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

[Bawylie]

Yes, your skill, equipment, & training improve your chances of success, wherein those chances are less than 100%, and greater than 0%. In other words, when I choose to use the task resolution system to generate an outcome, then those variables are more favorable to the player. Still, the decision to use that system is mine - it isn't ordered by the game.

 

[Sadras]

@Bawylie how do you determine DC for skills? If you do not base it on in-game physics/fiction and you do not consider the power level of the PCs for skills that might not require a roll, what exactly do you actually use as a yard stick? Even if you design medium/hard tasks within your adventure - I'm guessing those medium/hard tasks make some sense with the world given their DC, they cant be that random.

I mean do you actually go:

Bawylie: You notice a trap
PC: I take out my thieves tools and attempt to remove the trap. What is the DC?
Bawylie: Hmmm, I think I want a 60% chance of success, give me a sec to work out some numbers here.

Sure enough a little later, the party come across the same type of trap.

PC: I take out my thieves tools and attempt to remove the trap. What is the DC?
Bawylie: Hmmm, I think I want a 75% chance of success, give me a sec to work out some numbers here.

 

[Bawylie]

Yuck. Well first off, my okay doesn't look like that. Once a player notices a trap, I describe it. How it works, what it will do. Then I ask what they do. I need to know what they want and how they go about achieving what they want. It's entirely possibly that how they do it means it will automatically succeed or fail. In any case, I employ my judgment as to whether or not their action seems easy, moderately hard, or hard to achieve. Sometimes, that criteria is based on the physical attempt itself (say, lifting a heavy portcullis). Sometimes it's situational, such as holding open a portcullis long enough for 8 people to get under it.

What I'm getting at is this - I don't design medium or hard tasks. I set obstacles in my players' paths. I assign DCs based on their goals and approaches to those obstacles. The obstacles themselves are inert - having no inherent difficulty. It's only the outcome of the interaction between the player and the obstacle that needs some resolution (and only if that outcome is uncertain).

The approach to the problem is my yardstick. Sometimes physical reality is a consideration - sometimes political reality - but the DC isn't inherent. Scaling a wall doesn't have a DC. Scaling a wall unharmed in 6 seconds while defenders rain arrows on you does. Talking to a nobleman has no difficultly. Convincing that nobleman to back your high risk venture without any real assurances does. And how you convince him affects that DC (bribes, intimidation, blackmail, charm, magical compulsion).

If I set a DC before I know what you're doing, I'm taking from you the ability to decide how you overcome a problem. and truly, your approach to any problem may have nothing to do at all with the relationship of bodies and forces.

 

[billd91]

I see no difference between the two editions in your examples, or am I blind?

You are not blind. The difference is more in the smoke and mirrors than anything else. The difference between an "objective" and "subjective" difficulty is in what the obstacle means to the PCs.

Objective, in this case, means that the door is the same regardless of the level of the PCs encountering it. It's a DC 20 task for them all, whether they're 1st level or 20th level. A steel bound oak door is a steel bound oak door. It may be a hard task for a low level character, easy task for high level character. The difficulty is based on the object of the task - the door.

Subjective, in this case, means the door is a hard task regardless of the PC's level. It may be oak at 1st level, adamantine at 20th level but the challenge represented is the same. It changes based on the subjects of the task - the PCs.

So what does mean about the differences between the games? Realistically, not much. Truth is, if people wanted challenges to keep up with the advancement of the PCs in any edition, they did so and will continue to do so. That's why the Tomb of Horrors has traps that are a lot more devious than The Village of Hommlet. The main difference is 4e offers a short cut way to achieve the level-appropriate difficulties by putting setting the DC first and doing a post hoc description of the challenge rather than constructing the challenge out of selected components.

None of the editions are truly entirely objective nor subjective in their tasks. 3e may have had plenty of skill tasks given objective DCs, but combat tasks tended to be subjective since encounter design guidelines suggested having about 50% of encounters have an equal EL for the party, yielding encounters that should be a subjectively similar level of challenge regardless of the PCs. 4e, while emphasizing the end result of the challenge selection process from a PC-subjective viewpoint, still has plenty of objective skill DCs sprinkled about.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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'm not sure I'd like that as a player, and I probably wouldn't personally do that in DM, in 4e, or any other D&D version.

