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

[Paraxis]

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.

In 4e Arcana checks were called out as something you could do magical things with, like detect magic items, and in some skill challenges to manipulate magical energies.

In 5e Arcana is purely a lore/knowledge skill, it is never mentioned as being anything else, no examples of using it in any other way are given.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

I will say what I am about to say is probably not going to match what a lot of people would agree with on how to play it. This is just my personal preference as a DM, though.

I think it depends on character concept and roleplaying both what the miracle is and if they they can do it.

If the character is purely mundane, but produces miraculous results because they are simply that good at performing medicine and the character is built to support it? I'll allow it, but they better roll high to get those miracles.

If they are calling upon divine power, they need to roleplay out the miracle. If the player gets so in character that they are on their knees praying to the god in real life and they're being convincing about it (or at least good enough), they might get an automatic success. Otherwise, they roll and pray the gods are merciful.

 

[Mallus]

Further thoughts...

Context is important. If a player routinely wants to call for miracles, then there's a class or three for that. If it's a rare or one-time thing, fine, roll for it.

Making some sort of WIS check is the obvious choice. But how much fun is the obvious?

STR checks - the petitioner challenges a god or their agent/angel to a wrestling match for a miracle.

DEX check - petitioner dances for the god's favor. Alternately, angel dance off!

CON - holy drinking contest. Alternately, snake-handling.

INT - PC figures out super-secret name of God to get their attention and ask for boon.

CHA - petition for miracle takes the form of a pick-up line fit for a god/goddess.

Another mechanic: straight ability check, DC 25. Use the DMG variant rule for success with consequences, ie can miss by 2.

 

[SteveC]

This thread has pointed out some interesting different attitudes for GMing. I think it's a great example for how "rulings not rules" can make the game very different depending on the table it's run at.

I brought this up with a group of my friends who all GM and their responses were similarly different. One asked me "what's this guy trying to get away with?" That's my friend who runs by-the-books and groans when I'm running 13th Age and ask a player to create some part of the game.

I said that how I'd respond would really depend on what the gods were like in the game I was running (pretty much my reply to this thread).

The last GM said "man, what an opportunity! I'd love it if a player did that because it could change the tone of the whole campaign just like that."

In all honesty, the last guy is the best GM out of all of us, so it made me scratch my head and think about it.

So I'm going to change my answer: it's a player throwing you a plot-line for the game that can take it in many different ways. Does the character enter into a Devil's Bargain? Does it bring the attention of a god to the group? Or does it turn into something more sinister.

I just saw an episode of Supernatural where people come back from the dead but they're actually zombies who eventually go crazy in the hunger for human flesh. The episode is very emotional for one of the show's characters who lost someone.

All very good food for thought.

Ultimately, I think I'd go right back at the player and ask THEM what happens next.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'd be curious to get some 5e GM's thinking on this. I tried to lure folks into a conversation on a focused bit of action resolution regarding a classic genre trope; Tracking. I didn't get any takers.

1) The game expects GMs to set DCs in accordance with a process-simulation approach to the system's construction and play agenda; eg - the more difficult the task, the higher the DC. How in the world would you go about calibrating a Medicine DC for such an action declaration as "appeal to the gods for a miracle"?

2) The framework of the noncombat action resolution system is presented as some parts zoomed-in, granular task resolution and some parts zoomed-out, abstract conflict resolution (offering evidence it is supposed to somehow be both...at the same time...). The game does not mechanically codify a win/loss condition for any conflict like "tracking prey through the wilderness" or "appealing to the gods to save this dying man" (an absence of evidence for conflict resolution). Simultaneously, it offers very vague advice to use "fail forward" when interpreting results (offering evidence that the resolution mechanics support abstract conflict resolution...) ...without delineating "how", "why", or especially "when" and "when not". It doesn't speak to establishing dramatic stakes and players telegraphing intent and results of action declarations and resolution being tethered to this approach (offering evidence that we're to presume that every check is a simulation of a real world process rather than abstract conflict resolution...). It doesn't speak to GM obligations towards rendering the fiction as a campaign win or a campaign loss is cemented (of which the cementing procedure is not canvassed by the resolution mechanics).

Its awash in all manner of stuff that is at tension with one another, basically throwing the kitchen sink of varying resolution mechanics and techniques at you without any clearly intended assimilation into a coherent whole. And then insufficient "under the hood" advice or strong authorial voice on what plays nice with what and what doesn't play so nice.

So, procedurally, how are you going about resolving the "appeal to the gods/God to save the dying man" conflict from the outset of the stakes, to the setting of the scene, to the action declaration, to its resolution and fallout?

 

[Paraxis]

So, procedurally, how are you going about resolving the "appeal to the gods/God to save the dying man" conflict from the outset of the stakes, to the setting of the scene, to the action declaration, to its resolution and fallout?

For me it works like this.

Do I as a DM want this man to be saved, and if yes how much so? Does it fit the story I have told about his current condition that he could be saved with mundane use of medicine?
After all that I either say the only good mundane healing can do is ease his pain in his final moments, or ask for check and set a DC.
That is basically how I come up with the DC for any check. But if I wanted him to be saved miraculously I would have placed a scroll/staff/wand earlier or have a local priest raise the guy from the dead later.

 

[dd.stevenson]

If PCs can pray for miracles, I would expect them to do so on more than one occasion. So I would consider creating a house rule, rather than a ruling, to handle the situation.

HOUSE RULE: Thieves' World has some interesting rules for bestowing curses--I might look to them for inspiration.

RULING: If it was just a one off situation where it made sense in the fiction, I would probably propose that it has a flat 50% chance of working, and see how the rest of the table felt about that.

 

[Sunseeker]

The "skill" is just whatever the player is trying to do, in this case I'd say religion or possibly medicine(which I think are both WIS stats).

I'd allow it, and just set a fairly high check (like you must roll a nat 20 or something). I'd take a moment to take into account the player's alignment, their diety, their class, and their past actions in the game.

I like letting players get creative with what they want to do. But a player should be warned: the power of the gods is not to be trifled with, the results could be disastrous.

You could always offer a "red button" scenario, where the player has the choice to revive this person at the expense of some other, unnamed person somewhere in in time and space.

 

[Sadras]

In 4e Arcana checks were called out as something you could do magical things with, like detect magic items, and in some skill challenges to manipulate magical energies.

In 5e Arcana is purely a lore/knowledge skill, it is never mentioned as being anything else, no examples of using it in any other way are given.

You are 100% right in your interpretation, however depending on ones setting I suppose and how one interacts with magic, I can easily see some 4e-experienced DMs utilising the 5e Arcana skill to perform feats of magic. I for one am not opposed to the idea although once again like the 'calling for miracle'/religion skill, one has to be very careful not to 'step on the toes' of any magic spells by using Arcana in this way.

 

[iserith]

I'd be curious to get some 5e GM's thinking on this. I tried to lure folks into a conversation on a focused bit of action resolution regarding a classic genre trope; Tracking. I didn't get any takers.

1) The game expects GMs to set DCs in accordance with a process-simulation approach to the system's construction and play agenda; eg - the more difficult the task, the higher the DC. How in the world would you go about calibrating a Medicine DC for such an action declaration as "appeal to the gods for a miracle"?

2) The framework of the noncombat action resolution system is presented as some parts zoomed-in, granular task resolution and some parts zoomed-out, abstract conflict resolution (offering evidence it is supposed to somehow be both...at the same time...). The game does not mechanically codify a win/loss condition for any conflict like "tracking prey through the wilderness" or "appealing to the gods to save this dying man" (an absence of evidence for conflict resolution). Simultaneously, it offers very vague advice to use "fail forward" when interpreting results (offering evidence that the resolution mechanics support abstract conflict resolution...) ...without delineating "how", "why", or especially "when" and "when not". It doesn't speak to establishing dramatic stakes and players telegraphing intent and results of action declarations and resolution being tethered to this approach (offering evidence that we're to presume that every check is a simulation of a real world process rather than abstract conflict resolution...). It doesn't speak to GM obligations towards rendering the fiction as a campaign win or a campaign loss is cemented (of which the cementing procedure is not canvassed by the resolution mechanics).

Its awash in all manner of stuff that is at tension with one another, basically throwing the kitchen sink of varying resolution mechanics and techniques at you without any clearly intended assimilation into a coherent whole. And then insufficient "under the hood" advice or strong authorial voice on what plays nice with what and what doesn't play so nice.

So, procedurally, how are you going about resolving the "appeal to the gods/God to save the dying man" conflict from the outset of the stakes, to the setting of the scene, to the action declaration, to its resolution and fallout?

Super-simple:

First, the player has described what he wants to do. The DM is now tasked with narrating the result (How to Play, Basic Rules, page 3).

Next, the DM looks to the goals of play (Introduction, Basic Rules, page 2). Paraphrased, those are to have a good time and to create an exciting, memorable story as a result of play. Those are the "win conditions" of D&D. If the DM believes that having the miracle work will help achieve those goals, then the DM narrates success. If the DM believes that it will not help achieve those goals, then the DM narrates failure (or possibly progress combined with a setback). If the DM believes that there is uncertainty and a chance of failure and that either success or failure could help achieve the goals of play, then it goes to the task resolution system.

In that final case, where the DM decides that the result of an action is uncertain and has a chance of failure, the DM assigns an ability check and a DC and asks for a roll (Ability Checks, Basic Rules, page 58).