D&D 5E Can a PC perform a miracle with a stat/skill check?

[Riley37]

Lots of good responses here.

I happen to love the divine/arcane system in Bujold's novel "Curse of Chalion".

One approach is "I want this person to live. Pelor, please give me what I want."

Another approach is: "Pelor, if you want this person to live, then guide my hands as you see fit". And then you might try Medicine... and, if the DM decides that Pelor acts through you, the DC might change by a level. Or perhaps Pelor thinks it's time for that person to shuffle off the mortal coil, and acts through the PC to make that outcome certain. Pelor isn't in the business of preventing everyone from ever dying.

Or, possibly, Pelor might accept the PC's consent, and then guides the PC's hands, towards some other goal entirely, perhaps a goal which doesn't become clear that day, or that year, or not even in retrospect.

(If you know the Guidance cantrip, then mechanically, it's clear: +1d4 to stat check.)

 

[pemerton]

Can a player make a check to have his/her PC perform a miracle? No.

Can a player describe an action of trying to perform a miracle or ask for divine intervention? Yes.

Players don't get to ask to make checks. They describe what they want to do. The DM narrates the results, asking for a check if the action has - in the DM's eyes - an uncertain outcome.

I don't fully follow.

If the GM asks for a check, then isn't the player making a check to have his/her PC perform a miracle? The fact that s/he needed GM permission first seems a secondary thing.

If both the success and failure conditions could be interesting and the player's stated goal and approach has an uncertain outcome that could lead to adventure, let's roll some dice and see what happens!

I like rolling the dice to see what happens, but how does rolling the dice tell us what happens? Presumably the dice roll needs to be linked to a possible outcome - in this case, the possible outcome of a miracle occurring.

So it seems that you are saying in some contexts, yes, a player could make a check (WIS? boosted by Medicine?) to perform a miracle.

 

[pemerton]

Gods help those who help themselves, so yeah no. Make a medicine skill check

I take it from this that in your view that Medicine skill purely covers "mundane" healing.

Do you think that applies to all stat checks and skill bonuses in 5e - that they only cover mundane actions?

 

[Paraxis]

I take it from this that in your view that Medicine skill purely covers "mundane" healing.

Do you think that applies to all stat checks and skill bonuses in 5e - that they only cover mundane actions?

Yes, unless it is part of a spell or magical class ability, everything is mundane.

So for example you cast a bigby's forceful hand spell or dispel magic spell there are ability checks associated with those spells, so unless it is something like this all ability checks are mundane.

You don't make an arcana skill check as a fighter to mimic the finger wiggles and magic words the wizard or sorceror just did and expect anything to happen, that only happens after you take levels in the class that gives you spells.

Same thing with god calls, there is a class ability for that. You could be a 9th level cleric/11th level paladin super devout soldier of your god, you scream to the heavens for help and guess what, not a damn thing happens. If you are going to fail with all the supernatural help the deity already gives you, you are not worth his time, should have taken that 10th level in cleric to be able to ask for help.

 

[iserith]

I don't fully follow.

If the GM asks for a check, then isn't the player making a check to have his/her PC perform a miracle? The fact that s/he needed GM permission first seems a secondary thing.

There's a subtle but important difference here in my view. The dice aren't for the player to allow his or her character to do things. They're just a tool for the DM to resolve uncertainty so he or she can narrate a result of the adventurer's action. The DM may instead unilaterally decide there is no uncertainty and just say the gods do or do not answer the prayers, no roll. As a player, you want the DM to say you succeed, straight up. Getting to make a roll means you could fail.

I like rolling the dice to see what happens, but how does rolling the dice tell us what happens? Presumably the dice roll needs to be linked to a possible outcome - in this case, the possible outcome of a miracle occurring.

So it seems that you are saying in some contexts, yes, a player could make a check (WIS? boosted by Medicine?) to perform a miracle.

The dice tell us what happens after the DM sets the stakes of the roll. For example, the DM decides that the result of the fighter's prayer is uncertain. He or she might set the stakes as follows: On a success, the gods answer the fighter's prayers and the peasant is spared. On a failure, the gods answer the fighter's prayers, but demand a heavy price. Once the stakes are set and agreed upon, we roll. (Some DMs don't seek buy-in on the stakes before the roll, but I do.)

Given the near-infinite possibilities of fictional contexts that may arise in this game, the DM could ask for a Wisdom (Medicine) check to resolve uncertainty in the fighter's action, yes. Or it might be an Intelligence (Religion) check. Or a Charisma (Deception) check. Or...

 

[Manbearcat]

I was prompted to ask this question by a discussion in another thread.

