I think people are making a distinction with arcana because it only applies to magic, which doesn't exist in our world. This distinction is only fair if the characters are also from a world without magic. Even before they start adventuring, most characters will live in a world where magic is a part of their life on a fairly regular basis, even if it's only about as often as fireworks are in our lives.
An untrained character making an arcana check is as reasonable as an untrained character making a survival check to track someone. They aren't likely to succeed, but they might happen to notice just the right thing to manage.
For me, it is any of the mental-based skills really; particularly those which might be thought of as skills that require some mental training, rather than physical skills which everybody has some basic aptitude at.
Although see the Grappler feat which is a requirement to be able to PIN somebody that you are grappling. That is a more specialised form of training that most characters aren't able to do normally.
I would agree that most "adventurers" would have a basic understanding of magic, for sure. Thus my allowing the Rogue or Barbarian discern that the sword, for example, appears to be a magical weapon. However, if a magic wielding character rolls the same die (same total, counting bonus and such) they are likely to notice runes or symbols, which are usually part of XX magic. As one who works directly with magic, they might recognize symbols or runes, that to the melee folk, are fancy letters or swirls.
IMO, from either side of the table, it's fair for the DM to require a basis, or sensible reason a character might be able to get more detail about a magical item, under the same examination. To be as fair, when the Wizard examines the new battle axe the group finds, with a spear-like stub on the top, he would think this may generate it's effect when you poke your enemy with it. Melee characters would do the same check, determine it's magical, and notice it has a very balanced feel, or it seems to gain speed on it's own as it's swung.
Tracking, the Ranger could tell you that 3 Orcs, 2 Halflings and a Drow went East into the woods about 3 hours ago. The city Rogue, on the same roll, could say a group of at least 4 went into the woods thataway. If that same Rogue had a backstory, where he had lived in the wild for a time, he would likely earn more info. When I run a game, I feed the characters detail based on their roll + the viability of THAT character having a lot of knowledge or experience with the topic at hand. I try to always ensure the backstory helps or hinders them, when applicable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
If we are to apply that studying requirement to Athletics and Acrobatics check
Nobody is making that argument.
There are some skills that some GMs consider every-person skills like Athletics and Deception. Anybody can make a roll, proficiency just means you're better at it due to training.
I wouldn't let a PC make a Medicine check unless they had proficiency. Stabilizing somebody who is dying or diagnosing a poison or disease requires some form of training.
Is this RAW? No. According to the rules, anybody can make a roll for anything.
Again, some GMs feel that certain skills (NOT all) require proficiency in their games. You don't have to adopt this if you don't want to.
But would not that be punishing players with high Wisdom scores just because they did not take Medicine proficiency?
For example, if one character is a level 1 cleric with 10 Wis and proficiency in Medicine, but the other character is a level 1 wizard with 16 Wis and not proficient in Medicine, the wizard not being allowed to stabilize a dying teammate may feel kind of punished for not being allowed to save their teammate despite having better odds than the cleric. (If I did my math right, I believe clerics would have +2 Medicine and the wizard would have +3 Medicine.)
The decision to allow some but not all skills to operate that way seems kind of inconsistent and punishing. I would also disagree with Athletics and Acrobatics being an every person skill, at least in regards to grapples. Knowing how to grapple effectively and to get out of them, especially getting out of pins, takes rather specialized training in my opinion.
I think people are making a distinction with arcana because it only applies to magic, which doesn't exist in our world. This distinction is only fair if the characters are also from a world without magic. Even before they start adventuring, most characters will live in a world where magic is a part of their life on a fairly regular basis, even if it's only about as often as fireworks are in our lives.
An untrained character making an arcana check is as reasonable as an untrained character making a survival check to track someone. They aren't likely to succeed, but they might happen to notice just the right thing to manage.
For me, it is any of the mental-based skills really; particularly those which might be thought of as skills that require some mental training, rather than physical skills which everybody has some basic aptitude at.
Although see the Grappler feat which is a requirement to be able to PIN somebody that you are grappling. That is a more specialised form of training that most characters aren't able to do normally.
In my opinion, grappling in itself also requires training to do effectively, and it is definitely not something that people have basic aptitude with. I can grapple my friend for example, but he would just shrug it off like it is nothing without even using a lot of force. Grappling and pinning someone uses your body and the opponent's body as levers and fulcrums, but to be able to know how to use those levers and fulcrums takes quite a bit of training and further practice.
Swimming also is not something all people have basic aptitude with either. I am no Olympic swimmer, but swimming as an activity in itself comes pretty easily to me since I just naturally float, so as long as I just paddle towards one direction, I will get somewhere eventually. Whether my ability to swim is due to inborn instinct or because I took swimming classes when I was young, I am not too sure, but I do know that at least floating is instinctive for me now. However, I cannot say that swimming is the same for all my friends and just the act of floating is not easy for some of them, as some of them need to expend energy to maintain buoyancy.
The choices I make at my table are absolutely without a doubt 100% ARBITRARY and up to me. I will bend, break, make up stuff whole cloth as long I feel it is doing right by my campaign and my players.
Regarding grappling, it is a contested roll. That means, somebody without training can have a chance to get free of it. Their chances go up if they are very bendy or strong. Just like the person with training has a higher chance to keep somebody locked up.
No, I don't feel I'm punishing my players when I tell them they need Medicine skill to save somebody. They know that they will need either med kits or skill to do it. (or magic) Buying skills is not a thing in your game? Again, No. somebody who is wise can be dumb as rocks when it comes to "helping" somebody in a medical condition.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
The choices I make at my table are absolutely without a doubt 100% ARBITRARY and up to me. I will bend, break, make up stuff whole cloth as long I feel it is doing right by my campaign and my players.
