Applying ingested item to knocked out character

[Dark Schneider]

If a character wants to apply an ingested item to another knocked out one (i.e. healing potion), do you require a Medicine check roll? What DC, maybe 10?

[Unoriginal]

No. You don't need a check to put something in an unconscious person's mouth. It's true for healing potions as well as for poison.

And there are no Medicine checks in 5e.

[Dark Schneider]

In fact, there are:

Medicine

Medicine checks are mostly used to stabilize a dying creature. The DC to do so is 10. It can also be used to diagnose illnesses and occasionally used when determining how something died.

About ingested items, you run the risk of choking the knocked out.

[gloryblaze]

In fact, there are:


About ingested items, you run the risk of choking the knocked out.

Technically speaking, there are no such things as skill checks at all in 5e. What you're referring to as a "medicine check" would be more properly referred to as a "Wisdom (Medicine) check", as it is a Wisdom ability check to which Medicine proficiency may be applied, not a Medicine skill check.

[Dark Schneider]

Please do not lose in semantics. I think is clear the concept, using Medicine skill, if that uses WIS, fine. It is even indicated at character sheet, so you could see directly at it to get the bonus.

[Unoriginal]

That is a WISDOM (Medicine) check, it's not the same.

If you WANT to houserule that you need a check to feed someone a potion, you're free to do so. But it's not in the rules.

[Dark Schneider]

OK is not the same Medicine than fully "Wisdom (Medicine)", how technical.

But I asked to get other opinions concerning the fact itself, instead technical semantic things without interest.

Can't understand that obsession. The next will be to put the periods and commas at their corresponding places to form perfect sentences.

In fact, is not bad said a Medicine check, what about if someone wants to use DEX (Medicine), instead WIS?, if he considers that is more like some kind of aiming to avoid the knocked out to choke. Are 2 different parts, the stat and the skill to use.

[ad_hoc]

That has nothing to do with Medicine anyway, which is why it should never have been a skill. It doesn't apply to anything meaningful.

The Medicine skill is the Use Rope of 5e.

[Dark Schneider]

You use Medicine to stabilize a dying creature, or diagnose illness. Some creatures can even parasite, so it seems useful.

About the topic, looking at unconsciousness and first aid (can search on internet), looks like it is even not recomended to do it, so seems far to be automatic.

[Unoriginal]

OK is not the same Medicine than fully "Wisdom (Medicine)", how technical.

But I asked to get other opinions concerning the fact itself, instead technical semantic things without interest.

Can't understand that obsession. The next will be to put the periods and commas at their corresponding places to form perfect sentences.

Semantics are paramount for an understandable exchange. Saying you have no interest in semantics is like saying you have no interest in being understood.



In fact, is not bad said a Medicine check, what about if someone wants to use DEX (Medicine), instead WIS?, if he considers that is more like some kind of aiming to avoid the knocked out to choke. Are 2 different parts, the stat and the skill to use.

Yes, that is why there is no Medecine checks, and instead there is ability checks with the Medicine proficiency applied when relevant.

INT (Medicine) or DEX (Medicine) checks are possible, but they mean different things than WIS (Medicine) checks.

[Unoriginal]

About the topic, looking at unconsciousness and first aid (can search on internet), looks like it is even not recomended to do it, so seems far to be automatic.

Yes, I already told you that twice.

Why are you asking questions if you don't care about our answers?

[Dark Schneider]

In all cases Medicine is the common, that's why I ask for Medicine, when applicable, then the stat to use is decided at the moment (usually WIS, but could vary), but in any case Medicine is common.

Anyway that seems an useless discussion, is like asking about jumping, I am asking about jumping, then later I will see what stat/skill I'll use as even could vary depending DM.

Asking for Medicine check is totally clear, no need to deep discuss.

Of course I hear answers. Making a rule by single is not the best, then see the other POVs, and use some kind of average as starting point, modifying it to your POV.

[Laserlight]

No, you don't need a roll of any sort to safely pour a potion into an unconscious character's mouth. That's not realistic, but if you're looking for "realistic", you're in the wrong game.

[ad_hoc]

You use Medicine to stabilize a dying creature,

A Healing Kit will do it automatically. Or any magical healing, including a Healing Potion. It might be used once at level 1, and then never again.