In 5e, can a player make a check to have his/her PC perform a miracle. For instance, if a fighter comes across a villager who is injured and dying, is it a valid action declaration to say "I pray for the villager's life"?

If the answer is yes, what is the relevant stat? WIS? And what is the DC? And what skill (if any) would grant a proficiency bonus to the check?

I wish it were possible for me to compose a short response to this, but I just don't see how its possible because it is (for myself) not a noncomplex question. There are several issues at play. I think I've written 3ish (?) posts elsewhere on the odd duck that is the noncombat action resolution system of 5e. You might have read them (or not).

First, I'm going to briefly look at how, and why, this exact thing would work (and is actually meant to be a part of play) within 3 codified conflict resolution systems. Systems where GM fiat (specifically GM fiat that isn't transparently expressed within the system via an agenda/principles paradigm) isn't deeply embedded into the architecture of mechanical resolution or the actual, impromptu codification of the form of resolution itself.

---

Dogs in the Vineyard

This sort of stuff is precisely what play is about and the system pushes play toward these thematic trials. The play procedure for the conflict resolution is:

(a) establish what is at stake,
(b) set the stage for the conflict,
(c) you take up your dice (this one would either by Acuity + Heart or Body + Heart depending on the specific circumstances...then you determine applicable Relationship/Trait/Belongings dice),
(d) the GM plays the antagonism (perhaps the mortal wound and the victim's failing body...perhaps the person's loss of will to live...perhaps a demon trying to claim the life and then the soul of the victim in question) and takes up relevant dice,
(e) you take turns Seeing and Raising until the win/loss condition is met (very roughly, its much more complex than that including Giving early and Escalating)

The fiction and its fallout is spat out of this process. The GM's job is to play the antagonism to the hilt, effectively narrate the dramatic ebb and flow of the conflict as it unwinds and then concludes, resolve the stakes (based on the former), frame the follow-up conflicts. And Fallout is handled.

Sounds pretty familiar, right? Depending on what the antagonism was (a would-be mortal wound or a demon) + the relationship of the Dog to the mortally wounded (plus other fictional variables that we can't know because we aren't playing!), the fiction would change dramatically based on (1) the ebb and flow of the conflict during play procedures and (2) the ultimate resolution of the conflict's stakes.

But rituals, ceremonies, miracles, gun-fights, confronting the sins of the mortal soul and possibly the hidden supernatural behind them....that is what the game is about and the thematics, the GMing ethos, and the system's mechanics push play toward it.

---

Dungeon World and D&D 4e

These systems' conflict resolution are extremely similar from a GMing ethos perspective and a play procedure perspective. They are both fiction-first. They're both about dramatic resolution of thematic stakes. The only thing that is different is the machinery of the conflict resolution. Machinery-wise, what they do share though is (a) system-codified difficulty (the subjective DCs of the Skill Challenge framework and the Basic Resolution mechanic for all conflicts in DW) and (b) system-established win/loss conditions of the conflict and its stakes whereby the GM is obliged to incorporate into the fiction.

In 4e, in such a conflict as you've devised above, a player might appeal to whatever god to take on the physical suffering/burden of the victim. They may roll a primary Endurance or Con check for this and it might move things forward positively, set things back, or close out the scene (with a win or a loss). The same thing might occur in DW. Or it might happen with Religion (a direct invocation to the god for intercession). There are a lot of possibilities. We'd set the stakes, frame the scene, grab the dice and find out what happens.

They may not seem it to outsiders, but they're actually extremely similar to Dogs in all ways (save the finer subtleties of the machinery...which do have their own impact on play).

---

D&D 5e

After a thorough examination, I'm convinced that the GM's job in 5e noncombat action resolution is extremely "fiatish." I'm certain this was the intent of the designers. "Rulings not rules" is basically a rallying cry for heavy-handed GMing and a system that requires it.

Unlike the other systems above, the GM decides everything in a procedure something like this:

Can this even be tried (who knows - this is intentionally left to the table) >
What is the difficulty of the task (a process-sim evaluation) >
What exactly is the impromptu established "win/loss condition (mechanically)" >
What is going to be the machinery of resolution itself (eg one check, stepped checks, contest, fail-forward, etc) >
What am I now obliged (if anything) to incorporate into the fiction?

There are so many areas where the GM is expected to interpret, ad-lib through the system's fuzziness/lack of hard guidance and hard infrastructure, and make judgement calls.

Procedurally in 5e, what exactly is the process-sim basis for the Medicine DC with respect to the appeal to the god in question? The gravity of the wound or debilitation? The victim's or responder's piety or ties to the god? Do we mash that together? I don't have any clue and I certainly wouldn't want to be at the controls of that. GM fiat.

