Defend this, using arguments, facts and logic

>a good rule
>"attack this good rule"
>"a bad gm will always houserule away this good rule, therefore this good rule is bad"

It's 5e

And determining what caused an injury. Or diagnosing CoD. Or understanding and identifying symptoms of parasites or how to get rid of them. Or how best to purge a kind of poison without magic. Or knowing how to lobotomize That Guy.

Skills were a mistake, though I always thought it was weird that you could take the Healer feat without proficiency in Medicine first.

>You need proficiency with a Healer's Kit to use it at all
There is no such thing, so that's a lie.

>Healer's Kits cost money you may not have
>Healer's Kits are not always available for sale
When will you not have 5 GP or access to a general store, besides "you wake up in antimagic prison" scenarios?

What page of the PHB is that?

>There is no such thing, so that's a lie.
My mistake, thought proficiencies worked differently.
>When will you not have 5 GP or access to a general store, besides "you wake up in antimagic prison" scenarios?
There's no general stores in the wilderness or in a dungeon. It's also a very real possibility that a town in the middle of podunk nowhere doesn't have a specialized kit like that. You could have also spent all your gold on other things, or have had it stolen.

There's a lot of "ifs" in these scenarios, of course, but it's still something to consider.

The same place where it says every game interaction must be accompanied by a proper persuasion, deception, or intimidation check.

>That's name-calling.
And in this case, accurate. Take this shit to the general.

And whatever you want to you're the DM/Player.

Also depending on what kind of game you are playing, diagnosing an illness does a lot more than stabilizing a person, especially in a setting where medical knowledge is scarce.

This is point where you lose your argument. Most people play with other people, not automatons.

Perform is more than just playing an instrument dude

You can houserule that Medicine checks allow you to shoot electrified bees out of your dick if you want, but that doesn't mean it's written in the book.

>You can houserule that Medicine checks allow you to shoot electrified bees out of your dick if you wan

That wouldn't make any sense, why would you do that?

>that doesn't mean it's written in the book.
>RAW MEANS LAW

No it don't

You tell me what skill check is more appropriate for those things m8
;)
Or do you just rule those things are impossible in your world since no skill description explicitly says you can?

If you need to houserule a rule, it's not a good rule. If you need to houserule a system, it's not a good system:

If you are unable to accept that the book is NOT the last word on interaction in an rpg, you should not be playing them.
The GM has the right to call upon the Medicine skill as a roll whenever they feel it is applicable.
Further, the Healer's Kit requires resources, is limited in use, and can perform no other action, while the Medicine skill is infinite, grows in power inherently, and can be used in a variety of ways.
As for healer, it can just as easily be represented as rote training, triage or the kind of cpr training all professionals get. It doesn't make you skilled at medical issues, but a very specific subset of them.
To wit, this is the kind of shit I would expect from autistic people who are unable to see that their subjective opinion is NOT an objective one.

Eh, it basically looks like an option for "unarmed healing" vs. weapon-user healing.

I mean, use of the skill is doing it unarmed. If you're in a situation where you can't use the medicine pouch for whatever reason. Yeah, probably GM-fiat, but that's not always bad or unrealistic. Thieves, pickpockets, saboteurs may follow the golden combat rule of "target the healer." Especially kobold commandos or rangers other guerrilla-style fighters.

Now, it's horrible if the GM does that all the freaking time--unless you're specifically fighting an enemy that has that as standard procedure, and then it's up to you to develop counter-countermeasures--but it's roughly analogous to being caught without weapons.

It's far from perfect, sure. But utility skills that allow you to counter their counter come at a cost. You have to choose when your character is awesome. For some, that's when everything's going good and the party's in optimal condition--the battering ram, so to speak. For others, it's when shit's fucked.

In other words, some people are Superman, some people are Batman, and some people are Aquaman.

And that's a balance issue that's really hard to solve.

