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

[pemerton]

@Eric V

I agree with @Manbearcat. In 4e the "cheapest" cost would be some sort of tally against that level's treasure parcels.

Contra @Voadam, this isn't about the internal logic of the fiction.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It depends upon the game, but, principally, for two reasons:

Protagonism Undercutting - This character has to earn their deeds and the player's role in that is to play with bold, thematic aggression, allowing system and procedures to have their say, but working relentlessly within the machinery of that particular game's engine to wrest control of the trajectory of play from their foils (those foils are both "within the fiction" and whatever tendency system has to make their lives hard...or impossible). We (collectively as a unit of participants in this game) are both audience and vessel. Something like the above moves us too far into that latter (writer's room) category. If we're not careful, then we're just cosplaying out a preconception of "how it should be" or "how we hope it would be" rather than "holding on lightly", earning our wins, and enduring the visceral shock (and possibly delight or, upon reflection, admiration) of our losses and sacrifices.

Competitive Integrity - This is similar to the above, but its less about bearing witness to the evolution of character and experiencing the revelations that come with sincere play. This is about the gamestate; purely about playing a game and working to authentically move the gamestate from here to there (rinse/repeat) within the rules of the game engine. Trying to shirk the honestly earned, due consequences of game's procedures? Trying to get wins without the guts, guile, will, and skill that earns them? These are bad things in the vein of the utterly awful meme of "if you're not cheating...you're not trying" is.

Right, these are the core considerations. I think a Death's Door mechanic would potentially work pretty well in both cases. That is, in the first case I think we're all probably agreed on that. You get this one last 'move', if you want it take it, that gives the player a chance to continue RPing this particular protagonist and presents the character(s) with a situation in keeping with other parts of the game. This would work fine as a logical basis in any game that is played with high protagonism.

It also works in case 2, the 'low protagonism' case of more gamist competitive play. That's because, what is the alternative? You roll up a 'new guy' "Pog 2" or whatever and go right back into play after a bit ANYWAY. Original D&D actually states that a PC can have one 'Relative' that pops up and gets (probably with some tax, its a bit vague on that) their stuff at the next 'town break'. Well, why not just skin that as "Death drives a hard bargain, your magic sword crumbles to dust, and you wake up with 1 hit point at the end of the day's adventuring." I don't see how it particularly undermines classic troupe play dungeon crawl style competitive play in any appreciable sense. Heck, its just basically a reskinning of "go find the priest and pay for a Raise Dead" which was considered perfectly cromulent in the day.

 

[Hriston]

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?

I think this is something that can happen in D&D.

In 5E, I'd ask for a DC 20 Intelligence (Religion) check. On a success, an intermediary of the gods delivers the requested aid. On a failure, something else happens.

 

[Eric V]

It depends upon the game, but, principally, for two reasons:

Protagonism Undercutting - This character has to earn their deeds and the player's role in that is to play with bold, thematic aggression, allowing system and procedures to have their say, but working relentlessly within the machinery of that particular game's engine to wrest control of the trajectory of play from their foils (those foils are both "within the fiction" and whatever tendency system has to make their lives hard...or impossible). We (collectively as a unit of participants in this game) are both audience and vessel. Something like the above moves us too far into that latter (writer's room) category. If we're not careful, then we're just cosplaying out a preconception of "how it should be" or "how we hope it would be" rather than "holding on lightly", earning our wins, and enduring the visceral shock (and possibly delight or, upon reflection, admiration) of our losses and sacrifices.

Competitive Integrity - This is similar to the above, but its less about bearing witness to the evolution of character and experiencing the revelations that come with sincere play. This is about the gamestate; purely about playing a game and working to authentically move the gamestate from here to there (rinse/repeat) within the rules of the game engine. Trying to shirk the honestly earned, due consequences of game's procedures? Trying to get wins without the guts, guile, will, and skill that earns them? These are bad things in the vein of the utterly awful meme of "if you're not cheating...you're not trying" is.

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.

 

[the Jester]

Don't permit exploitative play.

The scenario in the OP is exploitative play. It's a fighter trying to use healing powers without investing the necessary resources.

I get that not everyone agrees with this take. That's fine. But that's absolutely how I see it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The scenario in the OP is exploitative play. It's a fighter trying to use healing powers without investing the necessary resources.

I get that not everyone agrees with this take. That's fine. But that's absolutely how I see it.

What is exploitative about it? I genuinely cannot see how it is so. Something is exploitative when it gains an unfair and undue advantage by leveraging existing but clearly not intended combinations of game mechanics. There is no combining nor leveraging here, and there is no special advantage being conferred: the Fighter is not "getting one over" on anyone else. The Fighter is not breaking the "spirit of the game," since the whole idea of TTRPGs (as opposed to computer RPGs) is that they make it possible to do almost anything, subject to human discretion, not blindly enforced code.

Like, for real, how is this any different from the Grey Mouser, a thief, being able to cast spells form time to time? This isn't some gleefully cackling player having her cake and eating it too unless you, as DM, make it so. So just...don't do that.

And it most certainly is not coercive (no player, be it regular or DM, is being pressured into doing or envisioning uncomfortable or unpleasant things against their will), nor is it abusive (no one is being harassed, ridiculed, or castigated.)

