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

[Imaro]

I find myself in agreement with [MENTION=3887]Mallus[/MENTION]... context is really key. In certain campaign settings, or in certain situations I could see this... or at least see the character believing his use of the medicine skill is a miracle (Perhaps mechanically he has the skill but background wise has never actually been trained in it)... I mean how would he know one way or the other whether it was a miracle, luck or his own knowledge that healed the person?

 

[Sadras]

These systems' conflict resolution are extremely similar from a GMing ethos perspective and a play procedure perspective. They are both fiction-first.

I'm not following, how is this not fiction-first in 5e?

They're both about dramatic resolution of thematic stakes.

How is this not about dramatic resolution of thematic stakes in 5e?

The only thing that is different is the machinery of the conflict resolution.

Sure.

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.

I'm not sure how this any different in 5e?

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.

I'm not following where this philosophy deviates from 5e?

Or it might happen with Religion (a direct invocation to the god for intercession).

Again where is the deviation from 5e?

There are a lot of possibilities.

This sounds like DM Fiat.

We'd set the stakes, frame the scene, grab the dice and find out what happens.

Still not seeing a difference between 4e and 5e. The only reason there are stakes in this 'prayer' is that the PC who is asking for the Miracle is requesting he take on the victims pain/burden. Are you saying in 5e, PCs cannot perform such a prayer?

After a thorough examination, I'm convinced that the GM's job in 5e noncombat action resolution is extremely "fiatish."

Given your words above 'there are a lot of possibilities' I'm inclined to think the same of 4e.

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)

I'm not understanding you here, miracles such as the one in @pemerton's example are common place under the skill system in 4e?

What is the difficulty of the task (a process-sim evaluation)

5e has guidelines on the difficulty of tasks similar to 4e. Does one not set a difficulty for a task in 4e?

What exactly is the impromptu established "win/loss condition (mechanically)"

I'm guessing we already know what the 'win' condition is. as for the 'loss condition' it depends on the plea of the prayer and to whom they were praying to I guess. Where is the stakes auto given by the rules in 4e.

What is going to be the machinery of resolution itself (eg one check, stepped checks, contest, fail-forward, etc)

How does one determine in 4e whether it be one check, stepped checks, contest, fail-forward? It is prescribed/mandatory? If a 4e DM chooses one over the other are they wrong? My point is, if the DM is not wrong and things are not mandatory, then I guess DM fiat is acceptable in 4e as it is in 5e so I see no difference.
Once again I am asking here, as I'm unsure.

What am I now obliged (if anything) to incorporate into the fiction?

Are you obliged in 4e to incorporate "whatever" into the fiction? How? I'm not following you here.

Procedurally in 5e, what exactly is the process-sim basis for the Medicine DC with respect to the appeal to the god in question?

So in 4e whatever the equivalent 'Medicine' skill is, which 4e book defines the process-sim with respect to the appeal to the god in question?

The gravity of the wound or debilitation?

What do you mean by this, is this an isolated phenomenon in 5e?

The victim's or responder's piety or ties to the god?

In this question not important in 4e? How do you explain its unimportance in 4e?

Do we mash that together?

Mash what exactly?

What is the win/loss condition?

Surely one will recognise the win condition. As for the loss condition I point you to my questions above.

Success on one check...two checks...three checks (without a failure in between?) and the fiction is closed out?

What do you mean closed out? Does the fiction carry on in 4e? For how long does this fiction carry on in game time? Please define the fiction that carries on?

What if they fail?

I guess when you pray for a miracle and nothing happens you have your answer. How is this different to 4e? What happens if you fail in 4e when appealing to a god? If you roll and miss in combat does something always happen?

There is strict advice to fail-forward in 5e. But when?

When does one fail forward in 4e? Is it mandatory for every skill check or only when one does miracles?

How much?