It doesn't have to be written in the book, on page 174, where they define what skills are, they note the descriptions of the skills provide "examples" of how to use the skill; it doesn't say those are ALL the ways to use that skill.

The line between "needing" and "wanting" to houserule is so blurry and so demanding on the systems creators being masters of the English language (and I suppose other languages as well) that I am beyond giving a fuck about the inefficiency of the Medicine skill in D&D.

As someone totally not on board with 3.x, I am really glad that opinion has turned on the insufferable Rules-As-Written fucks. Folks like this, too . The maxim actually ought to be: if you don't houserule an RPG, you're a bad GM.

who put you on the planet?

Are you just pissed because nobody will play with you? Asking genuinely, not trolling.

>kill yourself

/v/ plz leave

>The kit has ten uses
When you run out of bandaids and painkillers, it's sometimes useful to have someone around who knows their stuff.

Having to stabilize someone comes up so infrequently in the games I play that on standard characters I never really have to worry about running out.
On my character with the Healer feat, I just buy multiple kits because they only cost 5 gp each, and it still goes down surprisingly slowly since you can only heal each person once per rest.

>If you are unable to accept that the book is NOT the last word on interaction in an rpg, you should not be playing them.
In this case, it fails to be the FIRST WORD either. If the basics of the system need housruling, like making a skill in any way useful, then what are you paying the developers for?

Rulebooks are meant to be a basis you build campaigns off of; you're expected to tweak it to meet your needs, but if the printed rules fail to provide the framework and you're building from the ground up anyway, then what's the point?

>Defend this
Defend what? Your point or "against" your point?

I agree with your point, but since you're a faggot OP, I'm assuming this is some standoffish bait thread.

>you have autism
Yes you do.

Then your DM isn't forcing the scenario on you.

If you feel that your Medicine skill isn't brought up enough then talk with your DM.

>the basics of a system
>a single skill is inefficient
>blowing things way out of proportion "cuz it's the foundation"

/v/ plz leave

I can resuscitate someone who is in critical condition and prevent them from getting worse with my own two hands.

I can also tell if someone is suffering from a disease and diagnose it purely based on knowledge.

However, I cannot mend injuries or treat diseases by my own power. If I don't have bandages and sutures, I cannot sew up gaping wounds. If I don't have medicine, I can't treat a disease.

My complaint isn't about this one instance, but the larger trend of ignoring lazy game devs and excusing near all instances of incompetency with "houserule it."

The page with examples for checks. Its not far from the feats, before the spellbook. But about the healer kit, it's pretty useful but don't you need a proficiency to use it like the cartographer kit ?

>I can also tell if someone is suffering from a disease and diagnose it purely based on knowledge
Why is that important though? You never need to diagnose anything because spells and items don't care about the specifics.

At best it's flavor that'll be ignored in 99% of games because D&D is not a hospital drama.

>continues shitposting everywhere
>continues to attack wording rather than providing any substance to any argument at any point
>continues to avoid talking directly about any Veeky Forums topic

You are a human dingleberry and you're making the board a worse place.

>inb4 more 'you're part of the /v/ermin conspiracy' bullshit

>When will you not have 5 GP or access to a general store

>every adventure takes place within walking distance of a save point

I see why people are complaining about the kids these days.

Not everyone has access to spells and items, not to mention that supernatural diseases are a thing. Do your spells cure vampirism, mental illness, lycanthropy, or mutations?

>Do your spells cure vampirism, mental illness, lycanthropy, or mutations?

Actually, spells are the only way to cure those.

Well you better diagnose the guy's odd problems before wasting something expensive on something trivial.

You can always stop being a RAW abusing fuckhead and go play a wargame if using your imagination is too difficult.

Yes it is one instance.

This is a thread about the inefficiency of the Medicine skill.

That is one instance.

Also

>minor problems that barely even count as problems
>lazy game devs who are incompetent

Sure is /v/ here.

Only vampirism and Lycanthropy, those are curses.