Regarding grappling, it is a contested roll. That means, somebody without training can have a chance to get free of it. Their chances go up if they are very bendy or strong. Just like the person with training has a higher chance to keep somebody locked up.
No, I don't feel I'm punishing my players when I tell them they need Medicine skill to save somebody. They know that they will need either med kits or skill to do it. (or magic) Buying skills is not a thing in your game? Again, No. somebody who is wise can be dumb as rocks when it comes to "helping" somebody in a medical condition.
I am not saying you cannot override RAW and make up stuff, I do that too, but when I override RAW, I usually do it in favor of the players, like letting them find out a property of a magic item to make it easier for them to deduce what the item might be, so they can attune to it immediately with a short rest if they think the risk of it being cursed is slim.
As for grappling, I am only using that mechanic to illustrate the argument you are using for Medicine. Realistically, someone who is trained in grappling will have no issue grappling a person who is not trained, and there generally is not much contest involved, if any. And once a person is pinned, a person with no training in grappling has basically no hope of escaping the pin. For example, if my friend lets me pin him and tells me exactly where to put my limbs and where to shift my weight, even if he is stronger than me, it is very difficult for him to get out of it, as the force required to overcome the advantage in leverage I have is massive. If he lets me do a chokehold and I am positioning my arms properly and have his arms pinned, he does not stand a chance of escaping, even if I am nowhere as strong as him. Without specific instruction though, my pins and chokeholds are often times pathetic, so he would have no issue overcoming the small leverage I have with imperfect technique.
Obviously, you can absolutely follow RAW and say that grappling is an every person type of ability, and that people without proficiency in Athletics and Acrobatics can still contest it. It is just a bit jarring to me to downplay the training and practice involved with physical abilities compared to mental ones.
Think of how silly grapple would be if grapples only affected the entire party at once, and only one of the PCs had to succeed in their check to break it.
That's how knowledge works. Letting everyone roll is just throwing dice at the problem. It doesn't reward an individual PC's investment in that proficiency.
Now if the rogue wants to know if he saw one of these down by the docks? Sure, he can roll for that - but it's not an arcana check. I think there's some conflation here - it's not the problem that dictates the skill required, it's the course of action taken by the characters. Different character can and should approach problems and obstacles differently based on their training and expertise.
The rogue would be making something like a memory check. Now maybe you decide a memory check is 1d20+INT mod, which is mechanically the same roll as an arcana check would be, but it's still an important distinction for two reasons: you can't make use of features that enhance arcana checks, and you don't just randomly appear by virtue of the dice to have more arcane knowledge than the wizard or artificer that considers that their domain.
Think of how silly grapple would be if grapples only affected the entire party at once, and only one of the PCs had to succeed in their check to break it.
That's how knowledge works. Letting everyone roll is just throwing dice at the problem. It doesn't reward an individual PC's investment in that proficiency.
Now if the rogue wants to know if he saw one of these down by the docks? Sure, he can roll for that - but it's not an arcana check. I think there's some conflation here - it's not the problem that dictates the skill required, it's the course of action taken by the characters. Different character can and should approach problems and obstacles differently based on their training and expertise.
The rogue would be making something like a memory check. Now maybe you decide a memory check is 1d20+INT mod, which is mechanically the same roll as an arcana check would be, but it's still an important distinction for two reasons: you can't make use of features that enhance arcana checks, and you don't just randomly appear by virtue of the dice to have more arcane knowledge than the wizard or artificer that considers that their domain.
Grappling, taking a test, eating a poisoned berry, etc. only involves one PC affected (unless the PCs are grappling each other or something). If a dragon asks the party a question, I do not think it is unreasonable to allow the whole party to roll. If the dragon is asking only one person and testing only that person, then obviously it would be just that one player to roll.
Players who take the relevant proficiency is already more likely to succeed anyways, but if a person just wants to be smarter in general and be better prepared for situations like answering Jeopardy questions, raising their Int rather than taking the Skilled Feat seems more appropriate in my opinion.
If a dragon asks the party a question, I do not think it is unreasonable to allow the whole party to roll.
So ultimately, what is the point of this check? Allowing 4+ rolls to meet a DC is practically a guaranteed success unless you raise the DC super high. What is this bringing to the game?
If I intend the PCs to succeed, I'm just not going to require a check at all. It's just a silly pretense that slows down the game. Same thing if I intend them to fail.
If I intend to challenge them, well I'd argue that giving them effectively super-double-secret advantage on the roll isn't really doing that. I think it would be much more interesting if, for example the dragon asked a question of each character, giving each player the chance to choose how they confront the situation and have some time in the spotlight.
Players who take the relevant proficiency is already more likely to succeed anyways
Unless we're talking very high levels, the variance provided by proficiency/mods is relatively low compared to the variance created by 1d20. A significant amount of the time, a completely untrained character will beat a character that intentionally specialized and maybe even built their character concept around being good at this thing. How does that enhance the game?
I want to take a second to point out that we have suggested rules for handling group efforts and neither of them are "let everyone roll and see what sticks." There's teamwork, which entails a main player being assisted by others, granting them Advantage, and there's Group Checks where everyone rolls against the same DC and if half the group succeeds, they succeed, if not they fail.
I see the first one as an organized effort and the second one is what happens when the entire table starts talking at once and trying to all do it at the same time. If they don't work together, they might just interfere with each other and make the whole enterprise fail.
