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

[EzekielRaiden]

I can get behind most of this. I do think thought there is the possible pitfall where because some players are more comfortable asking for things beyond the rules (whether because they are better friends with the DM, more creative at improv'ing, more talkative or whatever) they can come to dominate a larger and larger portion of the game spotlight as the DM continues to accommodate them. In other words this style IMO is great for a specific type of player (or player group)... but can seem unfair, chaotic or bewildering to some.

Right now I have a mixed group of veteran D&D players (3) and beginners (3), and I find because they are more comfortable with the rules and the game in general the vets tend to try outside the box things while the beginner's are sill trying to come to terms with the basic rules of the game. It has led to an imbalance that I have found myself having to be careful with when it comes to things like this. On the one hand I want to allow some of it so that the beginners will see it's possible, but on the other hand if i try to always accommodate it the veterans will at this point monopolize too much of the spotlight for my liking.

Oh yeah, that's absolutely an important pitfall to consider--and one that applies to my own game, as I have one player who has tons of experience (possibly more experience than I have years of life...), one player with moderate past experience, and two players who are (or, at least when they first joined, were) very or totally new to TTRPGs, but one is VERY comfortable with Just Trying Stuff and another who is shy and feels a need to make the Right Choices, not just other choices.

I try to walk a rather fine line with that stuff. Fortunately, we've gotten one cool arc in for the very shy player (which earned his Battlemaster a new Tactic and a story that seemed to really matter to him) and we're already working on another. And in an absolute embarrassment of good-player riches, both of the players willing to Just Try Stuff are very team-conscious, working to build up the team and not just themselves. I will absolutely be the first to admit that I rely heavily on my players and could not possibly produce anywhere near the level of game I do without their help, on many different levels.

I was partially fore-armed against this specific issue because one of my players (the "new" one willing to Just Try Stuff) was the catalyst to get me actually going as a DM...because he was in such an absolutely crap-tastic game that I couldn't just sit there and do nothing. It was a game so bad that even my intense self-doubt was completely incapable of making me believe that I could do worse, and I could hear in said friend's voice how much it was painful for him to play in that game. He has since done me the honor of saying that, when he needed to take a hiatus from all games for RL reasons, my game was by far the hardest to leave, when he'd been playing four or five different games (he got MAD into D&D after he got his first taste!) That felt real good, not gonna lie.

So, digression aside, absolutely granted. This is not just a pitfall, but a pretty serious one. I certainly think the reward is worth the risk, but to launch into it blindly, heedless of that risk, is unwise in the extreme.

 

[Manbearcat]

Thank you for this but to note my questions above where more rhetorical in nature, but you and me are on the same page here. It was the final part of my post that was the issue for me.

Oh I do, trust me. Our game has plenty of house rules.
My concern was that the action as considered in the OP appeared to not take that into account such easily repeatable requests and simplified such an action down to a simple skill check. I thought, incorrectly, you defended that position. It is clear now from this post that is not the case.

I'm mega-behind, I know folks have mentioned/quoted me and unfortunately I can't read through stuff in any detail to respond, and I have no clue about the trajectory of conversation in the thread...but I wanted to comment real quick on the bolded.

One thing I think that needs to be resolved is this orientation to something as "house rules" vs "improvisation (within the scope of the game engine itself)." They aren't the same things.

I was just having a conversation with our Blades Whisper ( @niklinna ) about a Score last night and what is the usage of Attune in that game (which is interacting with the Ghost Field which is the AW equivalent of "The Psychic Maelstrom"). Here is the default usage for it in the game:

* sight beyond sight/divination/augury

* astral travel with the mind/spirit (like Xavier via Cerebro but via Ghost field)

* bring bad supernatural stuff into this world from the Ghost Field

* mess with the supernatural fabric that overlays existence (including people interacting with it - like channeling magic)

* mess with/amplify/dampen electroplasmic energy (and tech that is employing it)


Here is what the designer Jonathon Harper says about Attune:

“Bring your ideas of strange arcane energy into play and ask the other players what they think about it, too.”


Attune can also be used for specific purposes like the Tempest special ability (channeling elemental energy of storms) or Compel (compelling spirits from the ghost field to do as you say) or Rituals (powerful, late-game spells in D&D parlance, that require a lot of prep work and complications and stress expenditure).

So last night a Gondolier (allied with The Lampblacks, the owners of the brothel the PCs were assaulting) adept (Ghost Field user) came into the scene (Assault Score) as an opening obstacle (among the other obstacles) because of a complication from an overindulgence of Indulge Vice ( from @AbdulAlhazred 's PC). I made the PBtA equivalent of a "soft move" with him revealing that he was effectively using Tempest (see above). So @niklinna asks if he can counterspell via Attune?