And of course it can be attempted with just a straight Wisdom check as well.


or diagnose illness.

And how useful is it to know what disease it is?

Paladins cure disease from level 1. Bards, Clerics, and Druids can do it at level 3. Rangers at 5.

Keep in mind that this is something, that if it ever comes up in a campaign, can still be attempted with a Wisdom check.


About the topic, looking at unconsciousness and first aid (can search on internet), looks like it is even not recomended to do it, so seems far to be automatic.

There are no magic Healing Potions in the real world. The act of pouring liquid down someone's throat is easy, it's just, it could very well kill them from choking and such. Healing Potions have no such problem. That's literally the point of them, to magically heal.

Nature is the skill to consult about biology. Medicine has no reason to exist. It doesn't do anything helpful.

[Dark Schneider]

No, you don't need a roll of any sort to safely pour a potion into an unconscious character's mouth. That's not realistic, but if you're looking for "realistic", you're in the wrong game.
Thanks, that is exactly the kind of answers I look for.


A Healing Kit will do it automatically. Or any magical healing, including a Healing Potion. It might be used once at level 1, and then never again.

And of course it can be attempted with just a straight Wisdom check as well.

And how useful is it to know what disease it is?

Paladins cure disease from level 1. Bards, Clerics, and Druids can do it at level 3. Rangers at 5.

Keep in mind that this is something, that if it ever comes up in a campaign, can still be attempted with a Wisdom check.

There are no magic Healing Potions in the real world. The act of pouring liquid down someone's throat is easy, it's just, it could very well kill them from choking and such. Healing Potions have no such problem. That's literally the point of them, to magically heal.

Nature is the skill to consult about biology. Medicine has no reason to exist. It doesn't do anything helpful.
Yes you can always try with stat, the idea of skills is increase the bonus.

What about a Goodberry instead healing potion?

Nature and Medicine could seem to override sometimes, but I think Nature is more in the side of lore, and Medicine of acting. I'll see more about the skill.

[ad_hoc]

Yes you can always try with stat, the idea of skills is increase the bonus.



Right, but to what end?

You're not accomplishing anything.

[Dark Schneider]

I found this list:

* To determine the effects of a poison without suffering the effects.
* To determine what is causing an ailment that is impacting an entire villiage.
* To determine how long the PCs can survive without fresh water.
* To determine the effects of a disease.
* To determine cause of death.
* To overbill.
The best one is the latest.

Well serious talking it can have some use, can see it like another lore skill (diseases) with some action uses. You could also use it in downtime as a doctor instead artisan’s tools to gain some money.
So it grants some use (sometimes) and role-playing.

I read a good description: is a skill you don't want to focus, but at least one in your group to have.

[Boci]

Yes, that is why there is no Medecine checks, and instead there is ability checks with the Medicine proficiency applied when relevant.

So you can't figure out that "medicine check" = "ability checks with the Medicine proficiency applied when relevant"? Maybe the problem is on you end then. And if you could somehow piece together what was meant, then maybe stop being pointlessly difficult? Its not as if the phrase "medicine check" precludes non-Wisdom uses, so there is literally no benefit to you way of saying things, and there is the disadvantage that it is way more awkward to say, which then creates a needless difference between forum speak and table talk.

So yeah, I will likely continue to type "medicine checks" because I have faith that people like you can figure out i actually meant "ability check, primarily but not exclusively wisdom based, to which medicine proficiency applies".

[Jophiel]

Semantics are paramount for an understandable exchange.
I'm sure everyone understood what was meant. I certainly did. You did as well since you gave the "proper" phrasing. Conversely, a lengthy bout of "ACK-tually..." only serves to bog the thread down and make it less productive.

[Keravath]

The simple answer is that no .. you don't need a medicine check or wisdom (medicine) ability check or any other sort of ability check to administer a MAGICAL healing remedy to someone who is unconscious.

Healing potions may even evaporate on contact with the mouth for all we know since the magic is consumed to heal the wounds.

The rules for potion of healing indicate that it takes an action to consume or administer and do not indicate any additional costs or checks for administration while the rules on stabilizing indicate that administering first aid requires a wisdom (medicine) check at DC10 to stabilize a patient with just first aid - no magic involved.

