical healing techniques demonstrated in Naruto Shippuden. If there are no clerics in a particular area capable of curing ailments, then arcane healers can also use their magic to treat the conditions, in a "magical science" way.

http://www.dmsguild.com/product/174669/THE-ARTIFICER-5e-Class-

 

[iserith]

Yes, I agree with all this.

The only difference seems to be that I consider "say[ing] you're drawing upon your knowledge of medicine to perform some task" to be using the Medicine Skill. Whereas, you seem to be drawing a distinction between that "usage" and a usage where a dice is rolled.

Yes, I think that's close. I ask for players to make clear their goal and approach to achieving that goal when describing what they want to do. This may or may not call for an ability check and, as players, they hope it doesn't. I also think keeping things in fictional terms helps us achieve the goal of creating an exciting, memorable story during play, D&D 5e being a game about storytelling.

Incidentally, I think this way of looking at it makes skills like Medicine more useful because the players aren't necessarily trying to "use Medicine" to just do one thing (stabilize). Medicine proficiency being applied to a check has come up quite a lot in my games, often as a way to resolve whether the PC can recall some knowledge or discover a clue, in addition to being used to stabilize the dying.