Attune doens't say counterspell in it. But look at what Attune says it does, look at the matrix that I articulated upthread (starting with game logic), and then apply all the robust and intersecting tech that Blades in the Dark has on offer to resolve such an action declaration:

* Position & Effect matrix (and all that goes into that).

* Fictional Positioning requirements.

* Clocks (like a Tug of War Clock invoking the back and forth of a "mage fight" trying to draw supernatural stuff from the Ghost Field to get off a spell/counter it by disrupting access to the Ghost Field).

This is trivially resolved just via those means! And this isn't a house rule. This is just bog standard Blades in the Dark GMing! In the end, Skewth the Whisper basically spent the bulk of the Assault Score (a) locked in a tug-of-war matrix of actions/complications as he tried to prevent this Gondolier adept from channeling storm magic and assailing them with it and (b) controlling his Vampire cohort (Savage tag) so it doesn't consume the Gondolier in broad daylight in front of a crowd (and all the fallout that comes with that)! Awesome declaration...not explicated word-for-word in the rules...easily resolved...not a house rule; just resolving an improvised, thematically coherent, milieu-coherent action declaration with the game engine tech available to you.

Then there are so many other means costs/stakes (Conspicuous Tag = + Heat and Volatile Tag = Complication Rider which can be dozens of things from Harm to starting a terrible Setting Clock that when it goes boom will bring a demon into your lap etc and Unreliable Tag = Fortune Roll to find out how impactful the thing you're trying to do is) you can bring to bear to mechanize more powerful action declarations (just like in the lead post...except, again...in the lead post this action declaration is a mechanical nothingburger) that ensure you won't get a SPAM BUTTON phenomenon because every decision-point bakes in multivariate calculations about risk profile/fictionally positioning prereqs/opportunity cost/odds of success/fallout potential...both here & now and downstream of this action declaration (eg, "you've drawn the attention of an entity in The Ghost Field...you hear its whispers and you can feel its terrible gaze set upon you" > resolve with Setting Clock for this thing to "go boom").

TLDR: House rules are codified alterations to existing codified text. Improvised Action handling is just "using the game engine's means as is to resolve unorthodox action declarations." Yes, some games make this considerably easier than others due to the robustness and elegant integration of their game tech/procedures. That is for sure. But that is a statement about "how easy is it to resolve improvised action declarations in this particular ruleset" rather than "is resolving an improvised action a house rule?"

 

[pemerton]

I think the standard baseline is nothing happens here, so impossible, but D&D leaves room for lots of options if a DM desires.

I do think the baseline is specific mechanics heal, others do not.

At least for 4e D&D, I don't agree with your baseline, except this bit: specific mechanics heal. I don't know 5e all that well, but what I do know doesn't make it clear why the baseline should be different in that version.

As I see it, the baseline for both 4e and 5e is a magical, even mythical, world with active divine forces. And both are very permissive in their healing and recovery rules. So I think the baseline here is something might happen.

I do think thought there is the possible pitfall where because some players are more comfortable asking for things beyond the rules (whether because they are better friends with the DM, more creative at improv'ing, more talkative or whatever) they can come to dominate a larger and larger portion of the game spotlight as the DM continues to accommodate them. In other words this style IMO is great for a specific type of player (or player group)... but can seem unfair, chaotic or bewildering to some.

I thought the whole point of a RPG was Players can try anything that makes sense, given the fiction? But you seem to be arguing that fairness requires treating a RPG just like a boardgame, with only mechanically pre-defined moves permitted.

 

[TwoSix]

I thought the whole point of a RPG was Players can try anything that makes sense, given the fiction? But you seem to be arguing that fairness requires treating a RPG just like a boardgame, with only mechanically pre-defined moves permitted.

I don't know if I'd go that far. I would say, rather, that to maintain the value of the "character-building"/"gamist" portion of D&D-style games, play then asks for a certain restriction of allowable narratives, most especially within the tightly codified bounds of "supernatural" actions.

The world-building inherent in the game mechanics spells out certain defined tropes, and good gameplay asks the participants to fit action declaration within that scope.

 

[Manbearcat]

At least for 4e D&D, I don't agree with your baseline, except this bit: specific mechanics heal. I don't know 5e all that well, but what I do know doesn't make it clear why the baseline should be different in that version.

As I see it, the baseline for both 4e and 5e is a magical, even mythical, world with active divine forces. And both are very permissive in their healing and recovery rules. So I think the baseline here is something might happen.

I thought the whole point of a RPG was Players can try anything that makes sense, given the fiction? But you seem to be arguing that fairness requires treating a RPG just like a boardgame, with only mechanically pre-defined moves permitted.

Yeah, I gotta say @Imaro , your position above is a weird one given all of our conversations about 4e over the years where you indicted it for being a push-button powers game without improvisation and creativity. Like here is my recollection of those conversations:

* 4e is a push-button, codified powers game without creativity and improvisation so we should not like it for those reasons.

What about page 42 and the DC by level and damage expression by level charts and the control effects gated by tier and Combat Advantage given up or Dazed Rider on failed associated Skill Check and all the terrain powers that give you an easy template for handling improv?

* No, its no good!

Fast forward now and its a different formulation entirely about improv and the virtues of sticking to codified abilities within D&D's game engine that amounts to "improvisation is something to be wary of because it can be bad for the social health and game engine health of 5e" with your quoted text:

I do think thought there is the possible pitfall where because some players are more comfortable asking for things beyond the rules (whether because they are better friends with the DM, more creative at improv'ing, more talkative or whatever) they can come to dominate a larger and larger portion of the game spotlight as the DM continues to accommodate them. In other words this style IMO is great for a specific type of player (or player group)... but can seem unfair, chaotic or bewildering to some.

That just doesn't track in either way (that improv is something to be wary about in D&D, particularly given sufficient levers to pull/guidelines and engine tech to resolve improvised actions, or the contrast between these two positions contingent upon ruleset).

EDIT - If someone is struggling with creativity (either they struggle generally or specifically with this game)...then just help them. Help them get better at it. Articulate how to get better. Articulate a different perspective that can help them with a cognitive shift. Practice conceiving of and declaring creative actions and go over how you mechanize them given the particular ruleset you're playing with.

 

[Manbearcat]

Its not all "give them an inch and they'll take a mile!" fear-of-exploit/game hack! How is it not? Because as a GM, you deftly “make the consideration of ‘taking that mile’ a thematically and tactically and strategically entangled/fraught one.”

What we're really talking about here in this thread is Blades in the Dark:

Devil's Bargains at Scale

Players in Blades don't remotely accept every Devil's Bargain for that +1d to dice pool (which can make a huge swing in action resolution odds)! Why? Because sometimes the juice ain't worth the squeeze! Your job, as a GM, is to get good at "making the juice and the squeeze sufficiently fraught/entangled so its always a compelling (tactically + strategically + thematically) decision that requires thoughtfulness!"

 

[Voadam]

At least for 4e D&D, I don't agree with your baseline,

I think 4e had a different, fairly well communicated baseline of action movie logic and using skills to accomplish increasingly epic things. It also explicitly said in the Heroes of the Fallen Kingdoms that for the Arcana skill "A character can sometimes use his or her knowledge of magic to interact with or manipulate magical phenomena."

I think it is reasonable to treat a skill description with that explicit magical ability as different from a straight knowledge skill without that type of explicit ability.

It also explicitly allowed those with training to sense for magic with a check. This would detect stuff within 5 squares of the PC +1 square per level, and does not require line of sight and is not blocked by any barrier and gives you the direction of the magic.

4e also gave some improvising guidelines:

IMPROVISING WITH ARCANA
✦ Change the visible or audible qualities of one’s magical powers when using
them (moderate DC)
✦ Control a phenomenon by manipulating its magical energy (hard DC)
✦ Contribute to a negotiation with an elemental, fey, or shadow creature by
exploiting knowledge of its behavior or culture (hard DC)

I used the arcana skill in 4e a number of times as a player to interact with magical stuff in different ways.

In contrast the description of religion skill in 4e does not have a similar ability called out in the description or in the sample improvisations, it is treated like the general knowledge skill abilities as knowledge type stuff.

IMPROVISING WITH RELIGION
✦ Craft a simple nonmagical holy symbol or other sacred object (moderate
DC)
✦ Preside over a known religious ceremony (moderate DC)
✦ Soothe grief-stricken or panicked peasants by chanting a hymn (hard DC)

5e Arcana does not say it gives you the same stuff as 4e arcana did, it just says the knowledges parts.

Arcana. Your Intelligence (Arcana) check measures your ability to recall lore about spells, magic items, eldritch symbols, magical traditions, the planes of existence, and the inhabitants of those planes.

5e religion skill from the PH says:

Religion. 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.

Medicine says:
Medicine. A Wisdom (Medicine) check lets you try to stabilize a dying companion or diagnose an illness.