If a dragon asks the party a question, I do not think it is unreasonable to allow the whole party to roll.
So ultimately, what is the point of this check? Allowing 4+ rolls to meet a DC is practically a guaranteed success unless you raise the DC super high. What is this bringing to the game?
If I intend the PCs to succeed, I'm just not going to require a check at all. It's just a silly pretense that slows down the game. Same thing if I intend them to fail.
If I intend to challenge them, well I'd argue that giving them effectively super-double-secret advantage on the roll isn't really doing that. I think it would be much more interesting if, for example the dragon asked a question of each character, giving each player the chance to choose how they confront the situation and have some time in the spotlight.
Players who take the relevant proficiency is already more likely to succeed anyways
Unless we're talking very high levels, the variance provided by proficiency/mods is relatively low compared to the variance created by 1d20. A significant amount of the time, a completely untrained character will beat a character that intentionally specialized and maybe even built their character concept around being good at this thing. How does that enhance the game?
I think having everyone roll and participate makes everyone feel more included. I do not think it slows down the game compared to only letting one person roll, since everyone is doing it at the same time. It also better reflects that having two heads is better than one.
I do agree that asking each character consecutively is also nice to shine a spotlight on each of them.
As for the proficiency and the base modifier, only allowing proficient characters to roll effectively devalues the regular modifier to 0, and that makes increasing ASIs for non combat purposes much less attractive. And for combat, taking a feat often times already feel a lot better than taking ASIs, especially in the early levels when a feat like Martial Adept and Magic Initiate open up so much more flexibility. I just do not want to have players feel like choosing ASIs is a handicap.
I want to take a second to point out that we have suggested rules for handling group efforts and neither of them are "let everyone roll and see what sticks." There's teamwork, which entails a main player being assisted by others, granting them Advantage, and there's Group Checks where everyone rolls against the same DC and if half the group succeeds, they succeed, if not they fail.
I see the first one as an organized effort and the second one is what happens when the entire table starts talking at once and trying to all do it at the same time. If they don't work together, they might just interfere with each other and make the whole enterprise fail.
That is true. Granting advantage is also better since you are still rolling two dice, but you roll with the character with the better modifier. However, somethings can only be done by a single individual at a time, and letting everyone roll at once can reflect that each person attempted to do it in succession. I want players to feel included and contributing. Even if they are not physically rolling the dice, at least they still know they are doing something by assisting and granting advantage to a teammate, rather than just sit back and do nothing.
As for group checks I have not thought of a scenario to use that very often, and most challenges I can think of involves stuff that the entire party can attempt at once or in quick succession one after another. For example, in the Lord of the Rings movie where the fellowship tried to figure out the riddle to enter Moria, some of them were bouncing ideas off of each other, and I would simulate that with everyone rolling a dice, or have one or multiple pairs of characters to roll for advantage.
As for grappling, I am only using that mechanic to illustrate the argument you are using for Medicine. Realistically, someone who is trained in grappling will have no issue grappling a person who is not trained, and there generally is not much contest involved, if any. And once a person is pinned, a person with no training in grappling has basically no hope of escaping the pin.
A grapple is just grabbing on to somebody. Everybody has a chance to break free from somebody grabbing their shirt or their arm (or whatever). Your example doesn't quite apply.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
As for grappling, I am only using that mechanic to illustrate the argument you are using for Medicine. Realistically, someone who is trained in grappling will have no issue grappling a person who is not trained, and there generally is not much contest involved, if any. And once a person is pinned, a person with no training in grappling has basically no hope of escaping the pin.
A grapple is just grabbing on to somebody. Everybody has a chance to break free from somebody grabbing their shirt or their arm (or whatever). Your example doesn't quite apply.
I guess grabbing an arm technically counts as grappling, but effective grappling involves far more than just grabbing an arm. Effective grappling involves immobilizing your opponent to a much greater degree than just not being able to swing their arms. Based on the rules for grappling, a grappled creature has their speed reduced to 0, and this indicates far more than just grabbing an arm. If an arm is just merely grabbed, you can still move and force your opponent that is holding onto you to move with you.
As for grappling, I am only using that mechanic to illustrate the argument you are using for Medicine. Realistically, someone who is trained in grappling will have no issue grappling a person who is not trained, and there generally is not much contest involved, if any. And once a person is pinned, a person with no training in grappling has basically no hope of escaping the pin.
A grapple is just grabbing on to somebody. Everybody has a chance to break free from somebody grabbing their shirt or their arm (or whatever). Your example doesn't quite apply.
I guess grabbing an arm technically counts as grappling, but effective grappling involves far more than just grabbing an arm. Effective grappling involves immobilizing your opponent to a much greater degree than just not being able to swing their arms. Based on the rules for grappling, a grappled creature has their speed reduced to 0, and this indicates far more than just grabbing an arm. If an arm is just merely grabbed, you can still move and force your opponent that is holding onto you to move with you.
Grappling just reduces the target to speed 0. That's it. It doesn't do anything else. It doesn't cause damage (by itself) it doesn't knock a target prone, it doesn't cause the target to fight at disadvantage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
If a dragon asks the party a question, I do not think it is unreasonable to allow the whole party to roll.
So ultimately, what is the point of this check? Allowing 4+ rolls to meet a DC is practically a guaranteed success unless you raise the DC super high. What is this bringing to the game?
If I intend the PCs to succeed, I'm just not going to require a check at all. It's just a silly pretense that slows down the game. Same thing if I intend them to fail.
