D&D General What's the DC for a fighter to heal their ally with a prayer?

[hawkeyefan]

For the cost of 5 GP a fighter, or any other character, can do it 10 times.

HEALER’S KIT
This kit is a leather pouch containing bandages, salves, and splints. The kit has ten uses. As an action, you can expend one use of the kit to stabilize a creature that has 0 hit points, without needing to make a Wisdom (Medicine) check.

I feel like people are overstating the resources involved in this action.

 

[Voranzovin]

I think the implications of this are interesting, particularly in my world. Conventionally, gods have an inherent alignment, while humanoids have a very mutable one. I'm playing with inverting this: humanoids still have a mutable alignment, which is descriptive rather then prescriptive, but gods do not have a specific alignment--they have every alignment. Pelor is a god of light and agriculture, the embodiment of the nurturing rays of the sun. He's also the harsh god of the desert lands, who's cruel gaze roasts men alive. Beings so vast and unknowable cannot be bound to a morality comprehensible to mortals.

That's why Clerics engage in so much ritual and tradition, fixing their relationship to their god and their use of divine magic into patterns established in antiquity (such as "spells"): that's the only safe way to interact with the divine.

People don't pray for divine intercession like this, even in life-or-death situations. It's not because they don't think the gods will answer; it's because they're afraid they will.

If a PC actually tried to do this, I would happy grant their request with no roll--and then try to figure out how the consequences would get them into even deeper hot water.

 

[the Jester]

Then people should stop using literary characters as examples, no? Yet they do. Continuously.

And they are usually not really conducive to a discussion of D&D mechanics.

What's wrong with that, assuming there are appropriate costs?

Maybe ask your pc barbarian?

(1) Not actually possible by 5e rules, which is ironic given your "well akshully" wrt the Grey Mouser.

It is. The rule is that if you cast a spell as a bonus action, the only other spell you can cast on that turn is a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action. This has absolutely nothing to do with Action Surge.

This has been discussed ad infinitum both on the boards here and by the designers, so a little Googling should let you easily confirm this.

(2) As I have repeatedly said, you as DM have both the right and the responsibility to not give the player "I win" buttons. What justifies the Wizard doing this? Is it just out of the blue, simply because she would like to do it? Sorry, that's not enough. It might be cool for her, but it doesn't pass muster.

And how does the fighter healing the other pc pass muster? It's fundamentally the same issue.

Now, if she's channeling her own life force into accelerating herself, risking premature aging and debility in order to squeeze out every ounce of power because nothing short of that will stop Garox the Mutilator's ritual of soul binding? Then sure, she can attempt it. It will be costly no matter what. She may not survive it, and even if she does, she will likely be diminished as a result (perhaps a permanent loss of HP, HD, or one or more spell slots? Depends on context.) Again, I see no harm here if you as DM actually make it costly and the player accepts those costs. It is trivially obvious that if you just let people do whatever they wish with no costs, that you'll get crappy results...because that's true regardless of whether you let someone go "off character sheet" or not.

Or you can just, you know, play by the rules that say fighters can't heal others without investing in some mechanical element that allows it.

It really sounds like you're cool with any class tapping into pretty much any other class' abilities, with the possible exception of bardic inspiration. Sticking arbitrary costs on doing so doesn't justify it (to me- YMMV, obviously, and clearly does). What is the point of a class based system if it doesn't really matter what class you are, you can just do anything?

That's...not an exploit.

We clearly disagree, and strongly, on this. I not only see it as an exploit, I am honestly having trouble fathoming why you can't see that it is one.

It would only be an exploit if you make them pay no cost whatsoever for it. Why would you ever do that, when you could just...make there be a cost? Why would you ever consider allowing such a thing with zero risk, and you could just...have there be risks?

Why would you consider allowing such a thing period, when there is a clear way to accomplish the goal in the context of the game already? Arbitrary costs imposed or not, you are absolutely giving clever players a massive amount of stuff to exploit.

 

[OneRedRook]

The fighter's friend is hurt, even dying. The fighter prays to the gods to heal their friend. How is this action resolved? If it's a Religion or similar sort of check, what's the DC?