Where is the exploit?

 

[cbwjm]

This is where I'd like to use the convocation rules from Strongholds & Followers, adding in rules to heal or otherwise create a limited spell effect.

 

[Voadam]

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?

Contra @Voadam, this isn't about the internal logic of the fiction.

5e as a base gives the DM authority to resolve it however they want. With nothing, with a check for an effect, with a reaction from the prayer without a check.

The religion skill as a base is a loose connection to any non-lore effect. "Your Intelligence (Religion) check measures your ability to recall lore about deities, rites and prayers, religious hierarchies, holy symbols, and the practices of secret cults."

A DM could expand on that as a traditional base for a religious effect check, but that is purely a judgment call for a DM to make.

I would definitely start at the logic of the fiction. How are prayers handled in the world? If it is Eberron you don't expect prayers to be answered. If it is a 3.0 Deities and Demigods type base world where gods have omniscience in their areas you expect them to hear appropriate prayers, though a prayer to "the gods" will probably only get through to the ones thematically relevant to the situation in one way or another (death gods come to mind for the sparse details given). If it is a vague D&D polytheistic pantheon there is room for a DM to go different directions, but what effects happen can have implications for the cosmology.

Second I would go with what are interesting options that I think would be fun for the game. Simple and move on is definitely an option, as are deep character changing developments.

 

[the Jester]

What is exploitative about it? I genuinely cannot see how it is so. Something is exploitative when it gains an unfair and undue advantage by leveraging existing but clearly not intended combinations of game mechanics.

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.

...there is no special advantage being conferred

You don't see healing another character, something that fighters have no way to do in the game without investing in something that requires them to give up some other option, as a special advantage?

: the Fighter is not "getting one over" on anyone else. The Fighter is not breaking the "spirit of the game," since the whole idea of TTRPGs (as opposed to computer RPGs) is that they make it possible to do almost anything, subject to human discretion, not blindly enforced code.

Like, for real, how is this any different from the Grey Mouser, a thief, being able to cast spells form time to time?

The Grey Mouser isn't a D&D character, so it's a very poor example. But if you look at the translation of him in the 1e Deities and Demigods, he has three levels of magic-user. So there you go: he invested in the required mechanics to do the thing he wants to do.

Also, a 1e thief had the ability to use magic items restricted to other classes, so you have that, too.

Where is the exploit?

It's in the same place as a character who is all druid entering a barbarian rage, or a pc who is all sorcerer giving out bardic inspiration. It's in the same place as the wizard character using Action Surge to get two spells in a round.

The exploit is the character is healing without investing in the required mechanics to heal.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

You don't see healing another character, something that fighters have no way to do in the game without investing in something that requires them to give up some other option, as a special advantage?

The Grey Mouser isn't a D&D character, so it's a very poor example. But if you look at the translation of him in the 1e Deities and Demigods, he has three levels of magic-user. So there you go: he invested in the required mechanics to do the thing he wants to do.

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

Also, a 1e thief had the ability to use magic items restricted to other classes, so you have that, too.

Wasn't aware of that, though to be honest, doesn't really matter to me.

It's in the same place as a character who is all druid entering a barbarian rage,

What's wrong with that, assuming there are appropriate costs? Rage is dangerous even to Barbarians, who are experienced in its uses and limitations. A Druid tapping into something like that is liable to lose himself entirely, especially since it could play in rather nasty ways with his shape shifting abilities. (The "inner beast" may quickly become an outer beast.) That sounds like an incredibly risky act where even "success" is liable to have long-term deleterious consequences. If the player is willing to accept those risks (possibly up to and including irrevocable death or other loss of character), what is exploitative about it?

or a pc who is all sorcerer giving out bardic inspiration.

Characters can already hand out regular inspiration. I'm not sure I would let one precisely mimic that specific class feature, but the idea of doing something that grants a bonus to someone else's roll is as old as time. Why is it suddenly a horrendous affront now that Bardic Inspiration exists? Is it really so far beyond the pale to ask, "If I consume my highest-level spell slot and channel its powers into supporting our friend, could that give them a bonus to their roll? It's okay if there's risk involved, I'm willing to take that, this is too important."

It's in the same place as the wizard character using Action Surge to get two spells in a round.

(1) Not actually possible by 5e rules, which is ironic given your "well akshully" wrt the Grey Mouser. You cannot cast two regular spells in the same turn, period. You can only cast one regular spell and one cantrip. Not exactly game breaking, that. Unless, of course, the character is taking even further risks and costs to try to do that, too--which will mean an even higher threshold of required justification. Pulling off both of these things together should be insanely risky and, even if successful, permanently damaging. I'm quite willing to discuss the plausible costs this may have, but any character attempting even just the first part (Action Surge) is gonna walk away diminished in some form even if they succeed with flying colors.
(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. 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.

So...don't. Don't do that thing. Actually make costs, ones that you know will matter. Actually put in risks, ones that you know the player won't be able to minimax around.

The exploit is the character is healing without investing in the required mechanics to heal.

That's...not an exploit. 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?

Like I am genuinely utterly confused here. Why would you ever do this unwise and deleterious thing when you literally always could do the tiniest bit of effort and get a perfectly cromulent thing instead?