If I intend to challenge them, well I'd argue that giving them effectively super-double-secret advantage on the roll isn't really doing that. I think it would be much more interesting if, for example the dragon asked a question of each character, giving each player the chance to choose how they confront the situation and have some time in the spotlight.
Players who take the relevant proficiency is already more likely to succeed anyways
Unless we're talking very high levels, the variance provided by proficiency/mods is relatively low compared to the variance created by 1d20. A significant amount of the time, a completely untrained character will beat a character that intentionally specialized and maybe even built their character concept around being good at this thing. How does that enhance the game?
So any time you gather a group of people together, only one is allowed to think or have ideas? And regardless of the problem they face, someone will always have a brilliant answer?
If it worked like that, then either there would be no point to anyone in the world having meetings or the world would be paradise since every meeting would find the right answer.
Being good at a thing does not mean being good enough to know answers at least one person in any given meeting knows, but rather being so good enough that you know the answer a lot more often than they do, to know the tougher, much-more-difficult-to-answer answers, i.e. those with tough enough DC's to really be considered challenges.
What I'm getting at is that the benefit of gathering a group together is that they see the same problem from different sides and bring their own strengths to the table to tackle it.
If the problem is "what does this magic item do?" A rogue untrained in arcana would not immediately come to the table with a solution based on some understanding of arcane knowledge they happened to know. That's not what the rogue brings to the table. Maybe they've seen something similar being smuggled. Maybe they've attacked someone wearing something similar. Either of those could be checks to determine familiarity but they are not arcana checks.
Again, a skill check shouldn't represent a problem - as in "everyone make an arcana check to learn about this thing."
A skill check is a solution - as in "I call upon my training/studies/experience in X to recall if I know about this thing."
X should be different things for different characters. The DM describes a problem > the player comes up with a way to address the problem > the DM decides what kind of check best represents that action, if any is required.
This makes the player think about how their character would see the situation and how they would react to it. They can roleplay the approach and the results. I feel this is a much more engaging style of roleplay than everyone rolling X check and then figuring out how to explain the results.
I realize though this can be taxing on the DM as they need to decide what kind of check applies to things like "might I have smuggled this at some point?", and certain types of players may try to game the system by tackling every single thing with their best skill even when it's a huge stretch to apply. Other players (often newbies) can be intimidated or frustrated by having to roleplay to this extent and may say something like, "just tell me what to roll already." It's not going to work for everyone, but it's been a very successful approach for me.
I guess I'm saying that when I feel my method is working, I never run into the issue of someone making an arcana check without proficiency because they never try to. They approach problems in the way their character would, using their character's strengths and experiences.
As for grappling, I am only using that mechanic to illustrate the argument you are using for Medicine. Realistically, someone who is trained in grappling will have no issue grappling a person who is not trained, and there generally is not much contest involved, if any. And once a person is pinned, a person with no training in grappling has basically no hope of escaping the pin.
A grapple is just grabbing on to somebody. Everybody has a chance to break free from somebody grabbing their shirt or their arm (or whatever). Your example doesn't quite apply.
I guess grabbing an arm technically counts as grappling, but effective grappling involves far more than just grabbing an arm. Effective grappling involves immobilizing your opponent to a much greater degree than just not being able to swing their arms. Based on the rules for grappling, a grappled creature has their speed reduced to 0, and this indicates far more than just grabbing an arm. If an arm is just merely grabbed, you can still move and force your opponent that is holding onto you to move with you.
Grappling just reduces the target to speed 0. That's it. It doesn't do anything else. It doesn't cause damage (by itself) it doesn't knock a target prone, it doesn't cause the target to fight at disadvantage.
Yes, and grappling and immobilizing a person to have 0 speed is much more difficult than you claim it to be. Simply grabbing an arm is not going to reduce someone's speed to 0. Effective grappling and wrestling that immobilizes someone requires significant training to do properly, and it is definitely not a skill that anyone knows how to do. And just because someone knows martial arts does not mean they know how to grapple and wrestle either as it is a very specific type of technique.
As for grappling, I am only using that mechanic to illustrate the argument you are using for Medicine. Realistically, someone who is trained in grappling will have no issue grappling a person who is not trained, and there generally is not much contest involved, if any. And once a person is pinned, a person with no training in grappling has basically no hope of escaping the pin.
A grapple is just grabbing on to somebody. Everybody has a chance to break free from somebody grabbing their shirt or their arm (or whatever). Your example doesn't quite apply.
I guess grabbing an arm technically counts as grappling, but effective grappling involves far more than just grabbing an arm. Effective grappling involves immobilizing your opponent to a much greater degree than just not being able to swing their arms. Based on the rules for grappling, a grappled creature has their speed reduced to 0, and this indicates far more than just grabbing an arm. If an arm is just merely grabbed, you can still move and force your opponent that is holding onto you to move with you.
Grappling just reduces the target to speed 0. That's it. It doesn't do anything else. It doesn't cause damage (by itself) it doesn't knock a target prone, it doesn't cause the target to fight at disadvantage.
Yes, and grappling and immobilizing a person to have 0 speed is much more difficult than you claim it to be. Simply grabbing an arm is not going to reduce someone's speed to 0. Effective grappling and wrestling that immobilizes someone requires significant training to do properly, and it is definitely not a skill that anyone knows how to do. And just because someone knows martial arts does not mean they know how to grapple and wrestle either as it is a very specific type of technique.
I think you are overthinking =)
If I were to grab your shirt, your movement would be 0. If you knock my hand away, you have successfully broken the grapple and can move away.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
If a dragon asks the party a question, I do not think it is unreasonable to allow the whole party to roll.