For this sort of stuff, where a character tries something they don't have the right mechanical build for (wrong class, missing feat, etc), my preference is to put at least part of the cost into the action economy rather than denying it outright. This isn't absolute - I'm not saying I'll let the barbarian cast Time Stop - but I lean towards letting them try something rather than not.

In this case, taking 2 rounds before the prayer can take effect feels like denial-by-bureaucracy, so it's one action for the prayer, after which the petitioner suffers the restrained condition until the end of their next turn (flavour how you will - mental anguish, struck by divine providence, etc; I'm open to horse-trading on the condition, but it has to last at least one more turn).

Ultimately this feels like it involves spending hit dice. I kind of want to let the petitioner stake as many hit dice as they want, but I should probably limit this per new 5e-style to a number of HD equal to their proficiency bonus.

Healing a hurt - The petitioner spends their HD and rolls a Religion check DC 18. On success, the target can spend as many of their own HD as the petitioner spent (but no more than they have currently) and rolls them to regain hit points up to their maximum. On a failure, the target spends no HD, and the petitioner suffers 1 level of exhaustion.

Staving off death - The petitioner spends their HD and rolls a Religion check DC23. Success is as above. On a failure, no hit points can be regained and the petitioner loses access to those HD until they next level up. I know technically 'dying' starts when a character hits 0 HP, but realistically I'm not invoking this until there's at least one failed death save on the table.

If the petitioner wants to offer a sacrifice as part of their prayer (wealth, or maybe a minor quest), that would translate to a bonus on the Religion roll. They're only on the hook if they succeed, though. All that said, "I'll promise you anything!" doesn't count, the gods want (juicy!) details.

The DCs will actually depend on the CR/Level of the target (in part representing the importance of that character to godly plans, fate, etc), but the ones above will hold for the most common levels 5e is played at.

It's possible that either the petitioner or the target (or both!) don't have enough hit dice to spend, in which case I'd offer the possibility that whoever was 'short' would be under some sort of holy ban until they had completed a yet-to-be-determined quest. If they accept, then we roll as above, if they don't then they can't.

Lastly, I know I'm essentially 'double-dipping' on hit dice spend above. I'm not sure how I feel about that; I might remove that requirement from the petitioner. In part, I'm trying to consider not just the fighter's case, but a cleric who's run out of spell slots, or a wizard who still has most of their HD, etc.

Edit: Having thought about this some more, it's clear I over-thought this. Most of the hit dice stuff is too much, it should just be: success means "target spends one HD for hit points" and failure means "petitioner spends one HD without effect" in each case

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I like this answer. It makes sense to me.

Just for argument's sake though...

Is this not an opportunity for the revived player (and the one who prayed!) for an extraordinary character turn, a massive development in the narrative of their story? Like, if we have the idea that this is cheating somehow, or that the player is getting one over on the DM, or whatever (not saying you did that @Manbearcat ), then fine. But what if you have a player, who for the integrity of her character, really runs with this. Maybe it has mechanical representation (becomes multi-class cleric, etc.) or maybe it's just a brand-new avenue for roleplaying, but...it could really work.

Do we as GMs ever trust our players enough with something like this? It's something common enough in backstories...but it seems as though as soon as one is actively telling one's story, such things become impossible.

Just questions, no offense meant.

My answer is that I think this is all excellent questions. The whole idea that GM's wouldn't 'trust players' and that there is even the possibility of 'cheating' in an RPG in this kind of sense is illuminating. That entire mentality, the idea that a GM is some sort of 'overseer' who directs and manages everything, or that there's some fundamental conflict of interest between the GM and player role as participants at the table is, IMHO, rooted in a very early and rather primitive conception of RPGs. I mean, I would have had the same concerns, maybe 30 years ago.

But as you point out, this sort of thing is a great opportunity for story telling and characterization in actuality. There are many fewer limits and more opportunities in this dimension when, instead of a GM trying to figure out how to insure that the players haven't found 'god mode' to his carefully curated game play, you have a bunch of players who make dramatically interesting moves intended to elucidate what happens when, for example, your friend is lying in a pool of blood on the floor and about to expire. You are thoroughly 'in the box' when your thinking on this is "well, he's got to die because its just all about consequences" or something like that, vs looking at it as just another situation in a game full of dramatic situations where the player's role is to portray their character and enact its will, and the GM's job is just to describe what happens and turn the levers on their part of the mechanical side of things, with the understanding that generating the drama is what 'drives the game forward'.

 

[pemerton]

I would define exploitative play as trying to do things in the game your character has no way to do mechanically, that there are ways to do mechanically, and that the character has passed on the chance to use, take, or adopt.

A character doesn't need to take the Jump spell to be able to jump, nor the Charm spell to be able to make friends (even with angry people not inclined to be friendly). I don't see why praying needs to be in a radically different category.

 

[pemerton]

I feel like people are overstating the resources involved in this action.

I think this is why @Manbearcat referred to it as a "nothingburger" in 5e terms. Upthread, I made a post setting out my way of thinking about it in 4e terms. (The thread is tagged D&D general, not 5e-specific.)

 

[pemerton]

@OneRedRook

To me, your DCs in combination with your HD costs look fairly high. But I'm no expert in relation to 5e, so maybe my impression is flawed.

I've got no quibble with your structure.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What is the point of a class based system if it doesn't really matter what class you are, you can just do anything?

You can't. Why are you assuming someone can? Why do you keep injecting a foolishly hyper-permissive DM into this?

Class still matters. Class provides guaranteed competence. There is no, or at least minimal, need for negotiation or justification; that's what class features do, they clearly define how they work without needing to haggle or risk or eat costs. Having momentary, one-off events of special note does not erase the consistent, reliable benefits provided by classes. If anything, it highlights how special it is to have those benefits: the Fighter can Action Surge several times a day with no harm whatsoever, while a Wizard risks her very life and livelihood even attempting it.

If we followed your philosophy, we'd never have gotten any other classes but Fighting-Man and Magic-User. Cleric and Thief specifically evolved out of players asking to do improvised things. And if you prefer a more diegetic explanation: How do you think the first Wizards learned their spells? There had to be a first person to attempt to do something without formal training.

We clearly disagree, and strongly, on this. I not only see it as an exploit, I am honestly having trouble fathoming why you can't see that it is one.

Gods providing divine aid is a classic trope; people turning in desperation to things they normally would not is a great story; the point of the rules of D&D (or any TTRPG) is to experience something interesting, while making difficult choices and leveraging resources available to you. An "exploit" is something which breaks the fundamental premises of a given game, leveraging the text of the rules against the spirit of play. Doing something not written in the rules, because the DM is supporting improvisation, by definition cannot be "an exploit." You may think that it is unwise to DM that way, that it trivializes challenges, but neither of those things is "an exploit." And, as I said, you keep assuming that this is opening up some horrific Pandora's box of infinite abuse, but you as DM always have the ability to not allow that to happen. If the players want to develop these abilities beyond one-off special events, they can invest in playing an appropriate class. Such (rare, special) moments of unusual behavior are in fact great justification for choosing to combine classes together: the Fighter taking a level of Cleric because they've found faith and been blessed, the Wizard taking a level of Fighter to toughen up because she wants to be stronger, the Sorcerer taking a level of Bard because he's realized he actually finds joy in raising others' spirits, etc.

Why would you consider allowing such a thing period, when there is a clear way to accomplish the goal in the context of the game already? Arbitrary costs imposed or not, you are absolutely giving clever players a massive amount of stuff to exploit.

Why? Because:
1. It builds toward interesting story. These are the moments that will stick with players for years after the fact. They are among the moments that define campaigns.
2. Risk, improvisation, and embracing complication should be encouraged. Slapping the player down with, "Welp, sucks to be you, guess you should've taken a level of Paladin or Cleric!" is at absolute best counterproductive.
3. Players, I find, are much more willing to consider new directions for their characters if they have a visceral understanding of what they'd be getting. These moments offer that directly, and do so in a way designed to serve the story.
4. As I said earlier in the thread: Why do you play with players you don't trust? If DMs are supposed to be given such unreserved, universal trust instantly without any restrictions, why is it that players should be treated as horrific untrustworthy villains, rubbing their hands with twisted glee as they prepare to destroy all that their poor, beleaguered, hapless, put-upon DMs try to do with their absolute power?

 

[pemerton]

If everyone, not only fighters, can hurt other people with weapons, why can't everyone, not only clerics, pray to the gods with some hope of being heard?

Conversely, if classes are really about protecting niches, then why do we let anyone without fighter levels engage in melee combat?