For me, one of the big issues with that is: If any character can use a Religion check to pray for a miracle, why would they do anything else?

"Pray for a miracle" or "Perform a feat of magic" has a virtually unlimited possibility space. Presuming that this extends to things like being able to use Nature to supernaturally manipulate the natural world (cause plants to grow or whither, rivers to lower, skies to clear, remove toxins from a thing, etc.), and possibly other skills (can Insight read minds like a telepath? Can Persuade duplicate charm effects?), this makes selecting a skill largely a superfluous process. Every character just has one "Do Almost Anything" skill (whatever that skill might be), and can use it to do almost anything. The difference between saying "I roll Religion and pray for a miracle!" or "I roll Arcana and harness arcane forces!" is simply one of set dressing, without mechanical distinction. Mechanically, why not just say, "Here's your 1-20 chance to Do Whatever, roll the dice and tell me what you do?"

It also seems an odd fit for a skill system in a game with levels, where the suggestion is that one "gets better" at the skill as the modifier increases, and the sense that one "gets better" about wishing for miracles is a fairly counter-intuitive one. Miracles in narrative don't seem to conform to the idea that one can "fail to pray hard." It's simply a decision on the part of the miracle-granter.

I'd lastly worry a bit (but only a bit) about stealing the thunder of any actual divinely-inspired characters. If the party Druid is better at getting miracles from gods she doesn't even worship than my devout fighter just because she's got a better Wisdom and training in Religion, that's not going to be something I'm going to like.

Since I like my set dressing to have a mechanical effect that aligns with the story we're telling, these would not be results I'd struggle with when playing in or DMing with such a system. Which isn't to say that these are inevitable problems at every table, of course.

 

[Sunseeker]

I'm not sure I'd like that as a player, and I probably wouldn't personally do that in DM, in 4e, or any other D&D version.

For me, one of the big issues with that is: If any character can use a Religion check to pray for a miracle, why would they do anything else?

Well, tehnically speaking, in 4th at least, they did. The same stats that powered your skills were the same stats that powered your abilities. So shooting a magic missile with your int score is basically using your arcana skill to shoot magic missile. The difference between "paying for a miracle" or "doing magic" using your skills and using, in 4th's case, a power or spell is that the codified spell is, or can be thought of, praying for a specific miracle that your god has set out certain parameters for you to be able to achieve. Want to shoot a bolt of holy energy into your enemy's face? D20+stat vs enemy defenses. Want to bring your friend back from death? Well that's a little bit more subjective.

"Pray for a miracle" or "Perform a feat of magic" has a virtually unlimited possibility space. Presuming that this extends to things like being able to use Nature to supernaturally manipulate the natural world (cause plants to grow or whither, rivers to lower, skies to clear, remove toxins from a thing, etc.), and possibly other skills (can Insight read minds like a telepath? Can Persuade duplicate charm effects?), this makes selecting a skill largely a superfluous process. Every character just has one "Do Almost Anything" skill (whatever that skill might be), and can use it to do almost anything. The difference between saying "I roll Religion and pray for a miracle!" or "I roll Arcana and harness arcane forces!" is simply one of set dressing, without mechanical distinction. Mechanically, why not just say, "Here's your 1-20 chance to Do Whatever, roll the dice and tell me what you do?"

Sure, but that's a sign of bad DMing if a DM just lets you "do whatever" with "any skill". A good DM sets the bars on what you can, or cannot do with your skills and then tells you how high you have to jump in order to do what you want to do within those skills. I think that's great about 5th's somewhat less codified system. You really could do almost anything with your skills! Which I think allows players to get really creative with what they want to do and how they go about it because there isn't a pre-defined set of brackets limiting what you can do with them.

It also seems an odd fit for a skill system in a game with levels, where the suggestion is that one "gets better" at the skill as the modifier increases, and the sense that one "gets better" about wishing for miracles is a fairly counter-intuitive one. Miracles in narrative don't seem to conform to the idea that one can "fail to pray hard." It's simply a decision on the part of the miracle-granter.

I disagree completely. You can certainly "get better" at praying, just as you can "get better" at doing anything. While at the end of the day, yes, the final decision is more or less at the whimsy of your god, not all gods are capricious, two-faced jerkwads. Some of them have very clear likes and dislikes, clear foes, clear allies, clear wants and needs. For those gods, it's a relatively simple process to become more favored with the god. Kill their foes. Help their friends. Follow their rules and laws. It's basically been true since the dawn of religion that the more you do things your god likes, the more your god is willing to do for you. Now this isn't always represented by leveling up, but it can be, and if you're including such things as using your religion skill to pray for miracles, it is on the DM to enforce these sort of things that aren't explicitly written in the rules. Leveling up your character is just a representation of your skill in your chosen profession. A higher-level cleric should be more in touch with the will of his deity, but maybe not, maybe he hasn't taken the time to really get to know his deity and is just more adept at channeling the power his deity sets out for him. Once again, if the DM is allowing things like "use skills to make magic" the DM needs to take more into account for the DC of that miracle check than just class level.

I'd lastly worry a bit (but only a bit) about stealing the thunder of any actual divinely-inspired characters. If the party Druid is better at getting miracles from gods she doesn't even worship than my devout fighter just because she's got a better Wisdom and training in Religion, that's not going to be something I'm going to like.

I'd agree with this. Perhaps if the fighter is not the religious sort, he should try to convince the party druid to pray for the miracle instead. Perhaps because the druid worships a different god, that is who the druid must appease instead of whomever the fighter was planning on praying to. A really good diplomacy/persuasion check on the druid might make the druid willing to help.

Since I like my set dressing to have a mechanical effect that aligns with the story we're telling, these would not be results I'd struggle with when playing in or DMing with such a system. Which isn't to say that these are inevitable problems at every table, of course.

Well you're always welcome to play and run the way you want, though I do think a little creative thinking with skills goes a long way in this looser edition.

 

[chaochou]

If the answer is yes, what is the relevant stat?

Piety

And what is the DC?

(Pathos + Drama) * Significance / 5

And what skill (if any) would grant a proficiency bonus to the check?

Roleplaying

 

[keterys]

I see no difference between the two editions in your examples, or am I blind?

Correct! As [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] notes, it's in how you design the adventures.

But a DC 15 oak door in 5e stays DC 15 and a DC 15 oak door in 4e stays DC 15, no matter the level of the PCs.

Now, a level 1 adventure might have a DC 15 oak door and a level 20 adventure might have a DC 35 unobtainium door, but that's a different issue. How you get there is also a different question.

4e is also fairly likely to say "Honestly it doesn't matter what material it is, just describe what your character is doing and we'll roll with it", 5e is slightly likely to agree, and 3e not to agree at all. Various editions of D&D will refer you to the Complete Book of Doors omnibus to assemble a DC based on a variety of tables. It's just a process approach.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Roleplaying

Yeah, but do you let a character with a high Roleplaying score just roll the die, or do you make him roleplay it?

 

[pemerton]

If the DM thinks that the approach completes the task with certainty, then the DC is effectively less than zero. If the DM thinks that the approach does not complete the task with certainty, then the DC is effectively infinite. If the DM thinks that the approach may or may not complete the task, now it's time for a roll with a DC set according to his or her estimation of the difficulty of the player's approach relative to the task.

I think the question then becomes, on what basis ought the GM to form a view that an approach completes the task with certainty, or alternatively may or may not complete the task?

In a system like DitV, Dungeon World, Marvel Heroic RP or (as I play it, and as [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] has elaborated it upthread) 4e, the GM makes this decision by reference to considerations of genre and narrative pacing. These are so-called "subjective DCs".

In a system like Rolemaster or RuneQuest or 3E, the GM makes that decision based on his/her best understanding of the causal processes unfolding in the gameworld (which is what Manbearcat called "gameworld physics" or something similar). These are so-called "objective DCs". (The objectivity isn't a metagame property - the GM's decision may well be subjectively driven. The idea is that the DCs represent an "objective" gameworld which is an object of exploration by the players. Luke Crane explains this very well in his GMing advice for Burning Wheel - which is a slightly unusual mixture of "say yes" on genre/pacing grounds, but then "objective DCs" if the GM elects not to say yes. [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] seems to me to be advocating a similar approach upthread.)

I think 5e defaults to objective DCs - the GM works out if things work or not by imagining the ingame situation, not by thinking about the dramatic pacing of the situation (which exists at the table, but not in the gameworld).