So ultimately, what is the point of this check? Allowing 4+ rolls to meet a DC is practically a guaranteed success unless you raise the DC super high. What is this bringing to the game?
If I intend the PCs to succeed, I'm just not going to require a check at all. It's just a silly pretense that slows down the game. Same thing if I intend them to fail.
If I intend to challenge them, well I'd argue that giving them effectively super-double-secret advantage on the roll isn't really doing that. I think it would be much more interesting if, for example the dragon asked a question of each character, giving each player the chance to choose how they confront the situation and have some time in the spotlight.
Players who take the relevant proficiency is already more likely to succeed anyways
Unless we're talking very high levels, the variance provided by proficiency/mods is relatively low compared to the variance created by 1d20. A significant amount of the time, a completely untrained character will beat a character that intentionally specialized and maybe even built their character concept around being good at this thing. How does that enhance the game?
So any time you gather a group of people together, only one is allowed to think or have ideas? And regardless of the problem they face, someone will always have a brilliant answer?
If it worked like that, then either there would be no point to anyone in the world having meetings or the world would be paradise since every meeting would find the right answer.
Being good at a thing does not mean being good enough to know answers at least one person in any given meeting knows, but rather being so good enough that you know the answer a lot more often than they do, to know the tougher, much-more-difficult-to-answer answers, i.e. those with tough enough DC's to really be considered challenges.
What I'm getting at is that the benefit of gathering a group together is that they see the same problem from different sides and bring their own strengths to the table to tackle it.
If the problem is "what does this magic item do?" A rogue untrained in arcana would not immediately come to the table with a solution based on some understanding of arcane knowledge they happened to know. That's not what the rogue brings to the table. Maybe they've seen something similar being smuggled. Maybe they've attacked someone wearing something similar. Either of those could be checks to determine familiarity but they are not arcana checks.
Again, a skill check shouldn't represent a problem - as in "everyone make an arcana check to learn about this thing."
A skill check is a solution - as in "I call upon my training/studies/experience in X to recall if I know about this thing."
X should be different things for different characters. The DM describes a problem > the player comes up with a way to address the problem > the DM decides what kind of check best represents that action, if any is required.
This makes the player think about how their character would see the situation and how they would react to it. They can roleplay the approach and the results. I feel this is a much more engaging style of roleplay than everyone rolling X check and then figuring out how to explain the results.
I realize though this can be taxing on the DM as they need to decide what kind of check applies to things like "might I have smuggled this at some point?", and certain types of players may try to game the system by tackling every single thing with their best skill even when it's a huge stretch to apply. Other players (often newbies) can be intimidated or frustrated by having to roleplay to this extent and may say something like, "just tell me what to roll already." It's not going to work for everyone, but it's been a very successful approach for me.
I guess I'm saying that when I feel my method is working, I never run into the issue of someone making an arcana check without proficiency because they never try to. They approach problems in the way their character would, using their character's strengths and experiences.
Believe it or not, most teams are not teams of G I Joe style specialists. They are teams of people with similar training. And what any given person brings to the table is the sum of all their knowledge, formally trained or not. "Proficient" or not. Another example would be trivia games. One need not be an expert in a field to have knowledge in or of that field. Someone not an expert might be shunned or rejected off hand, but that does not mean they have a false answer.
Without proficiency, one knows less about the subject. This is reflected in the proficiency bonus.
I'm a little bit frustrated that I wrote all that and your response is that characters all have similar training. That's a very different D&D than what I've played. Perhaps proficiencies don't seem important when you're in games that don't make them important? If you think a wizard, a barbarian, and a bard would all approach the same problem in the same way then I can see why you might not find much value in my advice.
Fortunately D&D is flexible enough to be fun for many different groups. As long as we're having fun, we're all doing it right. I'll go ahead and bow out on that note.
As for grappling, I am only using that mechanic to illustrate the argument you are using for Medicine. Realistically, someone who is trained in grappling will have no issue grappling a person who is not trained, and there generally is not much contest involved, if any. And once a person is pinned, a person with no training in grappling has basically no hope of escaping the pin.
A grapple is just grabbing on to somebody. Everybody has a chance to break free from somebody grabbing their shirt or their arm (or whatever). Your example doesn't quite apply.
I guess grabbing an arm technically counts as grappling, but effective grappling involves far more than just grabbing an arm. Effective grappling involves immobilizing your opponent to a much greater degree than just not being able to swing their arms. Based on the rules for grappling, a grappled creature has their speed reduced to 0, and this indicates far more than just grabbing an arm. If an arm is just merely grabbed, you can still move and force your opponent that is holding onto you to move with you.
Grappling just reduces the target to speed 0. That's it. It doesn't do anything else. It doesn't cause damage (by itself) it doesn't knock a target prone, it doesn't cause the target to fight at disadvantage.
Yes, and grappling and immobilizing a person to have 0 speed is much more difficult than you claim it to be. Simply grabbing an arm is not going to reduce someone's speed to 0. Effective grappling and wrestling that immobilizes someone requires significant training to do properly, and it is definitely not a skill that anyone knows how to do. And just because someone knows martial arts does not mean they know how to grapple and wrestle either as it is a very specific type of technique.
I think you are overthinking =)
If I were to grab your shirt, your movement would be 0. If you knock my hand away, you have successfully broken the grapple and can move away.
And if the shirt simply rips? Is wearing a thin shirt part of the athletics skill now?
Or if the person isn't wearing a loose fitting, easily grabbed shirt over their armor? "Oh, just grab their shirt!" indeed....
What are you even talking about? Unless specifically stated, the rules don't allow breaking things in possession or being worn by another character.