Is there a limit in 4e, when too much fail forwarding is too much? Is there ever too little fail-forwarding in 4e and how does one measure that? With regards to miracles what do the 4e books recommend for minimum and maximum for fail-forwards?

I'm confused. If this was a skill challenge, I failed it.

 

[jayoungr]

How about "Yes, you can have the miracle, but as a result, you now have to take at least one level of cleric"? Or maybe one of your previous levels is retroactively swapped for cleric.

(Haven't had time to read the whole thread, so apologies if this has been suggested already.)

 

[Aenghus]

Injured but dying PCs can be stabilised by a healing check in some versions of D&D and automaticallyt in others. Dying NPCs often involve DM fiat in and of themselves,as there iare few ways by the rules for someone to issue a dying declaration and then expire, due to the coarse nature of the hp mechanic. (disease track, wounding weapons, bleeding house rules, and as I said before DM fiat).

So saving a dying NPC often means interacting with DM fiat even before any resolution is attempted. I have a number of times told my players not to waste limited resources on a dying NPC there to deliver a plot point before passing away. If they really really want to we may be able to work something out.

In relation to the OP's original question, on one hand I do prefer to preserve niche protection so would avoid creating precedents for skill checks resulting in a miracle. D&D gods in my settings are relatively interventionist so the potential for divine intervention of some sort exists, though it may not be overt, and it may require an implicit or negotiated bargain.

 

[Manbearcat]

Lots of

I'm not following

and

I'm confused. If this was a skill challenge, I failed it.

I hope you don't mind, but can we do this piecemeal? I don't have time to post something lengthy and that never seems to do the trick anyway. Let us start by focusing on one specific component part, its differences, and the first order impact of those differences.

Subjective difficulty versus objective difficulty in action resolution

D&D 4e, 13th Age, Dungeon World are all systems built around subjective difficulty. This means that the numerical opposition that the player characters' face scales directly with them and/or is not premised upon an effort to model fantasy world physics. It is not concerned with process simulation or internal consistency of world physics. That is the job of the GM and players to appropriately "skin" the fiction around the outcome-based chassis (and the maths that underpin it). Coupled with other system components and GMing techniques, what it is meant to do is facilitate the consistent generation of dramatic consequences when the action resolution mechanics are consulted to "find out what happens." This is its primary concern; genre fidelity and consistent drama/climax. Not internal consistency of fantasy world physics.

So in Dungeon World, the Basic Resolution Mechanic is always going to be the same and in 13th Age/4e, you're going to have DCs that scale with PC progression.

Alternatively, 5e (and lots of other swell systems) is a system built around objective difficulty. This means that the numerical opposition that the player characters' face is premised upon an effort to model fantasy world physics. The math of the system is mostly, or wholly, indifferent to the concern of consistent dramatic outcomes when the resolution mechanics are consulted. What the system is interested in, first and foremost, is accurately portraying an internally consistent fantasy world and the "natural/organic" outcomes that are derived from interacting with such a place. Stepping back further, the impetus for that design ethos is actually to (a) serve "verisimilitude" for a segment of the D&D/TTRPG fanbase and (b) serve the mental framework for a segment of the D&D/TTRPG fanbase who feels better equipped to make action declarations for their PCs when process simulation underwrites the outcomes of the system.

So in 5e, your job is not to consider dramatic outcomes/momentum. Your job as GM is to consider the actual difficulty of a specific task within the gameworld (the effort to model fantasy world physics - process-sim), and derive an objective difficulty class number (which henceforth becomes an established, unchanging fact about the gameworld) for the PC to attempt to best when resolving their action.

---

Maybe we could talk about that (agree, disagree, clarify, etc) and then delve deeper? Thanks in advance.

 

[iserith]

What is the basis for the conclusion made about 5e in your post above? What sections of the rules back this up?

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

What is the basis for the conclusion made about 5e in your post above? What sections of the rules back this up?

"How to Play" on page 6 of the PHB.

Chapters 7 and 8 of the PHB (no, seriously, the entirety of those two chapters) on pages 173-198

And those are to begin with. There's more in the DMG, but that will take some time to dig out all of the page references.

 

[iserith]

"How to Play" on page 6 of the PHB.

Chapters 7 and 8 of the PHB (no, seriously, the entirety of those two chapters) on pages 173-198

And those are to begin with. There's more in the DMG, but that will take some time to dig out all of the page references.

I see those chapters in an entirely different light that has nothing to do with process-sim, objective difficulty, or modeling the fantasy world physics. As I see it, the DM decides whether a player's action succeeds, fails, or has an uncertain outcome for which he sets a DC according to the player's approach and the context of the scene. I also see the goals of play listed on page 2 of the Basic Rules which are our priorities when adjudicating as DMs and making choices as players. That has everything to do with having a good time and creating an exciting, memorable story as a result of play.

So I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree with Manbearcat's assertions in this regard (and yours if you share them).

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

I see those chapters in an entirely different light that has nothing to do with process-sim, objective difficulty, or modeling the fantasy world physics. As I see it, the DM decides whether a player's action succeeds, fails, or has an uncertain outcome for which he sets a DC according to the player's approach and the context of the scene. I also see the goals of play listed on page 2 of the Basic Rules which are our priorities when adjudicating as DMs and making choices as players. That has everything to do with having a good time and creating an exciting, memorable story as a result of play.

So I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree with Manbearcat's assertions in this regard (and yours if you share them).

I have to agree with you and disagree with Manbearcat as well.

I think 5E is a mixture of objective and subjective; combat appears to be mostly objective difficulty, while skills are very definitely subjective. After all, nothing within the 5E wording actually says the difficulty must stay the same each time a player tries it. And due to the caps on bonuses to rolls, I can see how it would be that 5E's difficulties would easily scale with the players for much of the game without any changes to numbers.

 

[Bawylie]

I have to disagree - starting with your base assumptions. The system for resolving tasks doesn't dictate a style of play. In fact, system is largely irrelevant once you understand your role as a DM. What I'm doing is Identifying my players' goals, and then Putting Obstacles between them and their Goals. Everything else is bookkeeping.

Now, you may believe that D&D's bookkeeping is process-sim bc of "objective" DCs, but when it all gets down to it, the game system, whatever it is, doesn't mandate use. I, as DM, determine whether players' actions succeed or fail. Sometimes, when I am personally not clear as to the outcome of a proposed action, I turn to the game's task resolution system to generate an outcome for me. In other words, the system works for me. Simply because the target numbers used in the random outcome generator are integrated doesn't mean the game is pushing fantasy action. Simply because the target numbers used in the random outcome generator are derived from some expectation of difficulty doesn't mean they simulate a fantasy world physics. They just generate outcomes when given variables. A coin toss generates outcomes, and I could play any TTRPG with just a coin, but I like accounting for variables.

That said, I don't assume a fantasy physics world at all. Gravity, atoms, covalent bonds - cannot be said to apply. The world described in the books is a world where the elemental forces are Fire, air, water, etc, where Deities literally grant miracles to the faithful and can be slain by the blasphemous and mighty. In such a world, I'm not anywhere near ready to say "The mechanics simulate the inherent physical processes and interactions between bodies." They don't. All they've ever done, regardless of edition or game, is generate outcomes.

Once this becomes clear, you can run any system, any edition, and always produce an excellent game. Because the source of the excellence is independent from system - it's everything to do with conflict and uncertainty, with overcoming randomness and chaos to achieve something. The system and the rules serve me, I serve the players, and I serve them well.

Coming back around, then, yes - my players can pray for miracles. And yes, they may be granted, not simply because they rolled a nat 20, but because their characters, in selfless desperation, offer the sincere prayer that things turn out okay for the helpless or weak or needy, even if it means the players themselves are ruined. I'll grant that miracle in a heartbeat - no roll needed - it would just get in the way.