What is the win/loss condition? Success on one check...two checks...three checks (without a failure in between?) and the fiction is closed out? What if they fail? There is strict advice to fail-forward in 5e. But when? How much? When is the scene closed out and the stakes negatively resolved with a campaign loss? All GM fiat.

Further, as can be seen in this thread (and many, many others), there are all kinds of off-the-cuff play procedures that GM would be devising at the table in-situ to resolve this. And others that say flatly "no way dude...take that crap elsewhere." This is, of course, a feature for folks who want loose, open design which mandates heavy-handed GMing (as storyteller) as the glue.

TLDR; I don't have the slightest clue whether a Medicine check can be made for a miracle. I'm inclined towards "no" but lucky for me I don't have to make that decision!

EDIT - Accidentally cut/paste a paragraph into the wrong-subheading. Fixed.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

What a strange question. Other than the Cleric's ability to call on Divine Intervention, I see no mechanic for allowing this to fail/succeed other than for RP reasons.

 

[iserith]

D&D 5e

After a thorough examination, I'm convinced that the GM's job in 5e noncombat action resolution is extremely "fiatish." I'm certain this was the intent of the designers. "Rulings not rules" is basically a rallying cry for heavy-handed GMing and a system that requires it.

Unlike the other systems above, the GM decides everything in a procedure something like this:

Can this even be tried (who knows - this is intentionally left to the table) >
What is the difficulty of the task (a process-sim evaluation) >
What exactly is the impromptu established "win/loss condition (mechanically)" >
What is going to be the machinery of resolution itself (eg one check, stepped checks, contest, fail-forward, etc) >
What am I now obliged (if anything) to incorporate into the fiction?

There are so many areas where the GM is expected to interpret, ad-lib through the system's fuzziness/lack of hard guidance and hard infrastructure, and make judgement calls.

In 4e, in such a conflict as you've devised above, a player might appeal to whatever god to take on the physical suffering/burden of the victim. They may roll a primary Con check for this and it might move things forward positively, set things back, or close out the scene (with a win or a loss). The same thing might occur in DW. Or it might happen with Religion (a direct invocation to the god for intercession). There are a lot of possibilities. We'd set the stakes, frame the scene, grab the dice and find out what happens.

Procedurally in 5e, what exactly is the process-sim basis for the Medicine DC with respect to the appeal to the god in question? The gravity of the wound or debilitation? The victim's or responder's piety or ties to the god? Do we mash that together? I don't have any clue and I certainly wouldn't want to be at the controls of that. GM fiat.

What is the win/loss condition? Success on one check...two checks...three checks (without a failure in between?) and the fiction is closed out? What if they fail? There is strict advice to fail-forward in 5e. But when? How much? When is the scene closed out and the stakes negatively resolved with a campaign loss? All GM fiat.

Further, as can be seen in this thread (and many, many others), there are all kinds of off-the-cuff play procedures that GM would be devising at the table in-situ to resolve this. And others that say flatly "no way dude...take that crap elsewhere." This is, of course, a feature for folks who want loose, open design which mandates heavy-handed GMing (as storyteller) as the glue.

TLDR; I don't have the slightest clue whether a Medicine check can be made for a miracle. I'm inclined towards "no" but lucky for me I don't have to make that decision!

While I agree that D&D 5e relies a great deal on DM fiat (and I make no judgment here), I think the process of adjudication looks a little more like this:

1.) Will what the player described work? If "yes" or "no," narrate the results of the adventurer's action. If the outcome is uncertain, go to 2.

2.) Does what the player described have a meaningful and interesting consequence for both success and failure? If "no," narrate the results of the adventurer's action without a roll. If "yes," go to 3.

3.) Determine the DC and relevant ability check and tell the player what those are. Also tell them the consequences for success and failure (the stakes). Work with the player to adjust the DC, check, or stakes if there are any objections. Go to 4.

4.) Roll and see what happens, narrating the result of the adventurer's action accordingly. Go to 5.

5.) Describe the environment again in light of what has just happened and ask "What do you do?" After the player responds by describing what he or she wants to do, go back to 1.

 

[Sigbjorn_86]

In most settings, gods are remote. Only Paladins and Priests may ask for direct intervention. Mechanically this backed up by the system, since asking for prayers or guidance are either class features or divine spells. Considering that, I would not let any player make a prayer check for a miracle.

 

[pemerton]

What a strange question.

I don't see why the question is strange. In 4e, my players use Arcana checks to perform feats of magic, and Religion checks to pray for miracles, on a fairly regular basis. I was wondering what the general opinion is about the role of checks in 5e, and whether or not they are limited to "mundane" actions.

The general (though not universal) consensus seems to be that they are limited in this way.