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

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'm not sure that's the more general proposition. For me, that's become specific in a way that misses the focus of what I'm trying to get at in this discussion.

To put the above back into the OP's original context, class A is 'fighter', enumerated ability B is (say) the 'Healing Word' spell, and class C is 'Cleric'. If the player of the fighter asks "Can I cast 'Healing Word'?", my answer is no, they can't; but that's not really how I view the topic here.

Ultimately, I'm not trying to allow character build options, etc, to be duplicated, I'm trying adjudicate actions declared by my players. And I will absolutely think about those actions within the context of existing mechanics, niche protection, and table fairness as you note below. I guess this point might seem like semantics, but if I'm not trying to duplicate a mechanic, but instead frame the next roll, that opens up scope of both success and failure outcomes.

I don't disagree with you; instead, I think that the issue is actually different than the one diagnosed. I had another take on it in this thread-

D&D 5E - Context Switching Paralysis, or Why we Will Always Have the Thief Debate

Among a certain group of people, there is a driven need to use a mocking term (we'll call it "MMI") to refer to playing D&D and other types of games. However, while the specific pejorative term may have been coined in 2005, the actual debate and the issues it illuminates goes back much farther...

www.enworld.org

For me, this is more of an interstitial issue. When a game is considered "complete" or "rule-bound" (everything must be done according to rule), the answer is trivial. That which is not permitted, is denied.

On the other hand, games that do not depend on rules have a different approach entirely. It's also a trivial issue.

The hard cases tend to be games that have a mix of rules and "not-rules" like D&D. Here, how do the enumerated rules constrain the not-rules? I don't think it's an issue about semantics at all- it's fundamental to games, like D&D (esp. 5e and TSR-era D&D) that tend to have both highly codified rules (combat, spells) and also a high allowance for not-rules or rulings.

The more rules you have, the more you have to consider the rules when you are making decisions about the not-rules.

 

[hawkeyefan]

A. As mentioned before, there is a difference between a passing familiarity with the rules of a game, and actually playing it. In 5e, for various reasons, and in almost all contexts,* there would never be a reason for a fighter to pray to stabilize. Because characters self-stabilize so easily (and a failure to do so takes so long), because actions are so precious (and it's almost always better to end the thread than to pray), and because there are so many different ways characters can stabilize without divine intervention, the actual hypothetical makes almost no sense in terms of 5e. There is no particular reason for this action to happen, there is no reason that a religion check (in RAW) would be used for divine intervention.

What if you had a new player who wasn't aware of all these rules yet and they were just trying to play the world?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

What if you had a new player who wasn't aware of all these rules yet and they were just trying to play the world?

Good question.

A new player in a group of completely new players that I was tasked with teaching 5e to?

Or a new player who was joining my on-going group?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Good question.

A new player in a group of completely new players that I was tasked with teaching 5e to?

Or a new player who was joining my on-going group?

Either! Or both, I suppose!

I'm genuinely curious. I get that existing rules can discourage innovation or creativity, and I've seen enough new players come up with an idea that my long time players never did often enough that I get the idea of what you're saying... so I'm curious how the rules can work that way for those who are unaware of them. Or maybe it's more that they're unaware of some of the implications of the rules that you mentioned.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Either! Or both, I suppose!

I'm genuinely curious. I get that existing rules can discourage innovation or creativity, and I've seen enough new players come up with an idea that my long time players never did often enough that I get the idea of what you're saying... so I'm curious how the rules can work that way for those who are unaware of them. Or maybe it's more that they're unaware of some of the implications of the rules that you mentioned.

Well, this requires me to write more .... I know, shocker.

D&D originally was supposed to have players declare their actions, vis-a-vis the rules, from behind the veil of ignorance (my apologies to Rawls for misappropriation). In other words, players were not supposed to know what the rules (if any) were. This was a constant theme from the LBBs through and including Gygax's admonition in the DMG that only DMs were allowed to read it.

Of course, this was rarely (if ever) followed in practice, and in a game as rule-bound as D&D (and certainly AD&D) is, it is difficult to imagine many table with that fictional idea of player ignorance continuing. This idea was so ... idiotic ... that it was already being mocked in Dragon #10 (1977), which included random monsters because players knew all the rules and with random monsters, "No rules cover it, so {the Players} have to find out the hard way what {the monster} is like."

As a general concept, players in D&D ... like to learn the rules. Not all of them. Not all of the time. But generally.

So this really comes down to ... what are you trying to do with the new player? Are you trying to teach the new player the rules of 5e, or are you trying to enable to the new player to simply play the game.

And here is where I think @Manbearcat and his concepts from earlier are helpful-
* game logic

• drama logic
• genre tropes
• internal causality
• social contract

Normally, the middle three are incredible important for adjudication. But when it comes to a new player, it's really about (1) game logic and (5) social contract.

If it was a new player in one of my ongoing games with regulars, I would look to compelling gameplay and the social contract with the group that we play a game that is more beholden to genre topes and drama logic than to rules. However, if I was teaching a bunch of new players how to play 5e specifically, I would feel a stronger need to, at a minimum, teach the game closer to "by the book," (social contract to teach them "how must people play," with attention to "game engine sensitivities" while trying to interpret their action declaration in a positive way).

 

[pemerton]

I looked over some of my old play posts to see how I've adjudicated action declarations similar to this in the past.

This is from 4e D&D, with 18th level PCs:

the sorcerer, cut off from the other PCs by a pack of archons and salamanders and a pool of lava, practically down to At-Will powers, and low on hit points, called upon the ambient chaotic energies of all those elemental monsters. After an Arcana check good enough to succeed at a Hard level 12 DC, he mustered enough chaotic energy to give himself 12 temporary hit points - but it also activated the sigils of the Queen of Chaos that are permanently emblazoned on the insides of his eyelids (he is a Demonskin Adept), blinding him, and it had the same effect on his Robe of Eyes, so he couldn't see!

<snip>

the blinded sorcerer tried to escape down a tunnel at the other end of the cavern as the remaining archons and salamanders focused on the other PCs, but eventually, having no one else to take on, they turned back to him, pursued him and (in the end) knocked him unconscious. The carpet-borne ranger came to his rescue, and so did the paladin - diving into the river, swimming back across on his shield, running over the cooling lava, as he ran past the body of the now-dead hydra picking up the shard of the Sceptre of Erathis that had been embedded in its neck, jumping the lava and falling just short (taking a bit of damage despite his resistance, and a lot of action denial), and then getting into melee.

Two archon ash dicsiples and four remaining salamanders (a lancer, an elite firetail and two archers) were killed, but it turned into a standoff - the last standing archon took the unconscious sorcerer hostage with his scimitar to his throat, while the ranger-cleric sat on his carpet with bow drawn and aimed, and the paladin entered into negotiations, picking up the Polyglot Gem that the archon had thrown to the ground for this purpose.

The archon offered the sorcerer's life in exchange for the shard taken from the neck of the Spawn of Bryakus. The paladin stalled for a bit, and then teleported next to the archon with an unexpected Winter's Arrival (a rare event in the lair of the fire elementals!) and tried to interpose himself between scimitar and throat, but was not quick enough and the sorcerer's throat was cut (fatal coup de grace against the unconscious PC).

The paladin wondered what he could do to help his friend. Removing his Diamond Cincture, he tried to imbue its healing energy into the sorcerer. With a successful Medium Healing check by his player, and channelling his own life force through it, he brought the sorcerer back to life (but still unconscious). But the paladin himself fell into unconsciousness, drained of his own life energy, and the diamond is not going to regain its lustre after anyone's Extended Rest - it is permanently drained. (A Diamond Cincture, at 10th level, actually has the same value as the components for a paragon Raise Dead, which made this particularly easy to adjudicate.)

This example is from a non-D&D system, Prince Valiant, but includes a knight using his blessed dagger to try and cut an arrow out of an injured boy:

Meanwhile the Count - Sir Blackpool - and his men had arrived and approached under a white flag of truce. The players had decided that they would have Lady Alia explain that there was a new duke, Duke Bryce her brother, and that hence there was no need for relief after all. Suitable Presence rolls persuaded her to do as instructed. The Count was satisfied with this, but had one other request - his fiance had been taken into the castle, and he wanted her returned. Sir Justin tried to direct Sir Blackpool to leave in the name of the Duke, but he retorted that he had not yet sworn fealty to the new duke, and would not do so until his fiance was returned.

<snip>

Sir Blackpool then demanded satisfaction, in the form of three lances. Sir Gerran accepated the challenge, and the drawbridge was lowered again. Sir Justin and the Duke came out with him. The opposing dice pools were 11 for the Count and 14 for the Marshall, and there were no unexpected results - by the third lance Blackpool had been reduced to 6 dice. But then - treacherously (and in accordance with the scenario description) he gave a signal to his men. In the context it mad the most sense for this to be a volley of arrows (rather than the charging forth of the scenario). Sir Gerran's armour protected him (I rolled poorly); but the Duke was struck!

In Mark Rein*Hagen's scenario description the young Bryce is given the "sacrifice self" special ability, to sacrifice himself to save another from harm. Rein*Hagen suggests that this might happen during the commotion around who is to succeed to the position of duke, but as that unfolded at our table it made no sense for their to be violence, and hence no need for the boy to sacrifice himself. And so I had assumed the ability would go unused. But now the moment presented itself, and he stepped in front of Sir Justin to take an arrow. Sir Justin's player was shocked; and Sir Justin picked him up and carried him into the castle. I invoked the "severely injured" rules (in the system, it is always the GM's call how severe an injury - represented by Brawn depletion - is within the fiction) - thus a Healing check would be needed to save the boy's life. And while normally 1 success would be enough, it had already been established that Duke Bryce was frail and weak, and so I set the difficulty at 2. Sir Justin has Healing 2, and so would have only a 1 in 4 chance of success. So his player asked if he could use the Dagger of St Sigobert - who was, after all, a healer - to help, and I suggested that if it was used to help cut out the arrow he could roll 3 dice (50% chance of success). But the roll was still a failure, and so the Duke passed away in his arms.

I would expect D&D resolution to be more sensitive to the player-side resource aspects of an action declaration than I was in my Prince Valiant adjudication.

 

[Chaosmancer]

To be clear, I'd be okay with allowing this with a cost, as long as it was available for both pcs and monsters.

However, I see exceeding your speed when there really aren't rules to support it to be potentially abusive. I mean, you have a numeric speed for a reason. And the way the PH describes movement seems clear that you're already doing your best to achieve maximum speed:



If you want to move faster, you must use an action to Dash. It's very plain under the rules, at least to me. Moving more than your speed should have a cost.

Basically, if you allow a pc to exceed its movement by making a cost-free Athletics check, you might as well just give all fighters, barbarians, etc, a movement bonus instead, because you're giving them (what I see as) an unfair advantage.

But not a single proposal on this thread has been without cost.

Additionally, characters have a maximum lift and jump, and the rolls are very vague "roll to do better". How high allows you to do how much better? We don't know. The rules are vague to the point of barely existing.


But I think this points to the heart of the discussion in this thread. There are things that narratively make sense. Pushing yourself to run faster at the risk of injury. Praying to the gods in a desperate situation when the Gods are Real and Respond. But there aren't specific rules to govern these actions. And no, I don't think clerics count for the praying to the gods, because Healing Word isn't a desperate hail mary prayer in a dark time, it is a reliable divine gift you can spam.

And I think "yes, but at what cost" is a great way to handle these situations that fall outside the normal rules paradigm.

 

[Eric V]

But not a single proposal on this thread has been without cost.

Additionally, characters have a maximum lift and jump, and the rolls are very vague "roll to do better". How high allows you to do how much better? We don't know. The rules are vague to the point of barely existing.


But I think this points to the heart of the discussion in this thread. There are things that narratively make sense. Pushing yourself to run faster at the risk of injury. Praying to the gods in a desperate situation when the Gods are Real and Respond. But there aren't specific rules to govern these actions. And no, I don't think clerics count for the praying to the gods, because Healing Word isn't a desperate hail mary prayer in a dark time, it is a reliable divine gift you can spam.

And I think "yes, but at what cost" is a great way to handle these situations that fall outside the normal rules paradigm.

I did actually suggest the GM could say the good god of healing just heals the person at no cost because they're the good god of healing, and just leave it up to the player's subsequent roleplaying and overall character narrative to make a good story from it.

 

[Voadam]

But not a single proposal on this thread has been without cost.

Sure there have been.

Take those who say just swap a religion check for a medicine check to stabilize.

Take those who say they want the character development of the character having a divine relationship/multiclassing into a powered class.

I suggested if you are in a divine intervention world and the DM wants to, just go with it however you want. That would be with costs or not. And it would be within 5e's rules for that to happen if the DM wants.

 

[pemerton]

I did actually suggest the GM could say the good god of healing just heals the person at no cost because they're the good god of healing, and just leave it up to the player's subsequent roleplaying and overall character narrative to make a good story from it.

Upthread @Manbearcat analysed your proposal through the "writers' room" lens.

I think a way to take your idea but make it closer to Manbearcat's "hold-on-lightly protagonism" lens would be for the GM, in subsequent framing and consequence narration, to take seriously that the PC received this intervention from the god of healing. A bit like an "afterwards" rather than "before" version of what @chaochou suggested upthread.