Your second statement is bait.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
As for grappling, I am only using that mechanic to illustrate the argument you are using for Medicine. Realistically, someone who is trained in grappling will have no issue grappling a person who is not trained, and there generally is not much contest involved, if any. And once a person is pinned, a person with no training in grappling has basically no hope of escaping the pin.
A grapple is just grabbing on to somebody. Everybody has a chance to break free from somebody grabbing their shirt or their arm (or whatever). Your example doesn't quite apply.
I guess grabbing an arm technically counts as grappling, but effective grappling involves far more than just grabbing an arm. Effective grappling involves immobilizing your opponent to a much greater degree than just not being able to swing their arms. Based on the rules for grappling, a grappled creature has their speed reduced to 0, and this indicates far more than just grabbing an arm. If an arm is just merely grabbed, you can still move and force your opponent that is holding onto you to move with you.
Grappling just reduces the target to speed 0. That's it. It doesn't do anything else. It doesn't cause damage (by itself) it doesn't knock a target prone, it doesn't cause the target to fight at disadvantage.
Yes, and grappling and immobilizing a person to have 0 speed is much more difficult than you claim it to be. Simply grabbing an arm is not going to reduce someone's speed to 0. Effective grappling and wrestling that immobilizes someone requires significant training to do properly, and it is definitely not a skill that anyone knows how to do. And just because someone knows martial arts does not mean they know how to grapple and wrestle either as it is a very specific type of technique.
I think you are overthinking =)
If I were to grab your shirt, your movement would be 0. If you knock my hand away, you have successfully broken the grapple and can move away.
I am not overthinking. A person not trained in grapples (Athletics, Acrobatics, or taking the Grappler feat) will not be effective at grappling, just as a person without training in emergency care (or Medicine in this case) will not be effective at stabilizing patients. Grabbing my shirt is not going to reduce my movement to 0. That is not grappling. I can still pull you along when I move, and this will probably follow a contested Strength check à la tug of war, except the rope in this scenario would be my shirt.
My point that I am trying to highlight is that Athletics and Acrobatics are not skills that every person will know in real life, at least in regards to grappling. I am saying that Athletics and Acrobatics are not skills that every person will know, and saying that they are skills that everyone knows downplays the training and practice involving grapples. You are saying that Medicine is not a skill that every person will know, and saying that it is downplays the training and practice involved in diagnosing illness and stabilizing patients in critical condition.
I am drawing that juxtaposition to show the inconsistency in standards applied to different skills.
In regards to the OP, while I agree with the decision (the character does not discover the magic item's properties), it is the method and reasoning to reach that decision that I disagree with (Arcana does not allow discovering magic item's properties; generally, the GM calls for rolls, not the player, although the DM can consider the player's request for a roll; RAW, when you call for a roll, the player's character does not need proficiency for them to roll).
For me, it is any of the mental-based skills really; particularly those which might be thought of as skills that require some mental training, rather than physical skills which everybody has some basic aptitude at.
Although see the Grappler feat which is a requirement to be able to PIN somebody that you are grappling. That is a more specialised form of training that most characters aren't able to do normally.
I would agree that most "adventurers" would have a basic understanding of magic, for sure. Thus my allowing the Rogue or Barbarian discern that the sword, for example, appears to be a magical weapon. However, if a magic wielding character rolls the same die (same total, counting bonus and such) they are likely to notice runes or symbols, which are usually part of XX magic. As one who works directly with magic, they might recognize symbols or runes, that to the melee folk, are fancy letters or swirls.
IMO, from either side of the table, it's fair for the DM to require a basis, or sensible reason a character might be able to get more detail about a magical item, under the same examination. To be as fair, when the Wizard examines the new battle axe the group finds, with a spear-like stub on the top, he would think this may generate it's effect when you poke your enemy with it. Melee characters would do the same check, determine it's magical, and notice it has a very balanced feel, or it seems to gain speed on it's own as it's swung.
Tracking, the Ranger could tell you that 3 Orcs, 2 Halflings and a Drow went East into the woods about 3 hours ago. The city Rogue, on the same roll, could say a group of at least 4 went into the woods thataway. If that same Rogue had a backstory, where he had lived in the wild for a time, he would likely earn more info. When I run a game, I feed the characters detail based on their roll + the viability of THAT character having a lot of knowledge or experience with the topic at hand. I try to always ensure the backstory helps or hinders them, when applicable.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
But would not that be punishing players with high Wisdom scores just because they did not take Medicine proficiency?
For example, if one character is a level 1 cleric with 10 Wis and proficiency in Medicine, but the other character is a level 1 wizard with 16 Wis and not proficient in Medicine, the wizard not being allowed to stabilize a dying teammate may feel kind of punished for not being allowed to save their teammate despite having better odds than the cleric. (If I did my math right, I believe clerics would have +2 Medicine and the wizard would have +3 Medicine.)
The decision to allow some but not all skills to operate that way seems kind of inconsistent and punishing. I would also disagree with Athletics and Acrobatics being an every person skill, at least in regards to grapples. Knowing how to grapple effectively and to get out of them, especially getting out of pins, takes rather specialized training in my opinion.
In my opinion, grappling in itself also requires training to do effectively, and it is definitely not something that people have basic aptitude with. I can grapple my friend for example, but he would just shrug it off like it is nothing without even using a lot of force. Grappling and pinning someone uses your body and the opponent's body as levers and fulcrums, but to be able to know how to use those levers and fulcrums takes quite a bit of training and further practice.