For the improv comparison it says:

Other Intelligence Checks. The DM might call for an Intelligence check when you try to accomplish tasks like the following:
• Communicate with a creature without using words
• Estimate the value of a precious item
• Pull together a disguise to pass as a city guard
• Forge a document
• Recall lore about a craft or trade
• Win a game of skill

Other Wisdom Checks. The DM might call for a Wisdom check when you try to accomplish tasks like the following:
• Get a gut feeling about what course of action to follow
• Discern whether a seemingly dead or living creature is undead

Other Wisdom Checks. The DM might call for a Wisdom check when you try to accomplish tasks like the following:
• Get a gut feeling about what course of action to follow
• Discern whether a seemingly dead or living creature is undead

Other Charisma Checks. The DM might call for a Charisma check when you try to accomplish tasks like the following:
• Find the best person to talk to for news, rumors, and gossip
• Blend into a crowd to get the sense of key topics of conversation

For 5e a prayer to get the gods as supernatural beings to do something sounds to me like it probably best fits under Charisma checks.

Charisma measures your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or commanding personality.
A Charisma check might arise when you try to influence or entertain others, when you try to make an impression or tell a convincing lie, or when you are navigating a tricky social situation. The Deception, Intimidation, Performance, and Persuasion skills reflect aptitude in certain kinds of Charisma checks.

Persuasion. When you attempt to influence someone or a group of people with tact, social graces, or good nature, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Persuasion) check. Typically, you use persuasion when acting in good faith, to foster friendships, make cordial requests, or exhibit proper etiquette. Examples of persuading others include convincing a chamberlain to let your party see the king, negotiating peace between warring tribes, or inspiring a crowd of townsfolk.

Alternatively if you were trying to follow the right forms for traditional prayers to get a god transaction then using the normal int (religion) check for knowing the actual right forms of prayer seems appropriate.

except this bit: specific mechanics heal. I don't know 5e all that well, but what I do know doesn't make it clear why the baseline should be different in that version.

As I see it, the baseline for both 4e and 5e is a magical, even mythical, world with active divine forces. And both are very permissive in their healing and recovery rules. So I think the baseline here is something might happen.

While I agree that something could happen, I think the default baseline is still that nothing happens with heartfelt prayer alone.

 

[Eric V]

Yeah, I gotta say @Imaro , your position above is a weird one given all of our conversations about 4e over the years where you indicted it for being a push-button powers game without improvisation and creativity. Like here is my recollection of those conversations:

* 4e is a push-button, codified powers game without creativity and improvisation so we should not like it for those reasons.

What about page 42 and the DC by level and damage expression by level charts and the control effects gated by tier and Combat Advantage given up or Dazed Rider on failed associated Skill Check and all the terrain powers that give you an easy template for handling improv?

* No, its no good!

Fast forward now and its a different formulation entirely about improv and the virtues of sticking to codified abilities within D&D's game engine that amounts to "improvisation is something to be wary of because it can be bad for the social health and game engine health of 5e" with your quoted text:



That just doesn't track in either way (that improv is something to be wary about in D&D, particularly given sufficient levers to pull/guidelines and engine tech to resolve improvised actions, or the contrast between these two positions contingent upon ruleset).

I guess the fact that it's 5e and not 4e is what makes the difference...?

 

[Manbearcat]

I guess the fact that it's 5e and not 4e is what makes the difference...?

Unclear but I don’t think that follows. We’ve got two issues here:

* The first is a principle about creativity in action declaration generally being something to be wary about (not system-specific) because of concern over its threat to the social health of the table (disparity in creativity of various participants and aptness to fall prey to favoritism). This, as a claim in isolation, I disagree with (obviously!).

* We have the issue of holding a game accountable for a claim that you’re alleging that it’s not robust to improvisational action declarations and that is a fault of that system (a claim that is demonstrably untrue)…while later citing improvisation as a vector for negative social environs for play (system-agnostic). (Alleged) Inability to improvise is a detriment in the first (game-specific) case…ability to improvise is now a detriment in the second case (system-agnostic).

 

[Imaro]

I thought the whole point of a RPG was Players can try anything that makes sense, given the fiction? But you seem to be arguing that fairness requires treating a RPG just like a boardgame, with only mechanically pre-defined moves permitted.

Where did I mention a boardgame... I think the mistake is yours, you seem to be equating maintaining spotlight parity amongst players with varying degrees of familiarity with rpg's... to treating an rpg like...a boardgame?? It's hard for me to follow your logic here at all.

I didn't say improv or making rulings was off the table I brought up a specific instance in a back and forth discussion (where context was actually being agreed upon as the most important thing for many in your incomplete OP) and I actually agreed that it's basically a DM's call and then cited a situation where I felt some problems might arise if it's not monitored... Again it's hard for me to understand how you ended up with this conclusion. In fact it's so far from the actual conversation I was having that I can't really address it as it's not my position at all.