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

[Voadam]

The fact that various editions of D&D have explicit mechanical options to do specific magic things does not seem a strong argument for characters without such explicit mechanics to also do those magic things.

 

[Manbearcat]

So now a player who has chosen to play a class and resource based game which contains inherent archetype and niche protection as well as limited resources is considered "entitled" if they're not happy someone can walk all over that niche and disregard those resources with a skill roll?... that's an interesting take I

Imaro…it was just a joke…












…the Fighter Player’s DC to cast Fireball would be -874 and the entitled D&D Wizard player gets punted to the moon, not backhanded.

 

[pemerton]

The fact that various editions of D&D have explicit mechanical options to do specific magic things does not seem a strong argument for characters without such explicit mechanics to also do those magic things.

I don't normally see this argument put forward for fighting without weapons (qv monks) or for disarming (qv fighters, cavaliers and sub-classes in some early editions, and Battlemasters in 5e).

Those explicit mechanics create parameters within which a good GM will adjudicate improvised actions. But I don't see them as setting the limits on what is possible in the fiction.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't normally see this argument put forward for fighting without weapons (qv monks) or for disarming (qv fighters, cavaliers and sub-classes in some early editions, and Battlemasters in 5e).

Those explicit mechanics create parameters within which a good GM will adjudicate improvised actions. But I don't see them as setting the limits on what is possible in the fiction.

Indeed.

In fact, "you can't do that, mechanics exist for that somewhere else and you don't have those mechancis" is frequently lamented and/or mocked for being one of the pernicious plagues of "new school" DMing.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The fact that various editions of D&D have explicit mechanical options to do specific magic things does not seem a strong argument for characters without such explicit mechanics to also do those magic things.

Well, the question about fighter's fireballing (something they can do) was a gotcha, whataboutism anyways, however, you seem to be missing the point.

If a Battlemaster wanted to cast Fireball exactly like a wizard, and had no spell slots and no fireball spell known through some special ability, then I would say no. Because unlike Divine Magic where an entity in the story world would reach down and perform the miracle, Arcane magic needs to be taught and learned and studied.

However, there was a reasoning in my actually semi-serious answer. I'd let the Battlemaster with Arcana spend an hour long ritual, with a DC 15 or so Arcana check to spend multiple Hit Dice to cast fireball.

Because what is the narrative difference between a Fighter who at level 3 becomes an Eldritch Knight with Spell Slots because they have been studying magic and got good at it, and a Fighter who at level 3 becomes a Battle Master without spell slots because they have been studying magic and were not good at it? Arcane magic is explicitly a skill. Wizards are not born, they study.

So, the question isn't "is it possible for someone to cast fireball with just the knowledge of the spell formula" because that seems to be obvious, of course they can. The question is, what are the consequences and how long does it take?


Now, if they weren't proficient in Arcana? Then I'd tell them there was zero chance, just like if you handed me some Python code, Unreal Engine 3 and said to make a video game I'd tell you there is zero chance. That's all gibberish to me, I'm not a coder.

It isn't about resources when it comes to fighters creating spell effects, it is about narrative positioning. Amusingly, Primal Magic is the one I see least likely to work. Elemental and Bestial Spirits are far less likely than gods to be forgiving to someone stumbling over a ritual, and Arcane magic is explicitly just a honed skill.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Because what is the narrative difference between a Fighter who at level 3 becomes an Eldritch Knight with Spell Slots because they have been studying magic and got good at it, and a Fighter who at level 3 becomes a Battle Master without spell slots because they have been studying magic and were not good at it? Arcane magic is explicitly a skill. Wizards are not born, they study.

If you don't think that there is a difference, why you think Battle Master and Eldritch Knight are separate subclasses?

Yes, ability to cast arcane magic can be learned. Taking Eldritch Knight subclass represent learning it, taking Arcane skill does not.

Seriously, if you want your fighter to cast spells, there are several ways to get that feature. Some people are rather reasonably wary about allowing players to do things without spending character building resources that are meant to allow doing those things. It is perfectly fine to dislike game working that way, I remember disliking how in 3e there was a feat or feature for every bloody thing. But there are a lot of games that work in more freeform way, so if one dislikes the capabilities being tied to character building packages there are other options. I just feel it is not wise to terribly much fight against the design principles of the game.

 

[Voadam]

I don't normally see this argument put forward for fighting without weapons (qv monks) or for disarming (qv fighters, cavaliers and sub-classes in some early editions, and Battlemasters in 5e).

Most people do not argue that fighting without weapons is analogous to doing magic. Or that there is no explicit general D&D mechanic to cover it.

Most mundane things that you expect anyone to be able to do but there is a specific class (or feat or whatever) mechanic there is usually also a general mechanic in D&D.

AD&D had explicit rules for both general unarmed fighting without weapons and monk fighting. So did 3e. And 4e and 5e. I can't remember explicit ones in OD&D or Basic though.

3e disarming is a mechanic anyone can explicitly do. Feats make you significantly better at it. 5e disarming is something that battlemasters can do from a class ability but also the 5e DMG provides an optional general disarm maneuver using different mechanics.

 

[Voadam]

Because unlike Divine Magic where an entity in the story world would reach down and perform the miracle, Arcane magic needs to be taught and learned and studied.

Sorcerers who have inborn untaught magic that manifests have been a part of D&D for three editions now. Multiclassing into sorcerer later in life is an explicit mechanical option.

If you want a justification for doing on the spot spontaneous untrained arcane magic there are narrative reasons to do so.

 

[Staffan]

Well, the question about fighter's fireballing (something they can do) was a gotcha, whataboutism anyways, however, you seem to be missing the point.

If a Battlemaster wanted to cast Fireball exactly like a wizard, and had no spell slots and no fireball spell known through some special ability, then I would say no. Because unlike Divine Magic where an entity in the story world would reach down and perform the miracle, Arcane magic needs to be taught and learned and studied.

Divine magic also requires training, not just favor. That's why paladins get divine magic powers, and fighters get Cool Moves.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't normally see this argument put forward for fighting without weapons (qv monks) or for disarming (qv fighters, cavaliers and sub-classes in some early editions, and Battlemasters in 5e).

Those explicit mechanics create parameters within which a good GM will adjudicate improvised actions. But I don't see them as setting the limits on what is possible in the fiction.

Yeah, and I think, historically, D&D arrived at this weird "the rules set the limits on the world" kind of mentality quite a while back, but it was NOT AT ALL anything like how RPGs were first conceived of! I find the whole argument so bizarre!