Finally, the rules indicate that you need to drink a potion or eat a goodberry for its effects to manifest. However, it doesn't indicate that it necessarily needs to be swallowed or digested ... so given that these are magic items ... I wouldn't require a check for someone administering these to try to make sure that they get swallowed. However, keep in mind that the potion/berry are likely consumed as the magic dissipates so there might not be anything left to choke on anyway.

So ... no ... seems pointless to require a check to administer magical healing.

[Jophiel]

Feeding an unconscious person a Goodberry is approved (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/08/10/goodberry-on-dying-pc/) so I'd assume a healing potion, etc is much the same.

[The Aboleth]

In fact, is not bad said a Medicine check, what about if someone wants to use DEX (Medicine), instead WIS?, if he considers that is more like some kind of aiming to avoid the knocked out to choke. Are 2 different parts, the stat and the skill to use.

5E does allow you to use different stats for ability checks depending on HOW you are performing the ability check. The common example given (I think it's even in the Player's Handbook) is that you can use STR for an Intimidation check (instead of your CHA) if you're trying to Intimidate by, say, flexing your muscles in an aggressive manner. I've also allowed my players to use STR in this manner by slamming their weapons into the ground to Intimidate a guard. Why use words when brute force will suffice, ya know?

Of course, this is up to DM discretion. If I were to allow DEX for a Medicine ability check, I think it'd be more for seeing if you can quickly bandage up a severe wound in time to stop the bleeding, or maybe see if you could pull out a foreign object (like a crossbow bolt) from a wound without doing additional damage. Ultimately, if it makes logical sense then I typically allow my players to use what skill modifier they deem appropriate for an ability check. But again, ask your DM first.

[Unoriginal]

5E does allow you to use different stats for ability checks depending on HOW you are performing the ability check. The common example given (I think it's even in the Player's Handbook) is that you can use STR for an Intimidation check (instead of your CHA) if you're trying to Intimidate by, say, flexing your muscles in an aggressive manner.

No, it allows you to use Intimidation proficiency with a STR check. The ability is Strength.

The distinction is important.

[The Aboleth]

No, it allows you to use Intimidation proficiency with a STR check. The ability is Strength.

The distinction is important.

It's really not as long as everyone understands what I mean. Which, I'm pretty sure everyone does.

[JackPhoenix]

It's really not as long as everyone understands what I mean. Which, I'm pretty sure everyone does.

It is, because thanks to how ability checks work, strength (intimidate) check doesn't make sense, even if it's the example in the book. You use strength to "attempt to lift, push, pull, or break something, to force your body through a space, or to otherwise apply brute force to a situation." How does being scary make you better at that? You intimidate the thing you're trying to manipulate, so it moves on its own?

If you try to intimidate someone, you're trying to "influence others", which falls under Cha.

It's ability check first and foremost, with proficiency being secondary depending on what are you trying to accomplish.

[Unoriginal]

It is, because thanks to how ability checks work, strength (intimidate) check doesn't make sense, even if it's the example in the book. You use strength to "attempt to lift, push, pull, or break something, to force your body through a space, or to otherwise apply brute force to a situation." How does being scary make you better at that? You intimidate the thing you're trying to manipulate, so it moves on its own?

If you try to intimidate someone, you're trying to "influence others", which falls under Cha.

It's ability check first and foremost, with proficiency being secondary depending on what are you trying to accomplish.

"I try to break the table to show I mean business to the thieves"

"Alright, it's at STR check, and since you're trying to impress them you can add Intimidation proficiency."


Mokit the STR 6 CHA 20 Kobold Bard might be a scary guy thanks to his CHA and Expertise in Intimidation, but he would be way worse at trying to be *physically* impressive.

[JackPhoenix]

"I try to break the table to show I mean business to the thieves"

"Alright, it's at STR check, and since you're trying to impress them you can add Intimidation proficiency."


Mokit the STR 6 CHA 20 Kobold Bard might be a scary guy thanks to his CHA and Expertise in Intimidation, but he would be way worse at trying to be *physically* impressive.

Sure, but it's Str check to break the table, Cha (intimidate) check to see if the thieves care. Being proficient in intimidate won't improve your chance to break the table, and being strong doesn't mean your opponents are impressed or reacting the way you want.

The way it's set up (ability check with possible skill proficiency bonus) is the opposite it should be (skill check with whatever ability mod fits the best).

[Unoriginal]

Sure, but it's Str check to break the table, Cha (intimidate) check to see if the thieves care.

Or you stop uneccessary complications and just make one check, because you are trying to use breaking something (STR check) and knowing how to impress people helps getting the desired result (make breaking the table impressive).

It is one action with one goal, not two actions.



The way it's set up (ability check with possible skill proficiency bonus) is the opposite it should be (skill check with whatever ability mod fits the best).

You do not get to disregard everyone else and decide what it "should" be, JackPhoenix.

This edition is built like that. You get whatever ability check fits the best, then you get whatever proficiency fits the best IF one fit.

If someone wanted to break a chest in a way that'd be easy to fix afterward, a DM could ask them for STR (Carpenter's Tools). It'd be rather cubersome (and so anthetical to 5e's design goals) to ask for INT (Carpenter's Tool) then a straight STR check to do it.

[Dark Schneider]

Feeding an unconscious person a Goodberry is approved (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/08/10/goodberry-on-dying-pc/) so I'd assume a healing potion, etc is much the same.
Nice, thanks. It is not easy to find something so specific. Then as @Keravath said if magical no need to roll, for items indicating no need of roll too (like medical kit for stabilizing). For other non-magical, I suppose would be DM decision.

[Unoriginal]

Nice, thanks. It is not easy to find something so specific. Then as @Keravath said if magical no need to roll, for items indicating no need of roll too (like medical kit for stabilizing). For other non-magical, I suppose would be DM decision.

Well, if you attempt to heal someone without magic or speciak item, then WIS(Medicine) definitively applies.

Fun fact: proficiency in brewer's kit can give you an advantage when you do WIS(Medicine) checks to dull pain.

[JackPhoenix]

Or you stop uneccessary complications and just make one check, because you are trying to use breaking something (STR check) and knowing how to impress people helps getting the desired result (make breaking the table impressive).

It is one action with one goal, not two actions.

But the goal is to intimidate the thieves to act certain way... propably to get them back away from a fight, or join you, or pay you to leave them alone. The act of tablebreaking is a tool, not the goal, and less important than the desired result (impressing the thieves). It doesn't really matter if you break the table or just slam your hand on it really loudly, as long as the thieves are intimidated. You could brandish your weapon, or threaten to call the cops, or anything else instead.

If you focus on breaking the table, you'll get non-sensical results. Why are you better at table breaking when you're trying to scare someone? If you try to break the same table with nobody present, you won't add your proficiency in Intimidate to the ability check, making it less likely you'll succeed.

Or you can focus on the *actual* goal... influencing the thieves... see what the relevant ability score for that is... Charisma... make it Cha (Intimidate) check, and narrate the result as whatever fits. The Str 6 kobold wouldn't be trying to break the table in the first place, so he'd do something else. The Str 20 barbarian would, but it may not impress the thieves that much if he looks like a clumsy oaf who did that by accident, or it may drive them to unintended reaction.

Ironically in regards to the original topic of this thread, Medicine is better skill to apply to different ability checks than Intimidate is, because Intimidate encompasses only one thing: getting others to act certain way through threats. You could use Dex (Medicine) for surgery where precision is needed, Int (Medicine) to remember what you've learned in medical school or Wis (Medicine) to provide first aid, and it would actually be consistent with what the different ability scores represent, unlike Str (Intimidate).


You do not get to disregard everyone else and decide what it "should" be, JackPhoenix.

This edition is built like that. You get whatever ability check fits the best, then you get whatever proficiency fits the best IF one fit.

Oh, but I do. I'm just as free to disregard anyone and anything else as every other person playing the game is. And I'm also free to call out stupid rules... it's what people do on this forum. A lot. I'm well aware how the rules in this edition work. But I also aknowledge that the desire to have the simple "attack rolls/saves/ability checks" dichotomy leads to non-sensical results with the later.


If someone wanted to break a chest in a way that'd be easy to fix afterward, a DM could ask them for STR (Carpenter's Tools). It'd be rather cubersome (and so anthetical to 5e's design goals) to ask for INT (Carpenter's Tool) then a straight STR check to do it.

It would, and I agree that less rolls is better in this case. But I disagree that Str (Carpenter's Tools) is the appropriate check. The important part in this scenario isn't breaking the chest... any barbarian with a maul can do that... figuring out *how* to do it in a way that's easy to fix is the important part (assuming there's a reason to roll for that in the first place). I assume the character proficient in carpentry knows how to cut something once he figures what the cut should look like.

[Unoriginal]

The idea is to break the chest in a specific way, if you don't have tools available. Of course if you have Carpenter's Tools (TM) and know how to use them you don't need a check to do that. Unless that chest is very somehow very easy to mess up.

[Pelle]

Or you can focus on the *actual* goal... influencing the thieves... see what the relevant ability score for that is... Charisma... make it Cha (Intimidate) check, and narrate the result as whatever fits. The Str 6 kobold wouldn't be trying to break the table in the first place, so he'd do something else. The Str 20 barbarian would, but it may not impress the thieves that much if he looks like a clumsy oaf who did that by accident, or it may drive them to unintended reaction.


Agreed, Str(Intimidate) is a bad paradigm here. In this situation, maybe a Cha(Athletics) could work better for demonstrating alternative ability(skill) combinations?

However, in my games the context of the situation affects the DC. So if threatening physical violence, a high Str half-orc that has just smashed a table effortlessy will get a lower Cha(Intimidate) DC than a low Str gnome would. You could get a similar result using Str(Intimidate) and a high DC, but I think it is worth it to reflect on how you apply the rules and what the check resolves in the fiction.

[Unoriginal]

Athletics doesn't apply to breaking things.

[Pelle]

Athletics doesn't apply to breaking things.

Depends on how you approach breaking things... Though, strictly yes, Athletics is swimming, climbing, jumping and grappling only. I was imagining using a wrestle power move, but I'm a bit more liberal with what the skill profs may cover. Cha(Intimidate) only then!

[Unoriginal]

Depends on how you approach breaking things... Though, strictly yes, Athletics is swimming, climbing, jumping and grappling only. I was imagining using a wrestle power move, but I'm a bit more liberal with what the skill profs may cover. Cha(Intimidate) only then!

Perfectly fair, but IMO DMs tend to be too generous with when proficiencies apply.

Often when DEX (Acrobatics) is concerned, I've found.

Anyway. I certainly wouldn't let a PC use a STR check to intimidate people in a "I'm strong so I'm scary" fashion. Threatening people with violence or the like is still CHA.

[Dark Schneider]

I think athletics is used when bashing doors, that could involve breaking them (depending door and supporting materials).
If you want to break a stick by folding it, then also is athletics.
As Athletics is usually for physical involving force, breaking things could be included depending the case.

Notice that a proficiency always should be applicable, as you can be trained in anything, differencing with no-trained. Probably the problem is that D&D has a reduced set of skills, but it's fine it was made with that idea. Simply chose the closest one or ones and don't worry too much.

But that sounds like a different thread.

[Unoriginal]

I think athletics is used when bashing doors, that could involve breaking them (depending door and supporting materials).

The books consisently call for a STR check, no skill attacked, for bashing doors.



If you want to break a stick by folding it, then also is athletics.

No, not really.

[Dark Schneider]

The books consisently call for a STR check, no skill attacked, for bashing doors.

No, not really.
Then you don't use Athletics for weight lift. As it is only using strength, then why one yes and the other not?

I am not going to argue more about beign a robot using only what is written (that in fact they explicitly says that are EXAMPLES) or understand the meaning of the rules. This is listed explicitly in example list, can use, not listed, cannot use. That is the incorrect way of use.

[Unoriginal]

Then you don't use Athletics for weight lift. As it is only using strength, then why one yes and the other not?

Because they're not ****ing the same task. Breaking things isn't an athletic activity. The same way that dodging a trap isn't an acrobatic activity.




I am not going to argue more about beign a robot using only what is written (that in fact they explicitly says that are EXAMPLES) or understand the meaning of the rules.

Is that an attempt at insulting me? Because it's a pretty bad attempt if it is.

[Dark Schneider]

Never insulting, more like a comparison.

[Pelle]

Because they're not ****ing the same task. Breaking things isn't an athletic activity. The same way that dodging a trap isn't an acrobatic activity.


I think this is up to the player and situation to govern. If the player describes doing a backflip to dodge the trap, and the DM deems doing a backflip to be highly advantageous to avoid this particular trap, then go ahead and apply prof from Acrobatics.

Same for breaking down stuff. If the player describes using a technique that would indicate being athletic, and the DM thinks that will help in the situation, add it. It's not a deafult, but a DM judgement call depending on the situation and how good the player is at demonstrating the approach. Is the task something that only brute force can fix, or will good technique help?

[Battlebooze]

Eh. Athletics SHOULD help in breaking things, as doing so is a real life athletic activity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_(martial_arts)

But, as written, it doesn't help. Being a Bard helps though. Jack of all trades to the rescue!

[Dark Schneider]

Eh. Athletics SHOULD help in breaking things, as doing so is a real life athletic activity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_(martial_arts)

But, as written, it doesn't help. Being a Bard helps though. Jack of all trades to the rescue!
The problem mainly is as sais the reduced set of skills, but that's D&D after all.

Policemen are better bashing doors even with the same STR than another person, they are trained. So you always can train anything to be better than non-trained. If we have a reduced list, then we have to fit to it.

We have to understand that some rules can be closed (like spell descriptions and others), but others are open, even mentioned by themselves, and checks are clearly mentioned as open on the rules themselves.

[Pelle]

As far as I am concerned, a player getting to apply proficiency to a roll is not a problem. The prerequisite is that the player describes how the character is approaching the task in such a way that applying a particular proficiency is warranted. These descriptions add richness to the game, and is what I want to see as much as possible from the players. Insentivising that is a good thing.

[Isaire]

If you focus on breaking the table, you'll get non-sensical results. Why are you better at table breaking when you're trying to scare someone? If you try to break the same table with nobody present, you won't add your proficiency in Intimidate to the ability check, making it less likely you'll succeed.

Or you can focus on the *actual* goal... influencing the thieves... see what the relevant ability score for that is... Charisma... make it Cha (Intimidate) check, and narrate the result as whatever fits. The Str 6 kobold wouldn't be trying to break the table in the first place, so he'd do something else. The Str 20 barbarian would, but it may not impress the thieves that much if he looks like a clumsy oaf who did that by accident, or it may drive them to unintended reaction.


This is the purpose of setting a DC relative to the attempted action. What's harder - breaking a table, or breaking a table in such a way that you scare onlookers? Any old peasant can break a table, and the DC is low. Scaring the thieves while doing so? Much harder, and if you are both good at scaring people and good at breaking things, both should be taken into account. Against a higher DC. Splitting into two actions.. Is unsatisfactory to me

[JackPhoenix]

This is the purpose of setting a DC relative to the attempted action. What's harder - breaking a table, or breaking a table in such a way that you scare onlookers? Any old peasant can break a table, and the DC is low. Scaring the thieves while doing so? Much harder, and if you are both good at scaring people and good at breaking things, both should be taken into account. Against a higher DC. Splitting into two actions.. Is unsatisfactory to me

I never said anything about two actions. You roll Cha (Intimidate) check to see if the thieves are intimidated. If you actually break the table or not isn't important for the intended result. If the character is someone capable of doing it, he just does it, if not, he just slams his hand on it. That may be enough to convey a threat or get their attention. It certainly worked back in school when we were talking, despite the teacher never breaking the table.

If you modify the DC, you also get non-sensical results: it's harder for the peasant to break the table if he tries to intimidate someone. Breaking the table isn't more difficult if you try to scare onlookers, the difficulty is in making the result look impressive, which isn't covered under Str.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Am I actually seeing people suggest that players could talk the DM into letting them roll Str (Athletics) to resolve an intimidation challenge, or did the conversation just get too convoluted?

[Laserlight]

Am I actually seeing people suggest that players could talk the DM into letting them roll Str (Athletics) to resolve an intimidation challenge, or did the conversation just get too convoluted?

The conversation got too convoluted on Page 1, but I think what you saw was STR/Athletics to break the table, not necessarily to do so in an intimidating fashion. Although if I saw someone break a table made of four inch oak planks, he wouldn't need to add "Pretty nice bones ya got dere, be a shame if sumpin wuz ta....happen to dem". I'd sorta figure out that part on my own.