Swimming also is not something all people have basic aptitude with either. I am no Olympic swimmer, but swimming as an activity in itself comes pretty easily to me since I just naturally float, so as long as I just paddle towards one direction, I will get somewhere eventually. Whether my ability to swim is due to inborn instinct or because I took swimming classes when I was young, I am not too sure, but I do know that at least floating is instinctive for me now. However, I cannot say that swimming is the same for all my friends and just the act of floating is not easy for some of them, as some of them need to expend energy to maintain buoyancy.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
The choices I make at my table are absolutely without a doubt 100% ARBITRARY and up to me. I will bend, break, make up stuff whole cloth as long I feel it is doing right by my campaign and my players.
Regarding grappling, it is a contested roll. That means, somebody without training can have a chance to get free of it. Their chances go up if they are very bendy or strong. Just like the person with training has a higher chance to keep somebody locked up.
No, I don't feel I'm punishing my players when I tell them they need Medicine skill to save somebody. They know that they will need either med kits or skill to do it. (or magic) Buying skills is not a thing in your game? Again, No. somebody who is wise can be dumb as rocks when it comes to "helping" somebody in a medical condition.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I am not saying you cannot override RAW and make up stuff, I do that too, but when I override RAW, I usually do it in favor of the players, like letting them find out a property of a magic item to make it easier for them to deduce what the item might be, so they can attune to it immediately with a short rest if they think the risk of it being cursed is slim.
As for grappling, I am only using that mechanic to illustrate the argument you are using for Medicine. Realistically, someone who is trained in grappling will have no issue grappling a person who is not trained, and there generally is not much contest involved, if any. And once a person is pinned, a person with no training in grappling has basically no hope of escaping the pin. For example, if my friend lets me pin him and tells me exactly where to put my limbs and where to shift my weight, even if he is stronger than me, it is very difficult for him to get out of it, as the force required to overcome the advantage in leverage I have is massive. If he lets me do a chokehold and I am positioning my arms properly and have his arms pinned, he does not stand a chance of escaping, even if I am nowhere as strong as him. Without specific instruction though, my pins and chokeholds are often times pathetic, so he would have no issue overcoming the small leverage I have with imperfect technique.
Obviously, you can absolutely follow RAW and say that grappling is an every person type of ability, and that people without proficiency in Athletics and Acrobatics can still contest it. It is just a bit jarring to me to downplay the training and practice involved with physical abilities compared to mental ones.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Think of how silly grapple would be if grapples only affected the entire party at once, and only one of the PCs had to succeed in their check to break it.
That's how knowledge works. Letting everyone roll is just throwing dice at the problem. It doesn't reward an individual PC's investment in that proficiency.
Now if the rogue wants to know if he saw one of these down by the docks? Sure, he can roll for that - but it's not an arcana check. I think there's some conflation here - it's not the problem that dictates the skill required, it's the course of action taken by the characters. Different character can and should approach problems and obstacles differently based on their training and expertise.
The rogue would be making something like a memory check. Now maybe you decide a memory check is 1d20+INT mod, which is mechanically the same roll as an arcana check would be, but it's still an important distinction for two reasons: you can't make use of features that enhance arcana checks, and you don't just randomly appear by virtue of the dice to have more arcane knowledge than the wizard or artificer that considers that their domain.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Grappling, taking a test, eating a poisoned berry, etc. only involves one PC affected (unless the PCs are grappling each other or something). If a dragon asks the party a question, I do not think it is unreasonable to allow the whole party to roll. If the dragon is asking only one person and testing only that person, then obviously it would be just that one player to roll.
Players who take the relevant proficiency is already more likely to succeed anyways, but if a person just wants to be smarter in general and be better prepared for situations like answering Jeopardy questions, raising their Int rather than taking the Skilled Feat seems more appropriate in my opinion.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
So ultimately, what is the point of this check? Allowing 4+ rolls to meet a DC is practically a guaranteed success unless you raise the DC super high. What is this bringing to the game?
If I intend the PCs to succeed, I'm just not going to require a check at all. It's just a silly pretense that slows down the game. Same thing if I intend them to fail.
If I intend to challenge them, well I'd argue that giving them effectively super-double-secret advantage on the roll isn't really doing that. I think it would be much more interesting if, for example the dragon asked a question of each character, giving each player the chance to choose how they confront the situation and have some time in the spotlight.
Unless we're talking very high levels, the variance provided by proficiency/mods is relatively low compared to the variance created by 1d20. A significant amount of the time, a completely untrained character will beat a character that intentionally specialized and maybe even built their character concept around being good at this thing. How does that enhance the game?
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I want to take a second to point out that we have suggested rules for handling group efforts and neither of them are "let everyone roll and see what sticks." There's teamwork, which entails a main player being assisted by others, granting them Advantage, and there's Group Checks where everyone rolls against the same DC and if half the group succeeds, they succeed, if not they fail.
I see the first one as an organized effort and the second one is what happens when the entire table starts talking at once and trying to all do it at the same time. If they don't work together, they might just interfere with each other and make the whole enterprise fail.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I think having everyone roll and participate makes everyone feel more included. I do not think it slows down the game compared to only letting one person roll, since everyone is doing it at the same time. It also better reflects that having two heads is better than one.
I do agree that asking each character consecutively is also nice to shine a spotlight on each of them.
As for the proficiency and the base modifier, only allowing proficient characters to roll effectively devalues the regular modifier to 0, and that makes increasing ASIs for non combat purposes much less attractive. And for combat, taking a feat often times already feel a lot better than taking ASIs, especially in the early levels when a feat like Martial Adept and Magic Initiate open up so much more flexibility. I just do not want to have players feel like choosing ASIs is a handicap.