I agree with OP. They should have made the skill description either more robust or more vague. As it is right now, it's clear... and useless. You can houserule it as you will, as you can houserule just about fucking anything; but that doesn't stop it from being useless as described.

It's clearly a fault.

Greater Restoration cures mental illness. Or at least madness.

5e is a mess because they were afraid of even referencing 4e (even though it was the best/most sensibly designed of the bunch, mechanics-wise) That's why we get more 3.X open to interpretation mixed with crunchy nonsense. 5e is really the worst edition in recent memory because it's bland and leaves you to argue the multitude of under-edited rules.

4e did it better.

Largely because the heal skill (which I can't remember actual name) was used to help cure magical diseases.

...

>argue the multitude of under-edited rules

My group has been playing a bunch of 5e and we haven't argued about any rules.

Fuck I'm not even sure if we houserule shit.

We haven't found it bland at all and pretty much use it for the "generic fantasy" games that we always used D&D books for.

>implying

5e isn't broken and/or complicated like previous editions, but that's only because they made three books with no other books in mind. They made a perfectly grey homogeneous blob of a game. I don't know how you can't find it bland if you've played previous editions. I've played many many sessions of many different games. Some bad, some good, some meh. 5e definitely falls into the meh category. Only took me a handful of sessions to get bored with it. It tried to be the jack of all trades but ended up just being watered down kool aid.

>At best it's flavor that'll be ignored in 99% of games because D&D is not a hospital drama
> D&D is not a hospital drama
Wait wait wait. People I think I found a better topic.
How do we run an hospital drama campaign in D&D?

>specializing makes one better than not-specializing
HOLD. THE FUCKING. PRESSES.

You do know that you need to have proficiency with a tool to use it right? Things like thieve's tools, transportation, or even fishing equipment are all proficiencies provided by certain classes and backgrounds. Healer's Kits are a tool so if your character wants to use them you have to "sacrifice" a tool proficiency to use it. You could have taken the Herbalism Kit proficiency instead and be able to make healing potions at a reduced cost. Also there is a cantrip that multiple classes can take that provide the ability to stabilize automatically as an action. The Medicine skill is just one of many ways to stabilize someone and can be used to gather information regarding what is afflicting someone.

I think all of the above can be valid depending on character and campaign.

That drama better be in the vein of Trauma Team.

I haven't found it bland simply because it doesn't feel as much CASTER OR BUST. A bunch of the classes have a bunch of different tools to play with and while casters do still feel like they have the most tools I feel this kind of has to be done to stop the PHB from becoming super bloated.

Also there isn't the reliance on magic items built in and the change to how AC works opens up a bunch of different stories without having to ignore the rules.

>specializing makes one better than not-specializing
>Opinions

It's like you pretend GURPS isn't still around.

Players are hospital workers and must fight such horrible enemies as the rare yet contagious disease, the continuously breaking fax machine, the hypocritical nonprofit hospital administrator, the obstructive and outright malicious insurance company and the suspiciously understocked supply room.

Specializing with GURPS was still better. When you play a TRPG with a *GROUP*, you get the most efficiency when people spend their points and builds *SPECIALIZING*.
Just like in real life with economics!

>you have autism

I just used my medicine skill :^)

just wanted to add to this shit of a thread that any person genuinely arguing that "if a bad rule can be ignored/redone then the system is fine" is retarded and his retarded opinions should not be encouraged.
the topic at hand is literally whether a set of rules are good or bad design what kind of twisted dumbfuck logic leads you do to even mention rule zero

The core rules are much less complicated, stupid and limiting than 3.5e/pathfinder.
Stuff like action economy, movement, making attacks, etc. is all significantly clearer and much more concise.

The specific rules for individual spells/feats is more of a mixed bag in terms of quality/editing, but as a general sweeping statement of average quality in terms of readability/easy of use, that aspect is not really better or worse than 3.5e/pathfinder. It's tragic that they didn't make more of an effort in some cases (contagion, etc.) but c'est la vie.

However, when it comes to whether what you're reading at any given time is actually an interesting potential option (that is, not terrible trap option or an overpowered but probably bland must-have) then 5e is still miles ahead.

That's two major victories and one tie.

Woah dude we are talking about rules systems and not characters. The user was talking about the 5e system being jack-of-all-trades

>I'm going to comment ignoring the entire context of the thread
>the topic at hand is what I say it is and not what OP started talking about, or what the thread is talking about

I don't know where you came from but can you please go back?

>The user was talking about the 5e system being jack-of-all-trades
Yeah! And I told him that was shit! ^_^

Someone didn't read the thread.

Ok?

But why did you start talking about character stuff and party balance instead of the system?

Because I read >It tried to be the jack of all trades but ended up just being watered down kool aid
as
>I tried to be the jack of all trades but ended up just being watered down kool aid
^_^
That does not, however, change the fact that it's all bait-worthy grievances, and I will be ignoring you! Ta-ta!

So you gotta do medicine checks before you actually use spells to cure illness? Maybe magic is in very short supply, or too much healing magic is akin to too much medicals and liable to kill the patient rather than heal him?
Hell, I am done for it all in all.
I'd rather have something like Scrubs.
> someone has been stealing stuff from the supply room
>track down who took levels in arcane trickster without declaring it in his curriculum

I don't get how anything you said makes 5e interesting for someone that is familiar with other editions of D&D though. I also don't agree that the PHB would be bloated if you offered more options to martials. The fighter is more or less just "roll d20(+a modifier or two) to hit and then roll damage if it hits". Even the archetype that gets maneuvers has a very small list of them and can only use them a few times per encounter, even at higher levels. It's not that they don't get the job done by killing stuff, it's just you're not doing anything exciting compared to the wizard who gets a whole list of much more interesting mechanics to play with every couple levels with really no downside other than having less HP and being easier to hit.

You're comparing boxed mashed potatoes to an ice cream sundae with all the toppings. You're not going to starve eating either one, but there's clearly a superior choice for most people.

Oh ok that makes sense, and I agree that the guy does seem to be trollin hardco-

>and I will be ignoring you! Ta-ta!

o-oh

>well even though I can't even read, it's still stupid cause if I need to save face on an anonymous imageboard

lol

>5e interesting for someone that is familiar with other editions of D&D though.

...yes I did. It's not as much of a caster playground and martials have a lot of fun tools to play around with. Also AC makes for a lot more stories to be told without ignoring the rulebooks.

Did you just completely ignore my post or something?

>with every couple levels with really no downside other than having less HP and being easier to hit

Just because the DM doesn't make there a downside doesn't mean there isn't a downside.

I get called a troll any time I have something negative to say about 5e. It's not like I go into 5e generals and tell people they have shit taste. However, I feel like it's just stating the obvious that 5e is boring and doesn't add anything to the legacy of D&D besides a handful of non-consequential things like bounded accuracy (which they did in the least interesting way possible) or backgrounds (which many other similar systems do better)

>completely incomprehensible reply
>something something DM fiat

Did you mean to quote something else or do you really just have nothing to say?

>backgrounds (which many other similar systems do better)
Including the playtest for this very system.

Yeah, you know, the playtest had a lot of stuff they ended up removing that I really enjoyed. I felt like Next started off much closer to AD&D and ended up created by committee mess that people have convinced themselves is good because they shelled out 100 bucks for the books sight unseen.

I am much in the same boat.
When I read the original playtest I was excited. That stuff had potential!
When I read the final product, I had to realize that they had cut out every single thing I found interesting about the playtest.

It happened with Valve's games post orange-box too. Way too much time spent trying to please dumb play-testers instead of the actual fans or trying to make a "good" game.

>players want to buy a healers kit
>out of stock

Get fucked players

I feel this way too, but I got past my bitterness and started viewing the game as what it is: an extremely solid original-branch D&D with exceptional rules clarity, and which is exceptionally easy to homebrew for (everything is in clear and manageable chunks that are reasonably self-contained a lot of the time. Call that modular or not, IDGAF)

So i started brewing.
I think the best thing I've added back in was the "special attack" rules, where you can describe a stunt or "unusual" attack, agree with the GM on the effects, and then you have to succeed a skill check before making your attack roll to do it.
The rules are kind vaguely open to improvised actions like this, they just don't provide a system, so you could say it's not technically a house rule as much as it's just a "standard procedure."

>implying you're just bitter if you don't like 5e and that homebrew is the answer

ok, bud

You say I can't call you an autistic but honestly your going out of your way to act like one, kinda putting yourself at a disadvantage here man, acting like one so heavily.

>Did you mean to quote something else or do you really just have nothing to say?
>Literally not reading

Is there something specific you misunderstood or does your brain just block out things you don't agree with?

>solid
In what sense?

My main issue with the system is that it's horribly bland, non-committal and schizophrenic.
I suppose it works well enough as a sort of catch-all if you don't know what system to use, but I have a large enough collection of games that I can just pick something more suitable out of the box for anything I would want to do with 5e.

Solid in lots of ways
* There are fewer lookups needed for basic stuff. I play a lot of different games, so it can be a hassle to remember or re-learn the exact rules for actions, movement, unarmed combat, stealth, grappling, and other such stuff if it's overly verbose and complicated. I'm sure this isn't an issue if you only ever play one game/edition, though.
* The core rules are less restrictive. You can simply do more stuff, you aren't forced to stand still if you want to attack at full strength, etc.
* Classes get more stuff to do earlier on which means they're basically never obviously left out in the cold with nothing to do, when it comes to dealing with some problem/obstacle
* Fewer trap options and other stuff to waste your time (like AD&D thieves)
* The game generally speaking never completely drops the ball for entire character classes at particular level ranges (mages early, fighters late, in other D&Ds)
* The game's skill/combat scaling in general just doesn't have the same weird/broken/nonsensical effects that you get with medium BAB in 3.5e/PF in mid-to-high level play.

>bland
Of course, we're talking about D&D. Hell, we're talking about a D&D that has forgotten realms as its core setting.
But who cares about the core setting/conceits when you can do whatever gonzo science fantasy pulp bullshit you want - which is the case in any D&D edition.
If you mean something else, do elaborate.

>non-committal and schizophrenic
In relation to what? To being a different edition perhaps?
Did you expect 5e to be a retroclone?
From my perspective, 5e just doing the same D&D stuff every other version of D&D is doing, with fewer arbitrary restrictions and more concise and intuitive rules.

>pick something more suitable
I mean there's an ocean of D&D style stuff out there. But most alternatives are either more lightweight, or have a different take on overall game philosophy compared to mainline D&D.

I like the way Neverwinter Nights did it.

Healers kits come in +1, +2, +3, etc varieties like other items and can be used to heal party members based on how many points you have in heal+the kits bonus. Gives a different option than just chugging potions with the requirement that you make a check and have relevant skill points, with the benefit of curing disease, poison and healing

3.X diehards will probably shoot it down as "too videogamey", even though videogames are fun and there's nothing wrong with taking fun things from then and applying it to tabletop

Have fun back at reddit!

It's from Fifth Edition you literal dumbfuck. You are flat-out WRONG here, and have just been BTFO

>implying 5e isn't just more 3.x with a couple mechanics cribbed from some rules-light game to make it appealing to the kids

Do I have to defend it? It's indefensible. It's bad design, and it's something I'm definitely going to fix with houserules in my next game, that I really shouldn't have to fix myself.

It really isnt though.
Form your own opinions before parroting the shit Veeky Forums spews out

OP is right that it's dumb.
The solution is to make the Healer's Kit require proficiency, as a tool kit.
In fact, make the Medicine skill be the proficiency needed to use it--rename it the Medicine Kit or what have you, and it's now an enhancement to the Medicine skill.
Simple enough.