That is true. Granting advantage is also better since you are still rolling two dice, but you roll with the character with the better modifier. However, somethings can only be done by a single individual at a time, and letting everyone roll at once can reflect that each person attempted to do it in succession. I want players to feel included and contributing. Even if they are not physically rolling the dice, at least they still know they are doing something by assisting and granting advantage to a teammate, rather than just sit back and do nothing.
As for group checks I have not thought of a scenario to use that very often, and most challenges I can think of involves stuff that the entire party can attempt at once or in quick succession one after another. For example, in the Lord of the Rings movie where the fellowship tried to figure out the riddle to enter Moria, some of them were bouncing ideas off of each other, and I would simulate that with everyone rolling a dice, or have one or multiple pairs of characters to roll for advantage.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
A grapple is just grabbing on to somebody. Everybody has a chance to break free from somebody grabbing their shirt or their arm (or whatever). Your example doesn't quite apply.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I guess grabbing an arm technically counts as grappling, but effective grappling involves far more than just grabbing an arm. Effective grappling involves immobilizing your opponent to a much greater degree than just not being able to swing their arms. Based on the rules for grappling, a grappled creature has their speed reduced to 0, and this indicates far more than just grabbing an arm. If an arm is just merely grabbed, you can still move and force your opponent that is holding onto you to move with you.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Grappling just reduces the target to speed 0. That's it. It doesn't do anything else. It doesn't cause damage (by itself) it doesn't knock a target prone, it doesn't cause the target to fight at disadvantage.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
What I'm getting at is that the benefit of gathering a group together is that they see the same problem from different sides and bring their own strengths to the table to tackle it.
If the problem is "what does this magic item do?" A rogue untrained in arcana would not immediately come to the table with a solution based on some understanding of arcane knowledge they happened to know. That's not what the rogue brings to the table. Maybe they've seen something similar being smuggled. Maybe they've attacked someone wearing something similar. Either of those could be checks to determine familiarity but they are not arcana checks.
Again, a skill check shouldn't represent a problem - as in "everyone make an arcana check to learn about this thing."
A skill check is a solution - as in "I call upon my training/studies/experience in X to recall if I know about this thing."
X should be different things for different characters. The DM describes a problem > the player comes up with a way to address the problem > the DM decides what kind of check best represents that action, if any is required.
This makes the player think about how their character would see the situation and how they would react to it. They can roleplay the approach and the results. I feel this is a much more engaging style of roleplay than everyone rolling X check and then figuring out how to explain the results.
I realize though this can be taxing on the DM as they need to decide what kind of check applies to things like "might I have smuggled this at some point?", and certain types of players may try to game the system by tackling every single thing with their best skill even when it's a huge stretch to apply. Other players (often newbies) can be intimidated or frustrated by having to roleplay to this extent and may say something like, "just tell me what to roll already." It's not going to work for everyone, but it's been a very successful approach for me.
I guess I'm saying that when I feel my method is working, I never run into the issue of someone making an arcana check without proficiency because they never try to. They approach problems in the way their character would, using their character's strengths and experiences.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Yes, and grappling and immobilizing a person to have 0 speed is much more difficult than you claim it to be. Simply grabbing an arm is not going to reduce someone's speed to 0. Effective grappling and wrestling that immobilizes someone requires significant training to do properly, and it is definitely not a skill that anyone knows how to do. And just because someone knows martial arts does not mean they know how to grapple and wrestle either as it is a very specific type of technique.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
I think you are overthinking =)
If I were to grab your shirt, your movement would be 0. If you knock my hand away, you have successfully broken the grapple and can move away.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Can we just say that D&D combat mechanics aren't really suited or meant for portraying the nuances of realistic combat and leave it at that?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I'm a little bit frustrated that I wrote all that and your response is that characters all have similar training. That's a very different D&D than what I've played. Perhaps proficiencies don't seem important when you're in games that don't make them important? If you think a wizard, a barbarian, and a bard would all approach the same problem in the same way then I can see why you might not find much value in my advice.
Fortunately D&D is flexible enough to be fun for many different groups. As long as we're having fun, we're all doing it right. I'll go ahead and bow out on that note.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
What are you even talking about? Unless specifically stated, the rules don't allow breaking things in possession or being worn by another character.
Your second statement is bait.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I am not overthinking. A person not trained in grapples (Athletics, Acrobatics, or taking the Grappler feat) will not be effective at grappling, just as a person without training in emergency care (or Medicine in this case) will not be effective at stabilizing patients. Grabbing my shirt is not going to reduce my movement to 0. That is not grappling. I can still pull you along when I move, and this will probably follow a contested Strength check à la tug of war, except the rope in this scenario would be my shirt.
My point that I am trying to highlight is that Athletics and Acrobatics are not skills that every person will know in real life, at least in regards to grappling. I am saying that Athletics and Acrobatics are not skills that every person will know, and saying that they are skills that everyone knows downplays the training and practice involving grapples. You are saying that Medicine is not a skill that every person will know, and saying that it is downplays the training and practice involved in diagnosing illness and stabilizing patients in critical condition.
I am drawing that juxtaposition to show the inconsistency in standards applied to different skills.
In regards to the OP, while I agree with the decision (the character does not discover the magic item's properties), it is the method and reasoning to reach that decision that I disagree with (Arcana does not allow discovering magic item's properties; generally, the GM calls for rolls, not the player, although the DM can consider the player's request for a roll; RAW, when you call for a roll, the player's character does not need proficiency for them to roll).
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >